Arid Climate VS. Humid Climate VS. Mediterranean Climate? (beautiful, metro, living)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
That article was just saying things for the sake of saying it; there is no science or methodology whatsoever in that article. No consideration to differences amongst races in these types of climate preferences. The study is bunk.
That article was just saying things for the sake of saying it; there is no science or methodology whatsoever in that article. No consideration to differences amongst races in these types of climate preferences. The study is bunk.
It's looks at a variety of study's regarding the effects of temperature, humidity, cloud cover, humidity, and wind on human behavior, productivity, mood, etc... to come up with the ideal climate and finds the one's the closely match it. Not perfect but certainly more in depth and analytical than the amateur analysis (aka correlation implying causation) that you have done. Yeah Nintendo's and PS4's imply humid climates are ideal...
Glad to see that most people are agreeing with me here overall. Now feel free to scroll past the wall of text I'm about to create unless you dare to read it... lol.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wipe0ut
No the lack of progress in tropical countries has to do with the disorder amongst the people caused by Imperialists, and their artificial borders imposed on much of the great kingdoms at those latitudes. Hawaii was once a kingdom, only to get overthrown by the US forces, which had ideals of Imperialism at the time. Many tropical African kingdoms were put to disarray when the Berlin Conference artificially carved political boundaries into their widespread territories. Said tropical countries only recently gained their independence a few decades ago, relatively recent from a historical perspective; they didn't have time to establish great foundations to lead them to First World success, since in the time before, they were oppressed by colonialists. In the US, look at the struggle the Black population has to go through even to this day, in terms of the gaps of achievement between them and Whites/Asians, all for the same reasons why tropical countries are in disarray; history of oppression and sub ordinance which only recently was abolished.
You aren't thinking far back enough. Remember the Industrial Revolution and the Colonial Period by Europe (special thanks to Great Britain) was not too far ago along the homo sapien's timeline on Earth. There was a very big empty space since the human creation and the Colonial Period, before "we" (we being the Western world in this scenario) discovered the Americas, Oceania, Australia, etc. During this time period, "they" had just as much time as we did. "They" could have been the top dogs of invention at the time but they were not... They could have invented trains, manufacturing, etc. but they didn't... why? Because there were other inventions that needed to come before those. It's sort of like a house where you can't build the roof until you have the foundation and the walls. The walls and foundation weren't completed to make these. Remember "they" had has much time as we did. East Asia also was subject to the Imperialism in which you speak of so if they are so innovative and technologically-advanced why did they not fight against the Europeans as much during this time period?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wipe0ut
Sure, tropical diseases and the like can make innovation in tropical countries difficult, but it is no more so than the threat of frost-bite towards people living in the Great North, or the dust storms that could strike old arid civilizations. As you said, in all other respects, tropical climates were ideal; that means people settling in those areas already basically had their house in order, and could then go on to thinking about other innovations for advancing their civilization in general (mathematics, societal values, culture, etc). On the other hand, those of harsher climates didn't have time to think of such things until they made sure their environment was suitable for them.
You cannot be serious right now. You really think malaria is not more than a threat than frost-bite?? You think malaria is less dangerous than dust storms?? Go ahead and google for me how many people died from Malaria in the 20th century. How many people died from frost-bite in the 20th century in contrast?? Remember during the late 19th century and somewhat of the early 20th century the world was in a cold spell... Not necessarily an Ice Age but still...
I have been in dust storms similar to the ones in the Middle East. If you see my location Tucson has about the same climate as most of the Middle East. They are by far the BEST storm to deal with... The cleaning after sucks but I've been stuck in rain storms worse than haboobs and these occurred in the South in New Orleans and Miami.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wipe0ut
Anyways, First-World tropical areas include Singapore, far northern Australia (including cities like Cairns and Darwin), South Florida and Hawaii. Hong Kong and Taipei also are quite developed.
Singapore and Hong Kong both developed out of economic success... It's their ultimate economic success that led to their secession from Malaysia and China, respectively. Hong Kong before it's secession was able to lean on its other non-tropical cities in China (Beijing, Xi'an, etc.) and China's government for support.
Similarly, Hawaii, South Florida, Cairns, and Darwin follow this. Miami and Hawaii, while provide quite a bit of economic input, are not necessarily considered the top hubs for our economy. Same goes for Cairns and Darwin in Australia, in fact you listed those economic hubs later in your wall of text.
Singapore is the only country you were able to list that was in a 100% tropical country (Malaysia), managed to succeed, and secede from its old country. Besides Singapore and Hong Kong did not succeed on an economic level until more recently in history. Malaysia used to be dirt poor, just like Japan was not too long ago.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wipe0ut
Areas of Europe do have 365 day growing seasons (the southern areas of the Med, including islands). Regardless, the point still stands that in tropical areas, advancements were just for human betterment in general, not just for getting "the house in order."
Innovation is like a house, as I already stated. Understanding how to get their "house in order" via the use of tools allowed them to expand on knowledge they already had of tools (gained via first-hand knowledge and experience) to handle the elements and farm to make tools for other purposes.
Let me put it this way. I grew up using a computer all the time. I wrote stories on my free-time in Microsoft Word. My computer skills are pretty good I'd say. I've had 20+ years of experience using them. My grandparents, on the other hand, don't know anything about computers. They barely know how to use their phones and such. As technology advances, I am better equipped, knowledge-wise to accommodate new technology while my grandparents will struggle with it, all because I have more first-hand experience because I grew up with it. They did not. Feel free to change "me" to a non-tropical area, "computer skills" to technology in general, and "grandparents" to tropical areas.
