It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Northern Power?

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 20 2005 @ 05:52 AM
link   
I've been thinking about this for a while, if you look at the most powerful nations in the world you will notice that they exist in the north, even on the scale of Europe this can be seen, the northern European countries are more productive and have more influence than those in the south.
Why is it that these nations seem to have come out on top?
Well it is my opinion that countries with a hot climate are less...whats the word...powerful due to their heat, its simply too damn hot to advance at the rate of the cooler countries.
In cooler countries the temperature is lower so it is less tiring to work and think.


Just wondering what people thought of this?




posted on Jan, 20 2005 @ 06:09 AM
link   
Contrary to popular belief about dumb blondes, countries with a larger number of real blondes in their population actually have higher I.Q's.
I saw this on the nature of things with David Suzuki so I don't want any racist crap being spewed forth from you p.c. liberals chachi's.

Note: I'm dark skinned, dark brown hair, & dark brown eyes.

[edit on 20-1-2005 by BattleofBatoche]



posted on Jan, 20 2005 @ 06:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by BattleofBatoche
Contrary to popular belief about dumb blondes, countries with a larger number of real blondes in their population actually have higher I.Q's.


Finlands got the highest proportion of blond people i think and their a pretty advanced nation.



posted on Jan, 20 2005 @ 06:11 AM
link   
The farther north you go the more of the year its cold. The colder it is the more time you spend indoors. Basically northern peoples had nothng else to do but debate read learn etc.



posted on Jan, 20 2005 @ 06:23 AM
link   
Actually the middle east & North africa were quite powerfull & advanced before Islam became perverted. They were the centers of math, philosophy, & science while Europe decended into the Dark ages.



posted on Jan, 20 2005 @ 06:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by BattleofBatoche
Actually the middle east & North africa were quite powerfull & advanced before Islam became perverted. They were the centers of math, philosophy, & science while Europe decended into the Dark ages.


I'm not going to argue about Islam as it will thrash the thread, but yes the middle east was the centre of knowledge and power before the north/west advanced.



posted on Jan, 20 2005 @ 09:07 AM
link   
This north south thing is actually something that has been noticed before, and it seems to recapitulate and repeat. On a global scale, the northern hemisphere is generally better off than the southern one and dominates it. In the US, the north and the south went to war. In europe the northern countries are more industrialized and did it sooner than the southern ones. Even in the southern hemisphere supposedly some of the more norhtern countries dominate the more southern ones.


Of course, its only true to a vague approximation. Scandinavia doesn't rule europe, for example. Most countries can probably be said to be better than some other nearby country in some way or another.



posted on Jan, 21 2005 @ 12:09 AM
link   
i believe a main reason for this divide has to be the industrial revolution throughout Europe and North America and their move away from an agricultural based economy. this is where industrial economies keep on progressing with the capacity for further growth, and where agricultural economies are stalling.

obviously one would hope that the economies left behind would naturally want to catch up, but alas, there are two theories as to why this hasn't happened.
the first is called the 'modernisation theory' which basically stipulates that countries wanting to become rich like northern nations, must adopt their 'western style' values/cultures - basically becoming like them.
the second is the dependency theory, in which the relative poverty of the south is blamed on the selfish exploitative nature of the north. although an objection to this theory given by David Landes, points out that Finland, South Korea, et al. were all poor pre-industrial countries, which were forced to comply with 'rich country' rules, and have developed nicely compared to others. another example of personal interest to me, is the rise of China, which again objects the second theory.

on a side note, globalisation has also increased the north/south divide, although i'm not saying it is the cause.

source: Google.co.uk


EDIT: spelling

[edit on 21/1/05 by BLUELol]



posted on Jan, 21 2005 @ 09:24 AM
link   
What about the Incas and Aztecs in Central and South America? They were pretty advanced a culture as any and they were not in the north.



posted on Jan, 21 2005 @ 12:30 PM
link   
Just a thought.....

