Why did white people become more advanced than other races?

[ModernArtist25]

Europeans had advanced technology so they got to enslaved and control millions of people. Was it because they just knew how to use their resources more than other races or was it because they just have superiority complex? Why do you think white people developed more than blacks, asians, etc..?

[Delta1212]

Guns, Germs and Steel

[swansont]

Guns, Germs and Steel

 

 

By Jared Diamond

[Externet]

Exactly ! Well made episodes...

 

----> https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLhzqSO983AmHwWvGwccC46gs0SNObwnZX

[StringJunky]

They probably had more available and diverse resources that allowed large communities to settle whereas Africans were probably more nomadic and in smaller groups with fewer resources. The cooler north was probably also more agreeable to experimental agricutural techniques. to support larger populations; with more people in close proximity there is an increase in the probability of new ideas occurring from the denser and larger groups.

[Delta1212]

They probably had more available and diverse resources that allowed large communities to settle whereas Africans were probably more nomadic and in smaller groups with fewer resources. The cooler north was probably also more agreeable to experimental agricutural techniques. to support larger populations; with more people in close proximity there is an increase in the probability of new ideas occurring from the denser and larger groups.

Mostly, they had access to an entire hemisphere's worth of resources that they didn't have to do terribly much fighting to get control of because they accidentally wiped out all of the civilizations that previously occupied the territory in question just by arriving.

[Externet]

The availability of cattle aboriginal to Europe and the corresponding productivity by plowing development and their food, protein, leather yield allowed free time to think instead of hunting/gathering.

Thinking instead of gathering all day long developed tools, exploration, trade, industry. The need to save food for winter months also created a need for planning. Other benign tropical areas had it too easy. On the hammock, raising an arm would get a banana all year round with barely a rag for weather protection. No need for firewood either. Having it too easy does not work.

[Delta1212]

The availability of cattle aboriginal to Europe and the corresponding productivity by plowing development and their food, protein, leather yield allowed free time to think instead of hunting/gathering.

Thinking instead of gathering all day long developed tools, exploration, trade, industry. The need to save food for winter months also created a need for planning. Other benign tropical areas had it too easy. On the hammock, raising an arm would get a banana all year round with barely a rag for weather protection. No need for firewood either. Having it too easy does not work.

The problem I see here is that it vastly oversimplifies what life was like in non-European regions, glosses over those areas that had very similar environments to Europe and ignores the major advances in civilization that took place in Mesopotamia, India, Egypt, China, and the Middle East all at a time when mainland and Northern Europe was essentially a poverty-stricken backwater.

 

A lot of the scale of Europe's success has to do with fortunate timing rather than anything intrinsic to the continent.

[EdEarl]

Europeans prevailed because of dumb luck! We are all African some generations ago.

[Elite Engineer]

People forget that gunpowder came from China.

 

As developed as the Europeans were, many civilizations (Chinese, Muslim, etc.) had impressive engineering, and medicine. However, I think Europeans ultimately prevailed due to three things:

 

- Resources

- Dense urban living (exchange of more ideas..China, India, and Middle East were more spread out due to hygiene concerns)

- War (war advances technology much faster than interest in improving humanity).

 

~EE

[Phi for All]

!

Moderator Note

We shut this down to confer behind the scenes about whether the potential for science outweighed the potential for flaming, and decided our membership could be trusted with the task. Let's remember this thread is in Biology, and that it's going to be a lure for political opinions. Those won't be allowed, and if it becomes a problem, the thread will be closed.

Thread re-opened.

[fredreload]

Hmm, what really did overpowered China, from the Asian point of view. Is the industrial revolution. Thereby making everything systematic. When China and Europe went on war, Europe got warship of steel is what I heard. I found this thread interesting, maybe it can be moved to speculation? It's up to OP

[Mordred]

I for one cannot think of any biological reason for one to be more advanced than the other.

 

Quite frankly technology development rate deviations is due to cultural environment change. (wars, religion, etc ) not the biological differences.

[J.C.MacSwell]

I for one cannot think of any biological reason for one to be more advanced than the other.

 

Quite frankly technology development rate deviations is due to cultural environment change. (wars, religion, etc ) not the biological differences.

Agree with that.

 

However we define "advanced", it really has not been held very long by any group or race.

 

The Dark Ages were not that long ago in the grand scheme of things.

 

Probably a key element to the advancement in Europe was Gutenburg's printing press.

[swansont]

From Guns, Germs and Steel (and from memory)— Europeans were able to grow a multitude of crops, because the east-west geography meant the climates were similar, and crops from one area could be grown elsewhere. So you have more robust food sources. Food supluses led to cities, and denser populations and animal domestication meant diseases became a problem, which the Europeans became (somewhat) resistant to. That's one way they were able to wipe out a large swath of the North American native population — the first settlers brought the diseases, and the natives were susceptible to them.

 

The north-south geography of the Americas and Africa, and isolation of Australia, meant no mobility for crops — climates are different as you move along that axis — and the quality of the foods was lower outside of Europe. Didn't have the same rise of cities. There is also a lack of a suitable beast of burden to help large-scale cultivation (South America is an exception, but only has the alpaca/llama)

 

So there is some biology involved.

 

Once you have cities and non-farm specialists, you are more likely to invent things, and this tends to build on itself if not suppressed by ideological pressures.