Creating the tools needed to fight the elements and farm and other activities rapidly increased efficiency. Not creating tools for "getting the house in order" (as you put it) would NOT INCREASE EFFICIENCY. It got to a point where people could just buy food from markets while only a few people farmed, a system we still use today. When not creating technology to "getting the house in order" they aren't changing the system. So more people had to go get food. It meant less brilliant minds to create advancement for human betterment. It means less innovation. I still don't see your point here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wipe0ut
The South cover larges amounts of land and territory, unlike California and Hawaii, so real estate is cheaper as a whole; even if lots of people moved in, plenty of land still would be available. Even then, areas of the South do have high prices, including Florida, and the urban cores of the region's large cities (Austin, Dallas, Houston, Atlanta, Charlotte, etc).
You are right. The South is huge... but California and Texas are pretty close in land size. Let's bring this argument down to those two. Both have three large cities (San Antonio/Dallas/Houston and San Diego/Los Angeles/San Francisco)... Texas as a whole is significantly cheaper even in its desirable areas versus California why?? Because California is more desirable... Like what everyone else is saying...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wipe0ut
The preference of the Med climate is largely an American phenomenon; look around the world at other continents, and you won't see such large populations in their Med areas. For instance, Western Australia has a Med climate, but the population on that continent is concentrated on the eastern half of the continent, with multiple large cities like Brisbane and Sydney; Western Australia's only large city of note is Perth. In South Africa, Capetown is not seen as more desirable than Durban, just because the former has a Med climate. Even in Europe itself, the population is not disproportionately concentrated in the Med areas.
Mediterranean areas are small compared to other climates to argue for. If you could find a per capita or density rating showing that areas that are classified Mediterranean via the Koppen climate system versus non-Mediterranean climates in Europe... that would be great! I'll let you find it because it's your point.
Sydney became an economic hub because of it's harbor... Just like another big city I know... Boston. Easily defendable in case of war (at times of the discovery for both sea invasions were incredibly common) and big ports good for ships to dock and unload cargo especially since this was the main method for transportation at the time. Like other's have stated people move not because of climate preferences (though sometimes this is the case) but because of family and economic reasons. So in the case of both the U.S. and Australia which settled on the East it takes a special person willing to leave their families and head West... and it's a minority of people.
Actually just discovered this, but the SE coast of Australia, Tasmania, and New Zealand are marine climates... just like the UK is... interesting...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wipe0ut
This preference of a Med climate is an American phenomenon because the settlers of the US were northern Europeans, whose idea of warm escapes was Med areas like California. They had heavy experience with Med climates, due to trades and cooperation with Spain, Portugal, Italy, etc in history. On the other hand, they didn't really have as intimate experience with warm, humid climates, like that seen in the Southeast, and thus, were not really that equipped to handle the environment in the region. Asians and Africans, on the other hand, have had heavy experience with such climates, and can utilize it to the fullest; if the US was dominated by mostly Asians and Africans, then I bet that the humid climates of the Southeast would be seen as most desirable, not the Med.
The Colonies were originally settled by British Puritans who wanted religious freedom. Their experiences were with a marine climate with the U.S. equivalent in the Pacific Northwest, an area they didn't even know existed at the time. The Puritans came a long time ago... late 1500s/early 1600s I believe... It wasn't until the next century they fought for their independence and became the United States. It wasn't until the next century after that (~200 years later after we first came) when they started to expand past the eastern half, St. Louis is known for this. When we started exploring West we did not know what we were going to find. We knew Spain had territory in the Americas... They had control over the entire West Coast from around the modern-day Washington/Canadian border over all of Central America, most of the Caribbean, and almost all of South America except for Brazil. But we didn't know about the West Coast. Spain did though. And Spain held on to the Western half of this country for quite some time, including Texas and Florida.
Italy is actually pretty humid if you've ever been there. Rome especially. In case you are curious, Venice has the climate you oh-so adore, along with the countries just north of Greece when near the water. So Bosnia, Romania, etc. They definitely had some experience with these areas, mind you. It wasn't far away.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wipe0ut
Humid subtropical climates are seen as ideal by me because they have all the climate features of the tropics, encouraging flourishing of life, but with a cooler period during winter, cool enough to suppress the disease causing pest/micro-organism activity, but warm enough to still ensure very long growing seasons. The top 5 largest metro areas in the world are all in humid subtropical climates (all in East Asia except 1, which is in South Asia).
Well, China is the most populated country on Earth, so I guess that makes sense. India is #2. Indonesia being #3 and the U.S. making a surprising appearance at #4. NYC is our biggest city by quite a bit of people before Los Angeles and we would have to multiply NYC a couple times to even compete with China in terms of population.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wipe0ut
The humid subtropical climate of the South is ideal for innovation, due to aforementioned reasons. The problem is, Americans just haven't exploited the climate to the advantage, unlike East Asians, and a large part of that comes from the regions history of political control by right-wing nuts, which contributed to holding back the region in pretty much every category, whether through social life (Jim Crow Laws, Christian-Taliban, Anti-LGBT laws, etc), or fiscally (not wanting to take the fiscal measures needed to ensure greater good for the society). For the longest time, people from other regions of the US and the world, have avoided the South for these policies, but recently, immigration and transplanting picked up, and more and more Americans are starting to learn how to exploit the climate to their advantage.
