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.
There is a reason why the largest cities and populations on the planet are located in countries with humid climate zones (India and China). There is a reason why the most advanced, hi-tech cities are within the humid climate zone (Seoul, Tokyo, Shanghai, etc).
I do not agree w/ humid cities being hi-tech. The birth and advancement of civilization was/is a response to difficult environments. Lack of water necessitates large public works projects, which then leads to cities and government. The first sedentary societies are typically in areas that are extremely difficult to live and thus required organization and innovation to survive.
China and India (historically and today) have the largest populations because of a large growing season and a staple (rice) that provides a high calorie content to keep populations growing/stable. Historically, innovation arises in environments where survival is most challenging- irrelevant of the humidity.
Seoul and Shanghai are FAR from being high tech cities. Is this a joke? Have you ever lived there? Copying Japanese and Western technology does not make a city "high tech".
I do not agree w/ humid cities being hi-tech. The birth and advancement of civilization was/is a response to difficult environments. Lack of water necessitates large public works projects, which then leads to cities and government. The first sedentary societies are typically in areas that are extremely difficult to live and thus required organization and innovation to survive.
China and India (historically and today) have the largest populations because of a large growing season and a staple (rice) that provides a high calorie content to keep populations growing/stable. Historically, innovation arises in environments where survival is most challenging- irrelevant of the humidity.
Seoul and Shanghai are FAR from being high tech cities. Is this a joke? Have you ever lived there? Copying Japanese and Western technology does not make a city "high tech".
Its very obvious people prefer the Meditteranean climate, there just isnt enough of it to house everyone.
If that was the case, then Western Australia should be the most bustling, populated part of that continent, Spain and Portugal should be by far the largest, most densely populated areas of the European Union, and Africans should be clamoring to move to either the northern or southern fringes of their continent.
The idea that the Med Climate is just so ideal compared to all other climates is largely an American phenomenon. Even that idea is changing, with more and more Americans relocating to the US South; cities like Houston, Dallas, Atlanta, Miami, and Charlotte are growing by leaps and bounds.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Julianpieohmy
I do not agree w/ humid cities being hi-tech. The birth and advancement of civilization was/is a response to difficult environments. Lack of water necessitates large public works projects, which then leads to cities and government. The first sedentary societies are typically in areas that are extremely difficult to live and thus required organization and innovation to survive.
China and India (historically and today) have the largest populations because of a large growing season and a staple (rice) that provides a high calorie content to keep populations growing/stable. Historically, innovation arises in environments where survival is most challenging- irrelevant of the humidity.
Seoul and Shanghai are FAR from being high tech cities. Is this a joke? Have you ever lived there? Copying Japanese and Western technology does not make a city "high tech".
Well, humid cities did not have to dedicate such precious time just to making their setting inhabitable, and thus, they had more time available for great thought, culture, and innovation to appear.
And yes, Seoul and Shanghai are high-tech and futuristic, filled with technology dreamed of by the rest of the world.
The innovation of the humid cities in Japan is responsible for iconic video-game giants like Nintendo (Wii, Wii U, N64, Gamecube) and Sony (PlayStation consoles), Roombas, Shinkansen, Anime/Manga, quirky concepts, such as Tamogotchi, and Hello Kitty, and much more. Imagine a world without PlayStation, or Wii? Or Anime/Manga? This is what will happen without the innovation of humid climate cities from East Asia.
If that was the case, then Western Australia should be the most bustling, populated part of that continent, Spain and Portugal should be by far the largest, most densely populated areas of the European Union, and Africans should be clamoring to move to either the northern or southern fringes of their continent.
The idea that the Med Climate is just so ideal compared to all other climates is largely an American phenomenon. Even that idea is changing, with more and more Americans relocating to the US South; cities like Houston, Dallas, Atlanta, Miami, and Charlotte are growing by leaps and bounds.
People only want what they know. Those who know, prefer a meditteranean climate.
The reason the south is growing is two fold: Low cost housing, and modern air conditioning.
I'm not sure where you get the idea Norway, Switzerland, Denmark, Germany, Netherlands, Ireland, Canada, New Zealand, Sweden, etc..are "humid climates".
Also kind of contradictory to say the tropics being poor have nothing to do with climate yet other countries are well off because of climate.
People only want what they know. Those who know, prefer a meditteranean climate.
The reason the south is growing is two fold: Low cost housing, and modern air conditioning.
Many Med cities are growing for the same reason; these two aspects aren't the full story for why the South is booming.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sav858
I'm not sure where you get the idea Norway, Switzerland, Denmark, Germany, Netherlands, Ireland, Canada, New Zealand, Sweden, etc..are "humid climates".
Not sure where you are getting the idea that they aren't.
In terms of absolute percentage, yes, countries like Norway, Germany, Sweden, Denmark, Netherlands, Ireland, Canada (western areas) and New Zealand are humid climates; the high-latitude West-Coast location ensures constant influx from the ocean, keeping humidity high. The areas where the marine influence terminates would have humid continental climates (such as eastern Canada).
But, even if we are limiting the humid climate regions to just the classical muggy climates (the subtropical/ tropical varieties), we still have some very advanced nations at hand, including the US, Australia, Japan, Hong Kong, Singapore, and South Korea.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sav858
Also kind of contradictory to say the tropics being poor have nothing to do with climate yet other countries are well off because of climate.
In the case of the tropics, yes, the poverty has more to do with imperialists throwing everything out of whack than with any features of the climate. Look up the Berlin Conference to get an idea of the factors that led to the continuing corruption you see in many African countries today.
But anyways, as I've been maintaining, humid tropical environments are not the most ideal climate in my opinion; that honor belongs to humid subtropical environments. The Asians knew how great the humid subtropical climate was, and the civilizations they built up eventually became the largest, most high-tech cities on the planet. Without their innovation, there would be none of these:
Not sure where you are getting the idea that they aren't.