 

Bottom line is that it was luck to have been in the right region of the earth, and exploiting the advantages.

[Tampitump]

Europeans had advanced technology so they got to enslaved and control millions of people. Was it because they just knew how to use their resources more than other races or was it because they just have superiority complex? Why do you think white people developed more than blacks, asians, etc..?

Europeans had to purchase technology from the Muslim world to be able to sail the Atlantic ocean during the Atlantic exploration period.

[Mordred]

From Guns, Germs and Steel (and from memory) Europeans were able to grow a multitude of crops, because the east-west geography meant the climates were similar, and crops from one area could be grown elsewhere. So you have more robust food sources. Food supluses led to cities, and denser populations and animal domestication meant diseases became a problem, which the Europeans became (somewhat) resistant to. That's one way they were able to wipe out a large swath of the North American native population the first settlers brought the diseases, and the natives were susceptible to them.

 

The north-south geography of the Americas and Africa, and isolation of Australia, meant no mobility for crops climates are different as you move along that axis and the quality of the foods was lower outside of Europe. Didn't have the same rise of cities. There is also a lack of a suitable beast of burden to help large-scale cultivation (South America is an exception, but only has the alpaca/llama)

 

So there is some biology involved.

 

Once you have cities and non-farm specialists, you are more likely to invent things, and this tends to build on itself if not suppressed by ideological pressures.

 

Bottom line is that it was luck to have been in the right region of the earth, and exploiting the advantages.

In terms of environmental biology influence. You have listed several key points. Farming itself led to advancement as less time was needed for hunting.

 

I can also see economic advantages being an attributing factor.

[CharonY]

Mixing biology and history is problem problematic. While Diamond offsers a compelling overall framework, it is really weak in trying to explain historic events.

Looking at historians who specialize more on world history (e.g. J. Darwin) the theme seems to be focussed on relative recent events such as the industrial revolution. I.e it us nit a matter of inherent progression of something that was always the case. Rather it probably is more accurate to view it in the context of relatively recent developments with European dominance only being possible past 1750.

[Elite Engineer]

... with European dominance only being possible past 1750.

Yes. White "dominance" (lack of a better word) has only been recent. The Huns were the dominance in 1st to the 7th century.

[CharonY]

Well, they were mostly dominant in Eurasia/Europe. A better example would be world empire built by the Mongols. It is also noteworthy that the dominance was led by number of European countries/empires and not by white people per se. Other aspects that one should mention is that having technological or other advances does not lead to regional or even larger dominance. There must be a political desire for expansionism and colonialism that fuels that. An example would be China throughout various phases of its history where it has been indubitably the largest regional power, but only had relatively few expansionist ambitions. One should also not forget that "white dominance" was not only a matter of rolling in with superior weapons. Rather it almost always involved significant alliance building with natives to destabilize and overthrow existing power structures (and then often turning on said allies).

Diamond tends to see history almost entirely from a economic/resource level, which creates a simple and compelling narrative. However, as usual with simple narratives, it misses too much. Perhaps ironically he is doing the same thing to the field of anthropologists as a biologist, which other disciplines have done to biology. Stripping away important complexity to reduce it to simple questions that can be answered with the otherwise inadequate tools at hand.

[andycap]

Look at it as an evolving system. In biology it's generally reckoned that if the clock was to be wound back to some point & then set running again, we'd end up with a different set of species in any one niche & the species themselves would be different. 'How different' then becomes the question. One of the factors would be the degree of chaos in the system. So for the topic in hand which factors would turn developments on or off & which factors are likely or unlikely to occur. e.g. as the Romans had waterproof concrete why did they not make other similar advances?

So as noted above - dumb luck (probably).

[Ophiolite]

Europeans prevailed because of dumb luck! We are all African some generations ago.

You got to it first!

[meLothedestroyerofworlds]

Europeans had advanced technology so they got to enslaved and control millions of people. Was it because they just knew how to use their resources more than other races or was it because they just have superiority complex? Why do you think white people developed more than blacks, asians, etc..?

I'm going to give you the least obfuscated answer I can: Combination of environment, genes, luck, and culture.

 

EDIT:

 

here are some useful links

 

http://people.hss.caltech.edu/~jlr/conquest1nocode1.pdf

 

http://economics.yale.edu/sites/default/files/files/Workshops-Seminars/Economic-History/hoffman-120409.pdf

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_intelligence

Edited October 17, 2016 by HelloI'mmeLo

[Prometheus]

Surely it's a false premise: in 6000 years of recorded history 'white' civilisations have dominated for about 1000 years (white is in tags because the Roman Empire was multi-cultural, it's inclusion of other peoples was one of the contributing factors to the Empire's success).

 

I think a history forum, rather than a biology forum, would be better equipped to explore why 'white' races came to dominate at the times they did.

 

How are we defining advanced? The ancient Greeks were perhaps a little more technologically advanced than a lot of surrounding powers, but arguably far more culturally advanced.

[CharonY]

Around 1000 there was certainly no European dominance. They were still trying to catch up to the Muslim world. The Song empire brought developments that are still in use. And the n stage is still waiting for the subsequent Mongol rule that is going to shape history until now. European dominance, if t you want to call it, was only sealed starting sometime in the 17th-18th century.