We have technologically advanced to the point where climate doesn't impede innovation. It's something called heaters and A/C... A/C is the only reason why the South, and the Southwest where I live, is booming. While people lived there for many years long before A/C most people find the humidity at that heat uncomfortable but having A/C makes it acceptable for these people, which is a huge number. So instead of dealing with snow, which many dislike, they choose the hot summers since instead of dealing with snow they can deal with higher A/C bills instead... and money talks. I've seen snowstorms on the news, people having to commute in them, being stuck inside their house... some would rather pay extra a month for what, three months of the year, than deal with that. And that's ok.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wipe0ut
Even in its worst state, the South still had loads of innovation; Atlanta and Houston were leaders in the Civil Rights movement, desegregating swiftly and peacefully while other cities still fell into riots. Such peaceful actions were inspired by the actions of great people from the South like MLK and Rosa Parks. Houston, along with areas of Florida, participated heavily in gearing the nation to the next frontier, space, through affiliation with NASA. Many Southern cities, such as Nashville, Memphis, New Orleans, Atlanta, Houston, Austin, etc, are some of the most rhythmic cities in the US, putting out many forms of music; there would be no Rock, Hip Hop, R/B and Soul, Blues, and Jazz without the innovation from the South. Great forms of literature came from writers in the region, like Ernest Hemingway, Edgar Allen Poe, and Harper Lee. There would be no CNN without the bright ideas of a man from Atlanta, and the last president actually born in Texas, LBJ, proposed the Great Society.
What is the South's worst state and what innovation did they bring? Many would say it's either Alabama or Mississippi and you did not mention either of them in your post.
I didn't know being socially progressive meant being innovative. But the South is known for neither...
Do you know why NASA located it's launch facilities in the South?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wipe0ut
And with East Asia coming out with concepts like robots, maglevs, subway grocery shopping, and bullet trains, it can be seen that humid cities, especially of the subtropical variety, are key areas of innovation world-wide. That hover-car in the video I posted was invented in China, which has some of the most technologically advanced cities on the planet, along with Japan and South Korea. You just have to thank East Asia for giving the world quirky new innovations from companies like Mitsubishi, Toyota, Nintendo, Sony, and Sega, Tamagotchi, Hello Kitty, and also influential anime like Dragon Ball Z, Bleach, Pokemon, and Naruto.
You didn't address how I mentioned Asia's overall cultural influence (priority on childhood education) affects this. I think the correlation between this cultural influence strongly impedes climate in terms of inventing stuff, regardless of the rest of the debate we are having.
The U.S. holds the most intellectual property, a ton of patents... Most of these coming from the Northeast and the Midwest, I dare say. And a lot of them nowadays are coming from the West Coast... From Seattle to San Francisco mostly. And the U.S., arguably, is the most culturally influential country in this world right now. Our TV shows, our music, our food, our products... they are everywhere it seems like. Even in East Asia when I visited, I saw an Outback Steakhouse in Seoul. And most of these U.S. quirks come from the West Coast and the Northeast and the Midwest, more so than the Interior West where I live and the Southeast where you are.
Also Wipe0ut... If you scroll far back enough in this thread... I argued for humid climates. It was quite some time ago, and now my mind has changed (I like arid climates more now, since then I've dealt with New Orleans more and changed my preferences). My poll choice says I voted for humid climates but I can't go back and change that now. So I'm not saying my preference is Mediterranean and I have some strange, strong desire to defend it against you like you are with East Asia... I'm just saying that Mediterranean is the most preferable climate for most people and the poll says that, along with quite a few others who chose to address you. You are fighting a losing battle...
Don't worry, smiley face, I just like gathering information in general, even if it comes in a huge wall of text. This debate is too interesting for me to give it up. Loads and loads of people have already been repping me for the fact-bombs I've dropped during this debate, so I might as well continue.
Quote:
Originally Posted by :-D
You aren't thinking far back enough. Remember the Industrial Revolution and the Colonial Period by Europe (special thanks to Great Britain) was not too far ago along the homo sapien's timeline on Earth. There was a very big empty space since the human creation and the Colonial Period, before "we" (we being the Western world in this scenario) discovered the Americas, Oceania, Australia, etc. During this time period, "they" had just as much time as we did. "They" could have been the top dogs of invention at the time but they were not... They could have invented trains, manufacturing, etc. but they didn't... why? Because there were other inventions that needed to come before those. It's sort of like a house where you can't build the roof until you have the foundation and the walls. The walls and foundation weren't completed to make these. Remember "they" had has much time as we did. East Asia also was subject to the Imperialism in which you speak of so if they are so innovative and technologically-advanced why did they not fight against the Europeans as much during this time period?
People of the Americas only recently arrived to the continent, and started settling about when the Old World societies were already quite complex. As for the other societies of the Old World, apart from the western society, they were quite advanced; West Africa, for instance, was one of the strongest empires at the time of Exploration. East Asians at the time were more equipped than Europeans to set sail for the Americas; for one, they had far more massive and efficient ships (junks). The powers of China at the time, however, just weren't interested in setting sail for America, like the Europeans were.
But you can't dispute the fact that Imperialism from many European countries against the tropical nations was a huge factor relating to their fact of 3rd World status today, rather than the climate.
Quote:
Originally Posted by :-D
You cannot be serious right now. You really think malaria is not more than a threat than frost-bite?? You think malaria is less dangerous than dust storms?? Go ahead and google for me how many people died from Malaria in the 20th century. How many people died from frost-bite in the 20th century in contrast?? Remember during the late 19th century and somewhat of the early 20th century the world was in a cold spell... Not necessarily an Ice Age but still...
I have been in dust storms similar to the ones in the Middle East. If you see my location Tucson has about the same climate as most of the Middle East. They are by far the BEST storm to deal with... The cleaning after sucks but I've been stuck in rain storms worse than haboobs and these occurred in the South in New Orleans and Miami.
