Quote:
|
Originally Posted by t.d.a
Interesting perspective on the matter. However, I am still unclear on what that has to do with the development of Africa. Have there been countries in the past where Geography was an impediment to development? I still don't see how geographical size and the continent's prosperity are linked.
|
A cultural anthropologist, and the author of "guns, germs, and steel" , Dr. Jared Diamond, tuckles the geographic impediment to the establishment civilizations. if you look at the globe today you'll realize that the most advanced countries seem to have had their knowledge flow laterally (East-West or West-East). in Africa's case most of our continental knowledge-flow if you will, had/has to spread longitudinally. through Dr, Diamond's research he has noted that the longitudinal spread of knowlege (as well as man-power) is much more difficult than the lateral spread. i'd also like to say that IMO geography plays a role, but it's only one piece of the puzzle.
Throughout the book Diamond argues that the East-West axis of Eurasia provided an advantage in the dispersal of useful, mainly domesticated, plants and animals. The chart on p. 87 identifies this as the most ultimate of ultimate factors. With respect to the lengths of days and the importance thereof for flowering plants, the argument makes fine sense. Maize's spread northward from Mexico was slowed by the necessity of genetic adaptation to different day lengths at different latitudes. Maize could spread much more easily East-West than it could North-South.