• HobbitFoot @thelemmy.club
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    14
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    10 months ago

    There are several times in history that Europeans would not be considered the peak of human development due to very measurable differences in quality of life.

    You’ll also find other pseudoscience bullshit trying to justify the superiority of one group over another from at least Roman times.

    The fact of the matter is that several areas had the resources and technical development to start the Industrial Revolution; it just happened to spark in the United Kingdom first and spread through Europe quickly.

    • agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      edit-2
      10 months ago

      Okay. I dunno if you think I’m saying any group is “superior” because I’m very much not . I thought I was very much explicitly saying that their advantage was much more based on incidental environmental conditions than any kind of genetic superiority, or anything remotely close to that. Just brainstorming explanations for history that cut that exact “superiority” bullshit out of the picture

      • HobbitFoot @thelemmy.club
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        12
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        10 months ago

        Romans literally thought they were the best because the people north of them were too emotional due to cold weather and people south of them weren’t hard enough due to hot weather.

        And I also brought up that the most developed part of the world shifted over time, something that you’ve talked past rather than addressing to how it affects your theory of vitamin D.

        • agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          6
          ·
          10 months ago

          I really don’t understand the source of conflict here. You seem like you agree that Europeans did happen to have the conditions amenable to development, but what’s your alternative? That the cause wasn’t just a coincidence? I’m really confused what your disagreement is.

          • HobbitFoot @thelemmy.club
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            10 months ago

            I also mentioned India and China. You probably could have included parts of the Middle East as well if they weren’t as wrecked by the Mongol invasions as they were.

            The vitamin D hypothesis doesn’t play out when looking at those areas.

            • agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              6
              ·
              edit-2
              10 months ago

              Nothing I said conflicts with any of that? Han, Mongol, Turkic, Persian, and many other “ethnicities” across the continent play out just fine when taking light skin tone into consideration. Again, explicitly not race. I am talking about “white” as a skin tone, potentially correlated with harsher climates.

              • XiELEd@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                4
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                10 months ago

                Also you’re too focused on trying to defend yourself from that one accusation, as if that’s the only thing challenging your argument? What about that point someone made that in some points of history, regions of relatively high development change over time? Like at this point in time, Europe is the one with high development, but back then, it was in warmer areas, with cold areas not being as developed. You know, like the Mediterranean? Known for mild winters? Which Greece and Rome were located in?

                • agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  10 months ago

                  All I’m saying is that regions with harsher winters experienced early consistent pressures to develop specific technologies: agriculture, food storage, preservation, textiles, and weatherproof shelters. Early development of those technologies helped push them toward industrialization earlier. Not that they’re the only regions that were ever developed, especially after the establishment of wider trade routes. I don’t understand the enthusiasm of everyone to turn this into a race thing.

                • agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  10 months ago

                  Okay. I am, in the context of skin tone, witch is the only thing relevant to my point. I don’t subscribe to racist ideology. “White” isn’t even a coherent race.