I'm just saying that each climate on Earth had their own specific challenges to deal with. But, although there were challenges, tropical climates, in many respects, still represent ideal climates for human civilization, since they were so benign. Why? Well, many great innovations and ideas come to people when they are at their most comfortable and relaxed. Think about how Issac Newton developed the Theory of Gravity after an apple fell on his head as he rested under a tree; in the benign, tropical climates, the elements weren't as harsh, and people would be more relaxed, with more opportunity for such ideas to come to them through such manners, as well as investigate every little thing they were curious about. In harsher climates, sure, advancement happened as technology to deal with the elements were created, but lots of untapped potential remained, as people in such harsh climates didn't have time to think about quirks and curiosities in their environment; they weren't in pure state of comfort yet. By the time people in such climates reached that level of comfort... tropical regions would have had the head start.
Quote:
Originally Posted by :-D
Singapore and Hong Kong both developed out of economic success... It's their ultimate economic success that led to their secession from Malaysia and China, respectively. Hong Kong before it's secession was able to lean on its other non-tropical cities in China (Beijing, Xi'an, etc.) and China's government for support.
Similarly, Hawaii, South Florida, Cairns, and Darwin follow this. Miami and Hawaii, while provide quite a bit of economic input, are not necessarily considered the top hubs for our economy. Same goes for Cairns and Darwin in Australia, in fact you listed those economic hubs later in your wall of text.
Singapore is the only country you were able to list that was in a 100% tropical country (Malaysia), managed to succeed, and secede from its old country. Besides Singapore and Hong Kong did not succeed on an economic level until more recently in history. Malaysia used to be dirt poor, just like Japan was not too long ago.
Well, you asked for tropical areas that were in 1st World status, and I gave you examples of such areas. Some more developed tropical countries include French Guiana and Cuba, by virtue of very high HDI scores: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Developed_country
Quote:
Originally Posted by :-D
Innovation is like a house, as I already stated. Understanding how to get their "house in order" via the use of tools allowed them to expand on knowledge they already had of tools (gained via first-hand knowledge and experience) to handle the elements and farm to make tools for other purposes.
Let me put it this way. I grew up using a computer all the time. I wrote stories on my free-time in Microsoft Word. My computer skills are pretty good I'd say. I've had 20+ years of experience using them. My grandparents, on the other hand, don't know anything about computers. They barely know how to use their phones and such. As technology advances, I am better equipped, knowledge-wise to accommodate new technology while my grandparents will struggle with it, all because I have more first-hand experience because I grew up with it. They did not. Feel free to change "me" to a non-tropical area, "computer skills" to technology in general, and "grandparents" to tropical areas.
Creating the tools needed to fight the elements and farm and other activities rapidly increased efficiency. Not creating tools for "getting the house in order" (as you put it) would NOT INCREASE EFFICIENCY. It got to a point where people could just buy food from markets while only a few people farmed, a system we still use today. When not creating technology to "getting the house in order" they aren't changing the system. So more people had to go get food. It meant less brilliant minds to create advancement for human betterment. It means less innovation. I still don't see your point here.
The difference is, all societies had to do some sort of construction and building, whether in the benign tropics, or the harshest of Arctics. In the tropical regions, you still had all sorts of great temples of various kinds being constructed, especially for religious purposes (Angkor Wat, Chichen Itza, etc). Thus, a sufficient base of knowledge regarding the use of tools, technology, etc, was acquired regardless. Since tropical areas, however, had such a benign climate, they had more time for relaxation, due to less time taken to tame their environment compared to people of harsher climates, and thus could afford time to gain great curiosity in every nook and cranny of their environment, and work towards them. Think about it this way; Issac Newton would not have had time to be sitting under a tree before the apple hit, causing him to work towards the Theory of Gravity, if the society at the time still hadn't tamed their land to make it very comfortable for them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by :-D
You are right. The South is huge... but California and Texas are pretty close in land size. Let's bring this argument down to those two. Both have three large cities (San Antonio/Dallas/Houston and San Diego/Los Angeles/San Francisco)... Texas as a whole is significantly cheaper even in its desirable areas versus California why?? Because California is more desirable... Like what everyone else is saying...
Texas has more land area than California, as does its cities; there isn't as much geographic constraint. That's why the Texas cities are cheaper. Furthermore, the right-wing nuts that controlled Texas for a long time (and still continue to do so) gave the state a bad name, making the many cities appear less desirable in the eyes of outsiders.
Quote:
Originally Posted by :-D
Mediterranean areas are small compared to other climates to argue for. If you could find a per capita or density rating showing that areas that are classified Mediterranean via the Koppen climate system versus non-Mediterranean climates in Europe... that would be great! I'll let you find it because it's your point.
And that's the point; there is no world-wide trend towards disproportionate population in Med climates. If it really were the case that Med climates were ideal, then all Med regions all over the world would be sought to with vigor to the highest order. But, as far as I can tell, it seems to be an American phenomenon only.
Quote:
Originally Posted by :-D
Sydney became an economic hub because of it's harbor... Just like another big city I know... Boston. Easily defendable in case of war (at times of the discovery for both sea invasions were incredibly common) and big ports good for ships to dock and unload cargo especially since this was the main method for transportation at the time. Like other's have stated people move not because of climate preferences (though sometimes this is the case) but because of family and economic reasons. So in the case of both the U.S. and Australia which settled on the East it takes a special person willing to leave their families and head West... and it's a minority of people.
Actually just discovered this, but the SE coast of Australia, Tasmania, and New Zealand are marine climates... just like the UK is... interesting...
Fair enough. A conclusion, thus, is that any argument stating that California is the most populated state due to its Med climate is bunk.