....what if the north's 'advancement ' and couple of centuries 'at the top' of the pecking order turn out to come at a terrible terrible cost we have yet to see?

What if global weather disruption, the floods and soaring temperatures - and the atlantic thermal conveyor stopping so ironically bringing 'us' a northern ice-age - make it all for nothing?

OoooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooOhhhhH crikey!

[edit on 21-1-2005 by sminkeypinkey]



posted on Jan, 22 2005 @ 07:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by sminkeypinkey
Just a thought.....

....what if the north's 'advancement ' and couple of centuries 'at the top' of the pecking order turn out to come at a terrible terrible cost we have yet to see?


If global warming goes the way it is we can say bye bye northern europe and hello new southern super powers.



posted on Jan, 22 2005 @ 07:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by UK Wizard
If global warming goes the way it is we can say bye bye northern europe and hello new southern super powers.


- Look for the rapid about-face in immigration attitudes!



posted on Jan, 23 2005 @ 05:02 PM
link   
Yes, UK Wizard, I agree with you.

All we know how powerful Iceland, Poland, Belgium, Norway, Finland, Ukraine (damned cool), etc, are.


Also we can see that Scotland is far powerful and richer than England, and North Ireland is the richest zone of the Irish island.


On the other hand the Australian people is damn lazy, and New Zealand, which enjoys a cooler climate than the Australian one is more advanced than Australia too.

If we talk in terms of the United States, all we can see that California or Florida are weaker states than Wyoming and Oregon.

In terms of Europe, we can see that Socrates, Plato, Homero, etc, etc were a bunch of morons. I wonder how being the Greeks so lazy, they invented the democracy that you are now enjoying and created the roots of our western civilization.

I wonder how the Romans had the gluts to go to the actual Great Britain to civilize your ancestors who almost didn’t know the wheel at that time, despite the cooler climate they enjoyed.
Galileo, Giordano Bruno, Michel Angelo, da Vinci or Enrico Fermi are just statistical accidents.

I cannot understand how Spain could hold the vaster empire in the history of the Human Being during 300 years, smashing militarily and culturally to some of the European cooler nations, with all these people thinking and thinking thanks to the blessed cold. I guess there should had been some glacier age at this time. Cervantes, Seneca, Picasso, Ramon y Cajal, Juan de la Cierva (why the hell everybody knows abroad who invented the airplane and nobody knows who invented the helicopter?), Isaac Peral (the very same question for the submarine), Juan Sebastian Elcano, Dali, etc, were also reportedly stupid and lazy people.

Your argumentation is a nonsense. In times in which the climate was not substantially different to the current climate we could had inverted the question:

“why the northern countries are more backward than the southern ones? I think it is for the damn cold. There is so cold that they don’t get up their a*ses from the armchair and go to work”

The current situation in terms of Europe is purely circumstantial. If you have a look to a history book you will be aware of that.

In terms of some African countries or some Asiatic countries, the answer to the question is quite simple. Some of them are authentic paradises, where the food, the well being and the safety were easily achieved. Thus, they were not forced (note that the Human Being, English, Spanish, Somali, Iraqi or Ductch, only make advances when he is forced to do it) towards the technological or cultural advance, and such a situation leaded to an eternal technological retard. If the inhabitants of Papua New Guinea were blondes, they would still being technologically retarded respect to Europe.



Battle of Batoche…Could you explain how Asturias or Galicia, which have the larger rates of blondes and clear eyed people are among the poorest regions of Spain, while Madrid, Cataluña, Balears or the Basque country, with dark haired and dark eyed types are probably the richest regions in Spain?

You should be joking.

Yes, Finlad is a pretty advanced nation because they have a high rate of blondes as Lithuania, Bielorussia, Poland and…oooops.

Mali has a clear domination over South Africa and Ecuador is much more advanced than Chile. Everybody knows it.


