Thus, inquiries into modern world inequality can be rephrased to ask: Why did wealth and power get distributed as they are today, instead of differently? For example, why didn't Native Americans, Africans, and Aboriginal Australians conquer, dominate, or eliminate Europeans and Asians?
The application of a historical explanation is a separate matter from the explanation itself. Understanding is often used to change an outcome rather than to repeat or sustain it.
Rather than glorifying Western Europeans, we will see that many fundamental aspects of their civilization were developed by other peoples elsewhere and then brought to Western Europe.
Compared to hunter-gatherers, people in modern industrialized societies benefit from better healthcare, a lower homicide risk, and longer lifespans but experience less social support from friendships and extended families.
There are two clear reasons why my belief that New Guineans might be smarter than Westerners could be accurate. First, Europeans have lived for millennia in densely populated societies with centralized governments, police, and judicial systems. In these societies, infectious diseases typical of dense populations (like smallpox) were historically the leading cause of death, while murders were relatively rare, and war was not the norm.
Individuals with blood group B or O have greater resistance to smallpox than those with blood group A.
In terms of mental ability, New Guineans are likely genetically superior to Westerners and are certainly better at avoiding the severe developmental disadvantages that most children in industrialized societies face today.
Perhaps the seasonally changing climate at high latitudes presents more varied challenges than a consistently tropical climate. Cold climates might require more technological innovation for survival, as one must build warm homes and make warm clothing, whereas in the tropics, one can survive with simpler housing and no clothing.
Note: I always thought the colder climate promoted well-being until I came to Singapore
Extensive archaeological studies have shown that complex irrigation systems did not accompany the rise of centralized bureaucracies but appeared after a significant delay.
It appears that the political centralization in Europe enabled them to excel in building large empires, which proved stronger than the dispersed kinships in Asia and America. These regions, though technologically advanced, became easy targets for domination and thus lost their lead.
This prompts a search for ultimate causes: why did Europeans, rather than Africans or Native Americans, end up with guns, the deadliest germs, and steel?
Is it because Europeans were the first to consolidate central power? Yet, pharaohs were also centralized rulers who could mobilize massive numbers of people to construct pyramids.
And what explains the Aboriginal Australians' inability to progress beyond the hunter-gatherer stage with stone tools?
It's clear to everyone, regardless of whether they're overtly racist or not, that different peoples have had different historical outcomes.
Our closest living relatives are three surviving great ape species: the gorilla, the common chimpanzee, and the pygmy chimpanzee (also known as the bonobo).
The strongest evidence for a localized origin of modern humans, followed by their spread and replacement of other human types, appears in Europe. About 40,000 years ago, the Cro-Magnons arrived in Europe with modern skeletons, superior weapons, and advanced cultural traits. Within a few thousand years, the Neanderthals, who had been evolving as Europe's sole occupants for hundreds of thousands of years, were gone. This sequence strongly suggests that the modern Cro-Magnons used their far superior technology, language skills, or intelligence to infect, kill, or displace the Neanderthals, leaving little or no evidence of hybridization between them.
Cro-Magnons eliminate Neanderthals
It wasn't until approximately 30,000 years later (13,000 years ago) that there is compelling evidence of watercraft elsewhere in the world, specifically from the Mediterranean.
Most large mammals in Africa and Eurasia survived into modern times because they coevolved with proto-humans over hundreds of thousands or millions of years. This gave them ample time to develop a fear of humans, as our ancestors' initially poor hunting skills gradually improved.
The extinction or killing of an animal depends on its aggression; the less afraid they were, the more inclined humans were to eliminate them. In Africa, giant animals developed a fear of humans and thus retreated to their safe havens and remained there, whereas in regions newly reached by humans, like Australia, animals were killed as they had not developed such fear.
Anatomically modern humans who had such technology expanded into Siberia around 20,000 years ago (with some older disputed claims). This expansion may have contributed to the extinction of Eurasia's woolly mammoth and woolly rhinoceros.
Once humans arrived, various animals in that region found the environment difficult to survive in.
After discovering America by reaching Alaska through the Bering Strait, either by sailing or snow paddling, humans found the plains warm and inviting, and began spreading towards Patagonia in the south.
Many mammoths have been discovered with Clovis spears in their rib cages, indicating they were killed by humans.
Why did animals that had survived harsh climates for centuries suddenly find it harsh and become extinct?
The Americas have the shortest history of human existence.
Polynesian societies experienced six types of climates: island geological type, marine resources, area, terrain fragmentation, and isolation. This made it difficult for them to advance beyond the level of hunter-gatherers.
A bird can become flightless if there are no predators.
Chiefs of Polynesian society had limited resources to command.
Diseases brought by invaders helped them overcome the local population's resistance. With the aid of smallpox, the Spaniards eliminated the Incas.
Technological development enabled people to travel to other lands and conquer them.
Political organization was what helped different and dominant societies to sustain and rule globally. India never had a central ruler, which is why it never advanced technologically.
Writing facilitated the spread of clear, repeatable information and knowledge, also boosting literacy.
Farming contributed to population growth. A hunter-gatherer woman had to wait four years before having another child, as she could only carry one child with her.
Farmers had to stay near their crops and could have as many children as they wanted, leading to denser populations and bureaucracy, as some people had to guard the produced food, levy taxes, and govern.
Stored food fed full-time soldiers, artisans, workers, priests, and scribes.
Horses, which could be domesticated due to farming, provided transportation, while yaks and oxen allowed for carrying heavy loads. Horses helped small, smart armies crush foot soldiers.
Domesticated animals also served as a source of germs. After initial populations, subsequent generations slowly developed immunity. When this newer generation came into contact with other tribes or inhabitants, germs decimated them.
Horses and camels increased military strength.
Thus, farming helped Eurasia develop earlier than areas where hunter-gatherer tribes persisted. But why Eurasia?
The regions that got a head start in farming and food production gained an advantage in guns, germs, and steel.
Why did people adopt food production?
Farmers, hunter-gatherers, and herders have despised each other for different reasons.
As hunting and gathering became less rewarding due to the extinction of animal and plant species, societies turned to farming and rewarded those who produced food. This also contributed to population growth, as the birth gap shortened. More people meant more food was needed.
Only areas where food production was climatically challenging remained in the hunting-gathering mode. This indicates that Eurasia, with its vast temperate and Mediterranean belt, was the earliest to start farming.
The first fruits humans domesticated were those they consumed. They liked them, and when the seeds ended up in latrines or defecation areas and grew, humans learned how to cultivate them again.
Seedlessness is the opposite of natural dispersion.
The breakdown of the natural systems of seed dispersal and germination inhibition evolved automatically, and so humans learned to cultivate the seeds in fields.
Comments