Quote:
Originally Posted by :-D
The Colonies were originally settled by British Puritans who wanted religious freedom. Their experiences were with a marine climate with the U.S. equivalent in the Pacific Northwest, an area they didn't even know existed at the time. The Puritans came a long time ago... late 1500s/early 1600s I believe... It wasn't until the next century they fought for their independence and became the United States. It wasn't until the next century after that (~200 years later after we first came) when they started to expand past the eastern half, St. Louis is known for this. When we started exploring West we did not know what we were going to find. We knew Spain had territory in the Americas... They had control over the entire West Coast from around the modern-day Washington/Canadian border over all of Central America, most of the Caribbean, and almost all of South America except for Brazil. But we didn't know about the West Coast. Spain did though. And Spain held on to the Western half of this country for quite some time, including Texas and Florida.
Italy is actually pretty humid if you've ever been there. Rome especially. In case you are curious, Venice has the climate you oh-so adore, along with the countries just north of Greece when near the water. So Bosnia, Romania, etc. They definitely had some experience with these areas, mind you. It wasn't far away.
There is no real warm humid climate regime in Europe; the "humid subtropical" areas of Italy only have that classification simply because they can't fit into the other dominant climate regimes of the continent (Med, Humid continental, oceanic, etc). Thus, Europeans had little experience with such climates, and were basically in alien territory when they settled the US South; long times were spent until they finally mastered that climate. Meanwhile, populations in the West boomed before those of the Southeast because once is was discovered that the American West Coast was just like their home, people increasingly settled there, as the climate was less alien and more familiar.
Quote:
Originally Posted by :-D
Well, China is the most populated country on Earth, so I guess that makes sense. India is #2. Indonesia being #3 and the U.S. making a surprising appearance at #4. NYC is our biggest city by quite a bit of people before Los Angeles and we would have to multiply NYC a couple times to even compete with China in terms of population.
And why do you think China and India became so heavily populated? The benign humid subtropical/tropical climate certainly afforded them such luxuries...
Quote:
Originally Posted by :-D
We have technologically advanced to the point where climate doesn't impede innovation. It's something called heaters and A/C... A/C is the only reason why the South, and the Southwest where I live, is booming. While people lived there for many years long before A/C most people find the humidity at that heat uncomfortable but having A/C makes it acceptable for these people, which is a huge number. So instead of dealing with snow, which many dislike, they choose the hot summers since instead of dealing with snow they can deal with higher A/C bills instead... and money talks. I've seen snowstorms on the news, people having to commute in them, being stuck inside their house... some would rather pay extra a month for what, three months of the year, than deal with that. And that's ok.
The South could have boomed easily without A/C; look at how New Orleans was able to become the 3rd largest city in the US in the early 1800s. Cities like Houston, Atlanta, Charleston, etc were quite bustling places before A/C.
It all comes down to the fact that the South had a foreign climate to Europeans, and it took time before Europeans learned to deal with the climate; Africans and Asians, who had heavy experience with humid climates, could have made the South thriving before A/C if they were the settlers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by :-D
What is the South's worst state and what innovation did they bring? Many would say it's either Alabama or Mississippi and you did not mention either of them in your post.
I didn't know being socially progressive meant being innovative. But the South is known for neither...
Do you know why NASA located it's launch facilities in the South?
When I said "worst state," I was referring to the condition of the region, not any actual states; the "worst state" alludes to the decades when the South was struggling heavily with Jim Crow Laws, and other Civil Rights issues. Yet, even then, as I mentioned, loads of innovation still came forth, including NASA, progressive ideas, MLK's peaceful movement, various forms of music, etc.
Anyways, without Mississippi, we wouldn't have had the King of Rock and Roll to impart his influence on the world...
Quote:
Originally Posted by :-D
You didn't address how I mentioned Asia's overall cultural influence (priority on childhood education) affects this. I think the correlation between this cultural influence strongly impedes climate in terms of inventing stuff, regardless of the rest of the debate we are having.
And such cultural values were examples of states of mind able to be achieved by societies in a benign, peaceful humid subtropical regime; their house was in order for quite a while, and could, comfortably, work through various means of societal function, until they found success in imparting great focus towards academics. Success that allowed those East Asian countries to be so technologically advanced, they make the rest of the world look so backwards.
Quote:
Originally Posted by :-D
The U.S. holds the most intellectual property, a ton of patents... Most of these coming from the Northeast and the Midwest, I dare say. And a lot of them nowadays are coming from the West Coast... From Seattle to San Francisco mostly. And the U.S., arguably, is the most culturally influential country in this world right now. Our TV shows, our music, our food, our products... they are everywhere it seems like. Even in East Asia when I visited, I saw an Outback Steakhouse in Seoul. And most of these U.S. quirks come from the West Coast and the Northeast and the Midwest, more so than the Interior West where I live and the Southeast where you are.
If the Southeast had the liberal ideals of the Northeast and West Coast, it would be even more of an innovative hub than those places currently are, as the benign, peaceful climate allows just for so much focus on plain betterment in general. Right-wing nuts are the only reason the South isn't leading the country in innovation right now.
Quote:
Originally Posted by :-D
Also Wipe0ut... If you scroll far back enough in this thread... I argued for humid climates. It was quite some time ago, and now my mind has changed (I like arid climates more now, since then I've dealt with New Orleans more and changed my preferences). My poll choice says I voted for humid climates but I can't go back and change that now. So I'm not saying my preference is Mediterranean and I have some strange, strong desire to defend it against you like you are with East Asia... I'm just saying that Mediterranean is the most preferable climate for most people and the poll says that, along with quite a few others who chose to address you. You are fighting a losing battle...
Please, who cares about the poll, it is worthless; I've already mentioned the factors that contributed to this biased favoring of Med climates in the US (large settlement from Northern Europeans, Med type climates as ideal winter vacation places, as that is all they had, etc), while they are seen as nothing special in other parts of the world.