As I am dark haired (therefore, stupid) but blue eyed (this save me of being a moron) and my mother is blonde (extremely intelligent), while many of my friends are dark haired and dark eyed, I have had for long time experience in the skill of the different coloured types and the racial business (supposing that the hair color makes a race) I guess I can make a scientifically northern balance about your statements: You are a bunch of racists.

I wonder how the USA which was a nation made from useless people, prostitutes and thieves expulsed form the northern and southern countries of Europe, became the first world power. Had the climate something to do with that? But your theory could explain why George Bush is so moron: He is dark haired.

Don’t make me laugh.

Fortunatelly there are among the northern arian people some guys able to give intelligent reasons, as sminkeypinkey.



posted on Jan, 23 2005 @ 05:36 PM
link   

posted by Pelayo
wonder how the Romans had the gluts to go to the actual Great Britain to civilize your ancestors who almost didn’t know the wheel at that time, despite the cooler climate they enjoyed


Just to point out that whilst the Romans claimed they "civilised" the "barbarians" (which in actuallity is a reference to their language, and not cultural achievements), the ancient Gauls and Britons had a very advanced Bronze age society (the Romans where a Bronze/Iron age mix) and the Britons had the Wheel before the Romans showed up.

Remember, Bodicea led her warriors from the back of a chariot!

In fact, the ancient Britons had been actively trading with the Mediteranean peoples for far longer than the city of Rome even existed. Take the Phonecians, they came to Britain for our tin, and other luxury trade goods during the time of Ancient Greece and further back...


Off topic i know, but just have to correct some points



posted on Jan, 23 2005 @ 06:45 PM
link   
There are some historians who believe that the Phonecians traded with tribes of South American Indians.

Anyways, I think it is closer to Equator the worse the country is, and if it is on the equator then they are screwed, nowadays. In the past didn't matter, you had power if you had power. But today, well, closer to equator longer the growing season, so more agriculture. While in the north it is more industry for if you have a 2 month growing period, you aren't growing. So while the farmers continued with their farms, the countries/areas away from the equator, and so got colder, were busy with industry which could be done year long. Also, industry leaves a person with more free time to do other things like research and such. And so while the farms continued to feed the industry areas, the industry areas advanced forth. New ways, quicker ways, to produce what you were making. Farming? If it takes 3 months to grow something it will still take 3 months, no matter what you do. But the industry researched new ways to produce more faster, which also lead to new technology, which lead to new technology, and repeat. So while the areas away from the equator advanced, the places who grew food stayed where they were.

Or not, IDK, I just think the heat gets to their head.



posted on Jan, 23 2005 @ 07:54 PM
link   
On the other hand the Australian people is damn lazy, and New Zealand, which enjoys a cooler climate than the Australian one is more advanced than Australia too.
Do you have any evidence do back up
the above statment?



posted on Jan, 23 2005 @ 09:39 PM
link   


On the other hand the Australian people is damn lazy, and New Zealand, which enjoys a cooler climate than the Australian one is more advanced than Australia too.


I believe he was being sarcastic looking at the rest of his post.



posted on Jan, 24 2005 @ 08:55 AM
link   
Some people are taking my comment to detailed, i'm not saying those father north are more powerful, i'm saying on average, eg Europe is more powerful than Africa.



posted on Jan, 24 2005 @ 12:08 PM
link   
Stumason,

When I talked about the wheel I was exaggerating. But sincerely, trying to compare the technological and cultural achievement of your ancestors with the Roman one seems to me a little bit out of the reality.

The north half of Spain was also at this time occupied by barbarians mainly from the central Europe plus Celtics and Vikings (as you see, Nordic races that explain now the Nordic types in Galicia, Asturias and Cantabria for instance). And the comparison of my ancestors at that time (I am from northern Spain) with the technological and cultural achievement of the Romans seems to me delirious.

On the other side the South of Spain was at other level, the south played another league. They were far more advanced than the northern part since this part had been occupied by Phonecians and Greeks (these stupid and lazy dark haired people). I have a Celtic village 3 km away from my home and a Roman village 1 km away, both came from the same century. There is not point of comparison, there is not color.