Because they're not. Just because a place can get humid at times doesn't mean it's a "humid climate". In that case plenty of places with a Mediterranean and desert climate are humid climates as well like Italy, the Middle East, coast of Chile, etc.. The middle east with dewpoints in the 80's and 90's is the most humid place on earth.
Quote:
But, even if we are limiting the humid climate regions to just the classical muggy climates (the subtropical/ tropical varieties), we still have some very advanced nations at hand, including the US, Australia, Japan, Hong Kong, Singapore, and South Korea.
But far more areas are far less advanced, basically most of the tropics.
Quote:
In the case of the tropics, yes, the poverty has more to do with imperialists throwing everything out of whack than with any features of the climate. Look up the Berlin Conference to get an idea of the factors that led to the continuing corruption you see in many African countries today.
Yeah and I'm sure you have an excuse why the most humid part of the US is also the least developed with the lowest HDI, the Southeast. You can't even live in the Southeast w/o AC and it has some of the most violent weather on earth. Even if homes were built better people would still want AC there this day and age. Way too hot and humid to live without the modern convenience of AC today. I can't even imagine how third world a place like Houston would be w/o modern AC.
Quote:
But anyways, as I've been maintaining, humid tropical environments are not the most ideal climate in my opinion; that honor belongs to humid subtropical environments. The Asians knew how great the humid subtropical climate was, and the civilizations they built up eventually became the largest, most high-tech cities on the planet. Without their innovation, there would be none of these:
Yeah India and China, what clean, advanced, first world countries they are..
The population is more likely to be diverse (both culturally and phenotypically) in a Mediterranean or Oceanic climate. When the temperatures are milder, it allows for different people to move in because pretty much any human is physically adapted to live in such a climate if the topography is livable. San Francisco's mild temps were an ideal place for contrarians, eccentrics, and weirdos because you can be outdoors and "experiement" with different things easily in such climates and if you end up homeless, such a climate is safe. Mediterranean climates with sunlight (LA, Italy, parts of Brazil) typically spawn more vain cultures that place importance on keeping an attractive appearance.
In a humid subtropical/tropical/humid continental climate, however, one is better off blending in with the crowd. The mentality seems to be more pragmatic, rather than aesthetically pleasing. It helps keep society in order and keeps the common good of the people as a whole. And indeed, I notice that conformity is prevalent in non-urban areas with humid subtropical climate. This includes much of the East Coast, China, and Korea. There is less variation in the phenotype of the people within their respective racial groups. I even notice this amongst whites and blacks in smaller towns East of the Mississippi. Mega cities like NYC, DC, Chicago, etc. are the exception because they are so cosmopolitanized but once you leave the urban centers, you will see this culture of conformity within respective regions and towns. Whether you want to call it close-minded or traditional, I think humid subtropical/continental definitely encourages conformity.
Now of course, with globalization the modern world has made exceptions to these especially in bigger cities but they still hold true to a large extent.
Interracial marriage is more prevalent on the West Coast than on the East Coast, and I think it goes back to my theories above.
Last edited by skidamarink; 01-23-2016 at 12:59 PM..
The population is more likely to be diverse (both culturally and phenotypically) in a Mediterranean or Oceanic climate. When the temperatures are milder, it allows for different people to move in. San Francisco's mild temps were an ideal place for contrarians, eccentrics, and weirdos because you can be outdoors and "experiement" with different things easily in such climates and if you end up homeless, such a climate is ideal. Mediterranean climates with sunlight (LA, Italy, parts of Brazil) typically spawn more vain cultures that place importance on keeping an attractive appearance.
I disagree, it's much better to be homeless in a tropical climate than a Mediterranean or Oceanic climate. This December, one of your homeless people died of the elements (he froze to death in San Jose). The reason why tropical climates tend to be associated with the 'third world' is that the climate is ideal for being outdoors, there was little pressure for humans to innovate. No need to innovate in farming techniques because fruit grew year-round, no need for fancy shelters since everyday was survivable outside.
Quote:
In a humid subtropical/tropical/humid continental climate, however, one is better off blending in with the crowd. The mentality seems to be more pragmatic, rather than aesthetically pleasing. It helps keep society in order and keeps the common good of the people as a whole. And indeed, I notice that conformity is prevalent in non-urban areas with humid subtropical climate. This includes much of the East Coast, China, and Korea. There is less variation in the phenotype of the people within their respective racial groups. I even notice this amongst whites and blacks in smaller towns East of the Mississippi. Mega cities like NYC, DC, Chicago, etc. are the exception because they are so cosmopolitanized but once you leave the urban centers, you will see this culture of conformity within respective regions and towns. Whether you want to call it close-minded or traditional, I think humid subtropical/continental definitely encourages conformity.
I think you take way too many drugs
The Caribbean is probably the most racially mixed place in the world - where AmerIndians met Europeans and Black slaves and they all mixed into some sort of mix. Less of this mixing happened in Argentina, for example, where there is a distinct European class (and one of the reasons Buenos Aires is such a great city - it resembles European cities).
Also emphasis to "looking good" varies. I doubt there is a city in the USA more obsessed with looking good than Miami. For better or worse, that's our stereotype and it's very true. This pervades the culture in many different ways - includes dressing up for EVERYTHING. You always have to look your best or be prepared to be judged. In contrast, most West Coast cities are laid back where it's natural to see people in sweats and flip flops in restaurants - a la San Diego.
I would also say once you leave the San Diego-Los Angeles axis, the attractiveness of the average person declines. By the time you're in Seattle it's very noticeable. And places like San Francisco/San Jose/Oakland won't win any points on being 'good looking.'
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.