If the Southeast had the liberal ideals of the Northeast and West Coast, it would be even more of an innovative hub than those places currently are, as the benign, peaceful climate allows just for so much focus on plain betterment in general. Right-wing nuts are the only reason the South isn't leading the country in innovation right now.
Please, who cares about the poll, it is worthless; I've already mentioned the factors that contributed to this biased favoring of Med climates in the US (large settlement from Northern Europeans, Med type climates as ideal winter vacation places, as that is all they had, etc), while they are seen as nothing special in other parts of the world.
Nice try professor.... you probably believe in micro aggressions to. People are biased against the humid climates...
Of course you dont care about the poll, it doesnt fit your agenda, but its very representative.
People of the Americas only recently arrived to the continent, and started settling about when the Old World societies were already quite complex. As for the other societies of the Old World, apart from the western society, they were quite advanced; West Africa, for instance, was one of the strongest empires at the time of Exploration. East Asians at the time were more equipped than Europeans to set sail for the Americas; for one, they had far more massive and efficient ships (junks). The powers of China at the time, however, just weren't interested in setting sail for America, like the Europeans were.
But you can't dispute the fact that Imperialism from many European countries against the tropical nations was a huge factor relating to their fact of 3rd World status today, rather than the climate.
Then why did East Asia still experience Europe's Imperialism if they were more powerful? They could have fought back, no?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wipe0ut
I'm just saying that each climate on Earth had their own specific challenges to deal with. But, although there were challenges, tropical climates, in many respects, still represent ideal climates for human civilization, since they were so benign. Why? Well, many great innovations and ideas come to people when they are at their most comfortable and relaxed. Think about how Issac Newton developed the Theory of Gravity after an apple fell on his head as he rested under a tree; in the benign, tropical climates, the elements weren't as harsh, and people would be more relaxed, with more opportunity for such ideas to come to them through such manners, as well as investigate every little thing they were curious about. In harsher climates, sure, advancement happened as technology to deal with the elements were created, but lots of untapped potential remained, as people in such harsh climates didn't have time to think about quirks and curiosities in their environment; they weren't in pure state of comfort yet. By the time people in such climates reached that level of comfort... tropical regions would have had the head start.
But they don't because they didn't farm... Farming was considered the number one innovation by anthropologists for the "start" of society... I'll listen to people who study this for a living. Can you show me some scientific studies arguing for your point?
I might be able to find a paper or two going against you... Ancient Rome and Ancient Greece are in Mediterranean climates, what did they innovate again? Something about plumbing, philosophy, mathematics? Astronomy? What about California? Well... SoCal is the hub of entertainment for the entire world, particularly film, NorCal is the hub of high-tech... Silicon Valley ring a bell? Bay Area is also known for being home to the arts as well. Bay Area has a lot going for it these days, you should look it up.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wipe0ut
Well, you asked for tropical areas that were in 1st World status, and I gave you examples of such areas. Some more developed tropical countries include French Guiana and Cuba, by virtue of very high HDI scores: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Developed_country
Do you view Cuba and French Guiana the top dogs of innovation like you are claiming tropical areas are?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wipe0ut
The difference is, all societies had to do some sort of construction and building, whether in the benign tropics, or the harshest of Arctics. In the tropical regions, you still had all sorts of great temples of various kinds being constructed, especially for religious purposes (Angkor Wat, Chichen Itza, etc). Thus, a sufficient base of knowledge regarding the use of tools, technology, etc, was acquired regardless. Since tropical areas, however, had such a benign climate, they had more time for relaxation, due to less time taken to tame their environment compared to people of harsher climates, and thus could afford time to gain great curiosity in every nook and cranny of their environment, and work towards them. Think about it this way; Issac Newton would not have had time to be sitting under a tree before the apple hit, causing him to work towards the Theory of Gravity, if the society at the time still hadn't tamed their land to make it very comfortable for them.
I used construction as an analogy in the sense it has to build on top of each other... I could have used a tree, you cannot make the leaves until you have the roots.
Angkor Wat is incredibly humid. Have you been there? I spent an entire month in inland Cambodia. It reaches temperatures similar to Arizona does and has the humidity on top of that. Please tell me how that's a comfortable climate.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wipe0ut
Texas has more land area than California, as does its cities; there isn't as much geographic constraint. That's why the Texas cities are cheaper. Furthermore, the right-wing nuts that controlled Texas for a long time (and still continue to do so) gave the state a bad name, making the many cities appear less desirable in the eyes of outsiders.
Texans also have a preference to live on bigger land in their suburbia, doesn't land cost more in bigger chunks? Should make prices more similar, no?
I know people who move to Texas because it's affordable and they can get more house. And that's about it. If they could get the same house in California it wouldn't even be debated.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wipe0ut
And that's the point; there is no world-wide trend towards disproportionate population in Med climates. If it really were the case that Med climates were ideal, then all Med regions all over the world would be sought to with vigor to the highest order. But, as far as I can tell, it seems to be an American phenomenon only.
I know quite a few people who vacation to the Mediterranean in the summer because of how beautiful summers are there... And I know they aren't the only ones because I see how high hotel prices are. How many people do you know traveling to East Asia for SOLELY the climate?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wipe0ut
Fair enough. A conclusion, thus, is that any argument stating that California is the most populated state due to its Med climate is bunk.
California used to be practically nothing until the Gold Rush... Then lots of people moved for economic reasons as I stated previously why many people move. Then more people heard about it, heard about how beautiful it was, and decided to come along. They don't make songs called "California Dreamin'" and "California Girls" and "California Love" for nothing...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wipe0ut
There is no real warm humid climate regime in Europe; the "humid subtropical" areas of Italy only have that classification simply because they can't fit into the other dominant climate regimes of the continent (Med, Humid continental, oceanic, etc). Thus, Europeans had little experience with such climates, and were basically in alien territory when they settled the US South; long times were spent until they finally mastered that climate. Meanwhile, populations in the West boomed before those of the Southeast because once is was discovered that the American West Coast was just like their home, people increasingly settled there, as the climate was less alien and more familiar.