The Romans were centuries forward the “barbaric” peoples. I have seen their hydraulic systems in Emerita Augusta, Segovia, Plasencia, their texts, their extremely advanced combat tactics, their legal system, etc. I have seen their roads, their bridges that still being used by the villagers nowdays, the coins, their weapons, their ceramic, etc.

From the Nordic races just still existing little houses with circular base and some primitive instruments and strange draws in the nearest stones. There is some brute sword and some primitive ceramic. And blonde and blue eyed people in the northern Spain (including my mother).


And no, no, sorry, before somebody came with the tale I must say that the Muslims arrived to Spain somewhere in the VIII century.

“barbarians which in actuallity is a reference to their language, and not cultural achievements”

Sure, but the meaning of “barbarian” now days makes reference to the backward and brute people precisely because the Romans found that the barbarian speakers used to be brute and backward people as compared with the Roman average.

Came on!, the trade of the Britons with the Mediterranean peoples was about taking prime material from the Britons and giving them manufactured products.

Look don’t misunderstand me, I am proud of my northern barbarian ancestors. I am not saying now that the northern races are lower to the southern ones. Newton, Shakespeare, Kepler, Mozart, Dostoievsky or Gauss are a good evidence. What I believe is that the history works by waves. It has nothing to do with the race, but with the concrete circumstances, disgraces, lucky strikes and success and failures of each country in the nearest past. The attempts of explaining the technological retard of some countries by basing our reasons on the color of their skin or hair have a name to me: RACISM.

UK Wizar,
if some day you visit Spain, go to the Alhambra (it has even air conditioning system based on a net of little water canals through the palace) in Granada, the Mosque of Cordoba (which is architectonically perfect), etc. and look how backward were the northern Africans and the Arabs with respect to our medieval societies no so many time ago.



posted on Jan, 24 2005 @ 06:42 PM
link   
Pelayo,
I am not actually agreeing with the premise that Northern countries are always on top, I did however feel that belittling the non-Roman societies as primitive and backwards is wrong.

They where an advanced society, and traded in many fine manufactured products, such as jewelery, textiles and raw materials.

They may not have had plumbing and nice straight roads, but they had many qualities which distinguish them as advanced, cultural peoples in their own right.

On that note, I am also not trying to compare those said people to the Romans, who, it has to be said, where way out in front. Roman engineering is what distinguished them from any other tribe in Europe.

Culturally, there is little to seperate the Romans from anyone else. Many Roman practices where in all honety far more "barbaric" than what some other peoples got up too.



some primitive instruments and strange draws in the nearest stones.


You make them sound like Cavemen! The Gauls in France where world renound for their weaving and jewellery, and the Romans and many others traded with them for this very reason, as they could not produce items of such quality themselves.

However, you must also take into account, that the Romans would assimilate (either by sword or by gold) people into their Empire, and use what was once theirs. So what you might think as a Roman village, may very well have had Gauls, Britons, or whoever living in it, adding to the richness that became famous as "Roman".



Sure, but the meaning of “barbarian” now days makes reference to the backward and brute people precisely because the Romans found that the barbarian speakers used to be brute and backward people as compared with the Roman average


There is a massive difference between what Barbarian means today, and what the Romans meant by it. Barbarians is a slang term coined by Romans, in reference to the perceived way in which these people spoke.

In comparison to Latin, they thought that these tounges sounded like the mewling of sheep, hence the "Barbar" part of Barbarian.

They even described the Greeks, Selucids, and such like as Barbarians. It is the same today as you calling someone from another country a foreigner.

Today it has been twisted, and has become synominous with savage peoples, when this isn't actully the way or meaning that the Romans intended by its use.

Anyway, as stated, I do not subscribe to the thought that North is better than South, I was just correcting some opinions that I felt where a little bit off.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join