beyelzu

People have argued that the climate and ecology controlled the growth of civilization. I agree that that is the case in n and s america and most certainly australia. However, how do you explain the Ottomans and China. In the 14-15th century they were both ahead of europe. NO anymore. The point is culture most certainly plays a role in the development of technology.

echidna

Add further the effect of malnutrition on developing embryos & thoughout childhood. Asian children born in Australia have a strong tendency to be taller than their counterparts throughout S.E. Asia to illustrate the effect of nutrition. Similarly Anglo Australians are also taller than 50 years ago, the benefit of nutrition quite possibly contributing to the Flynn Effect, an average 3 points per decade increase in IQ.

Loren Pechtel

I think it's more than just malnutrition. My wife is Chinese and comes from the shorter generation--but there was plenty of food while she was growing up.

echidna

I'm half & comparatively vertically challenged myself, however some other Asian groups do seem to grow up taller than their compatriots. Notably Thai, Viet, Malay. Improvements in nutrition is main factor attributed to significant European height increases over the last century.

seanie

Did you even read what I wrote?

Here it is again. I'll highlight the relevant part;

So if you are going to posit special genetic or cultural traits as to why these people were so successful in the US you're gonna have to give some sort of explanation why these special genetic or cultural traits did them so little good in their home countries, where by and large they were at the bottom of the social and economic pile.

Do you get the point? The people who emigrated to the states and did well were by and large the people who were not doing well in their home countries. They were the poor and disposessed. The Scots went because they were thrown off their land. The Irish went because the other option was starvation. Others fled from religious persecution.

Now I happen to think that the emigrants generally were hardworking and industrious. But these very same people were hardworking and industrious back in their home countries and they were still piss poor.

Do you see?

You can be industrious and hardworking and still end up with jack shit depending on the socioeconomic conditions you find yourself in.

The very fact that the poor and dispossesed of Europe, given the opportunity, made a success of themselves should suggest that the socioeconomic situation you find yourself in is a far more important factor in determining your wealth than your cultural heritage.

Aerion

I would add that even in the cases of starvation or persicution, many people STILL prefer to remain at their birth home rather than move. So it can still be somewhat voluntary even under extreme circumstances. It is referred to as the Burning Barn Syndrome, I believe.

Aerion

True but as I understand it most animal breeders kill the culls rather than spend the money to feed them. But, like you said, merely separating does constitute a "cull".

Aerion

I love this proverb and I believe it is pretty much dead on. The Chinese have a gift for proverbs.

Aerion

seanie, I read your question most carefully and I answered it in a long post addressed specifically to you. The post is here
but the relavent part is below.

The point that might not have been made clearly enough is that those industrious traits (either cultural or genetic) would still exist even among the poor. In fact, the poor might - no probably - even be more predisposed to hard work than the rich since in that culture the rich generally inherited thier wealth rather than earning it. Once freed from their class restrictions and placed in an environment where opportunity existed, the poor thrived.

As Loren and I both pointed out, in situations where immigration was voluntary, those more industrious would have gone voluntarily while the least industrious people would have stayed behind. This has the effect of TEMPORARILY improving - in terms of industriousness - the immigrated society.

Perhaps your misunderstanding this part of my point is the reason you reacted as you did to this original post. My opinion on this is exactly why I AM NOT an elitist or a racist. The history of emigrants to America PROVES that the worlds starving poor are not genetically inferior.

seanie

As Gurdur pointed out you have not produced any evidence at allto suggest that "industriousness" is genetically based to any significant degree. There is no reason at all to attribute the hard work of the poor and the laziness of the rich to genetics.

When the poor didn't work they starved.

When the rich didn't work they drank port, slaughtered wildlife and raped scullery maids.

There's your explanation for the differential work rates.

No genetics required.

Now the fact that the poor were accustomed to hard work may well have been an advantage in the New World. Indeed as you say;

Which is my point exactly. We know that people who were piss poor in one situation found themselves in another situation in which they thrived. Which suggests the overwhelming reason for their change in fortune was their change in circumstances.

To repeat myself;

The very fact that the poor and dispossesed of Europe, given the opportunity, made a success of themselves should suggest that the socioeconomic situation you find yourself in is a far more important factor in determining your wealth than your cultural (or indeed genetic) heritage.

Which makes your following assertion not only unsupported but redundant.

You have no evidence at all that those who emigrated were more industrious than those that stayed. As Gurdur says maybe they were the gutless ones who couldn't hack it back home. Maybe they were the ones who weren't prone to seasickness. Maybe they were the least industrious of the poor. After all if you were a landowner you'd evict your most useless tenants first wouldn't you? They'd be the first to face starvation. They'd be the most desperate. The most willing to undertake the perils of emigration.

All of which is unsupported speculation.

All you know is that those that emigrated found themselves in an environment that offered new opportunities that they took, whereas those that stayed were trapped in the same environment that had kept them poor. The only certain difference between them was their environments. The circumstances they found themselves in.

I do apologise for my misunderstanding. It was just that when you said;

and...

and...

I thought you were suggesting that white Europeans had some particular genetic advantage that other non-white non-Europeans sadly lacked.

Of course I now realise nothing could've been further from your mind.