There are plenty. It's almost all of Northern Italy except right at the base of the Alps (so right before it becomes a peninsula) and similarly for the Eastern Europe countries near Greece, though because the land mass there is larger it only extends so far inland.
You're right however. It's overall alien to them (though they did have experience with it as I already stated)... Meaning they had a PREFERENCE for Mediterranean climates. You're starting to contradict yourself. All I've been saying this whole time is that innovation has nothing to do with climate preference except for you. I'm underlining it so you understand that, because I don't think you do.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wipe0ut
The South could have boomed easily without A/C; look at how New Orleans was able to become the 3rd largest city in the US in the early 1800s. Cities like Houston, Atlanta, Charleston, etc were quite bustling places before A/C.
It all comes down to the fact that the South had a foreign climate to Europeans, and it took time before Europeans learned to deal with the climate; Africans and Asians, who had heavy experience with humid climates, could have made the South thriving before A/C if they were the settlers.
Not really. If early Americans wanted warmth remember they already made, especially back then, one heck of a journey to get to the Colonies. The Atlantic seems a lot smaller now that we can fly to Europe if we wanted, but by boat it took quite some time. I don't think moving South a few colonies down would've made a big difference at that point. So why didn't they then?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wipe0ut
When I said "worst state," I was referring to the condition of the region, not any actual states; the "worst state" alludes to the decades when the South was struggling heavily with Jim Crow Laws, and other Civil Rights issues. Yet, even then, as I mentioned, loads of innovation still came forth, including NASA, progressive ideas, MLK's peaceful movement, various forms of music, etc.
Anyways, without Mississippi, we wouldn't have had the King of Rock and Roll to impart his influence on the world...
Do you know why NASA is in the South in the first place? NASA only has their launch stations there. It has the most to do with the lack it was not as developed so it didn't interfere with people, and the large amounts of water that were close by so in case something screwed up, they could land on the water rather than the land. It's not because of Southern innovation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wipe0ut
And such cultural values were examples of states of mind able to be achieved by societies in a benign, peaceful humid subtropical regime; their house was in order for quite a while, and could, comfortably, work through various means of societal function, until they found success in imparting great focus towards academics. Success that allowed those East Asian countries to be so technologically advanced, they make the rest of the world look so backwards.
So are societies not in humid subtropical climates backwards?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wipe0ut
If the Southeast had the liberal ideals of the Northeast and West Coast, it would be even more of an innovative hub than those places currently are, as the benign, peaceful climate allows just for so much focus on plain betterment in general. Right-wing nuts are the only reason the South isn't leading the country in innovation right now.
Please... The Southeast could've easily been liberal like the Northeast if the population who lives there wanted to be... But they aren't overall... Why is that again? I think I might've forgotten or mentioned the reason why already by now...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wipe0ut
Please, who cares about the poll, it is worthless; I've already mentioned the factors that contributed to this biased favoring of Med climates in the US (large settlement from Northern Europeans, Med type climates as ideal winter vacation places, as that is all they had, etc), while they are seen as nothing special in other parts of the world.
I care about the poll, and it seems like everyone else. You are arguing that your opinion of the best climate is superior because of what... innovation? I'll listen to the opinions of C-D members more than those who try to continue to distort their opinion into something fact-based.
I'm done writing walls of text to you. I feel like I'm talking to a brick wall and I'm not going to repeat myself. You clearly have an idea in your head and you aren't going to open your mind to something outside of this.
I will however repeat what I am getting from you: "East Asia is so awesome because of games and anime. It must be because of where they live. Therefore, it must be superior to all other places on Earth."
Nice try professor.... you probably believe in micro aggressions to. People are biased against the humid climates...
Of course you dont care about the poll, it doesnt fit your agenda, but its very representative.
Wipe0ut is unhappy with the poll results, so they have turned to debating everyone to prove they are wrong on an OPINION THREAD. How can an opinion be wrong?
Then why did East Asia still experience Europe's Imperialism if they were more powerful? They could have fought back, no?
They did fight back, and never really fell under a true state of oppression and sub-ordinance, at least, not to the extend other places did. Didn't you hear about the samurai warriors and ninjas from Japan?
Quote:
Originally Posted by :-D
But they don't because they didn't farm... Farming was considered the number one innovation by anthropologists for the "start" of society... I'll listen to people who study this for a living. Can you show me some scientific studies arguing for your point?
I might be able to find a paper or two going against you... Ancient Rome and Ancient Greece are in Mediterranean climates, what did they innovate again? Something about plumbing, philosophy, mathematics? Astronomy? What about California? Well... SoCal is the hub of entertainment for the entire world, particularly film, NorCal is the hub of high-tech... Silicon Valley ring a bell? Bay Area is also known for being home to the arts as well. Bay Area has a lot going for it these days, you should look it up.
They did farm in the tropics. Do you have any idea what you are talking about?
Without the South, you would not be having the many common news networks that remain influential to this day; Cartoon Network, TNT, and especially CNN. Without the South, there would be no Hip Hop, Rock and Roll, Jazz, Blues, R&B, etc. What would America be like without the influence of Coca-Cola (invented in the South)? The South is also where the hub of the energy industry is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by :-D
Do you view Cuba and French Guiana the top dogs of innovation like you are claiming tropical areas are?
I never said they were top of the top; just listing examples of developed tropical countries, like you wanted.
Quote:
Originally Posted by :-D
I used construction as an analogy in the sense it has to build on top of each other... I could have used a tree, you cannot make the leaves until you have the roots.
Angkor Wat is incredibly humid. Have you been there? I spent an entire month in inland Cambodia. It reaches temperatures similar to Arizona does and has the humidity on top of that. Please tell me how that's a comfortable climate.
Well, the tropical places already had their roots firmly anchored to the ground, and the tree already sprouted to high, whereas in non tropical areas, the tree hasn't even germinated yet.
Angkor Wat is comfortable, with plentiful rain to relieve the humidity, and loads of trees to provide shade.
Quote:
Originally Posted by :-D
Texans also have a preference to live on bigger land in their suburbia, doesn't land cost more in bigger chunks? Should make prices more similar, no?
I know people who move to Texas because it's affordable and they can get more house. And that's about it. If they could get the same house in California it wouldn't even be debated.
Even with the suburbia, Texas still has plentiful land over California, so prices obviously would still be cheaper. Plus, the urban cores of the large Texas cities aren't exactly cheap anyways.
Quote:
Originally Posted by :-D
I know quite a few people who vacation to the Mediterranean in the summer because of how beautiful summers are there... And I know they aren't the only ones because I see how high hotel prices are. How many people do you know traveling to East Asia for SOLELY the climate?
California used to be practically nothing until the Gold Rush... Then lots of people moved for economic reasons as I stated previously why many people move. Then more people heard about it, heard about how beautiful it was, and decided to come along. They don't make songs called "California Dreamin'" and "California Girls" and "California Love" for nothing...
They made songs about many other states, nothing special to California.
Quote:
Originally Posted by :-D
There are plenty. It's almost all of Northern Italy except right at the base of the Alps (so right before it becomes a peninsula) and similarly for the Eastern Europe countries near Greece, though because the land mass there is larger it only extends so far inland.
You're right however. It's overall alien to them (though they did have experience with it as I already stated)... Meaning they had a PREFERENCE for Mediterranean climates. You're starting to contradict yourself. All I've been saying this whole time is that innovation has nothing to do with climate preference except for you. I'm underlining it so you understand that, because I don't think you do.
In many other climate classification systems outside of the Köppen, most of these locations would not be included in the humid subtropical grouping. The higher precipitation and high humidity of summers is not present nearly to the degree that it is in subtropical regions of North America and Asia, making its distinction in Europe all the more difficult.
Thus, a true, warm humid climate would indeed have been alien to Europeans; that is, such climates were new and foreign to them, and took them a while to learn the ropes. On the other hand, they had experience with Med climates before.
Quote:
Originally Posted by :-D
Not really. If early Americans wanted warmth remember they already made, especially back then, one heck of a journey to get to the Colonies. The Atlantic seems a lot smaller now that we can fly to Europe if we wanted, but by boat it took quite some time. I don't think moving South a few colonies down would've made a big difference at that point. So why didn't they then?
They did move South for warmth, but, again, they had European ancestry, and lacked the generations of know-how to deal with such humid warm climates. It took time for them to learn the ropes, and one could say that the invention of A/C was the moment they did so.
Quote:
Originally Posted by :-D
Do you know why NASA is in the South in the first place? NASA only has their launch stations there. It has the most to do with the lack it was not as developed so it didn't interfere with people, and the large amounts of water that were close by so in case something screwed up, they could land on the water rather than the land. It's not because of Southern innovation.
Not just launch stations, the organization has it's command center in the South as well, in the city of Houston. Lots of training, research, and flight control is done there: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyndon...n_Space_Center
Quote:
Originally Posted by :-D
So are societies not in humid subtropical climates backwards?
No, but in comparison to societies in East Asia, they might as well be.
Quote:
Originally Posted by :-D
Please... The Southeast could've easily been liberal like the Northeast if the population who lives there wanted to be... But they aren't overall... Why is that again? I think I might've forgotten or mentioned the reason why already by now...
Nope, its because the region was very isolated, as Europeans were reluctant to settle largely there, due to the foreign climate to them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by :-D
I care about the poll, and it seems like everyone else. You are arguing that your opinion of the best climate is superior because of what... innovation? I'll listen to the opinions of C-D members more than those who try to continue to distort their opinion into something fact-based.
I'm done writing walls of text to you. I feel like I'm talking to a brick wall and I'm not going to repeat myself. You clearly have an idea in your head and you aren't going to open your mind to something outside of this.
So, in other words, you are giving up?
Quote:
Originally Posted by :-D
I will however repeat what I am getting from you: "East Asia is so awesome because of games and anime. It must be because of where they live. Therefore, it must be superior to all other places on Earth."
Add revolutionary mass transit technologies, re-invention of performance of common tasks (i.e. Roombas replace vacuum cleaners, robots replace humans in certain menial fields, computerized stock exchange, etc), and secrets to longevity (Okinawa Island has some of the longest life expectancies on Earth) to your list. Humid subtropical climates are the ideal climate for humans, and have commonly been associated with large civilizations throughout history; East Asians were the first group to master this climate, and exploit it to the fullest, allowing for the evolution of the most technologically advanced society on the planet. Other continents that have such a climate are realizing their blessings, and investing more and more into the climate, especially North America, where Southern US cities continue to boom.
People vacation in tropical places, but ask them if they would live there year round.
Most polls that show what tropical places have the best climate show that they are usually at high elevations (>5,000 ft) and on the equator. The temperature variations at that tropical elevation are very similar to Med climates.
Quito in Ecuador is a very good example of this. If people weren't thinking "tropical vacation", they would probably be much more comfortable up there where it's between 60-75 year round.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
