Why do you think some nations prosper and are successful(like the U.S., U.K., Canada, etc.) and other nations are in poverty(such as in Africa). I would like to know what any of you think. There has to be an explanation.
Well, I believe that cultural and economic factors play an equal role in determining the prosperity of a nation.
By
admin |
Apr 11 2016 3:14 PM:
I think it's a combination of about 4 things
1. Trade
Closed off or isolated societies tend to develop technology slower. This has a logical explanation - the more minds work on developing technology, the more technology can be developed. Sometimes that isolation is natural, as a result of geography for example. Sometimes it is artificial, for example because of an embargo.
2. Access to opportunity
If people are denied a good education or good healthcare (for example), they may be too stupid or sick to develop good technology. The most clear way this manifests itself is in rights. If women are disenfranchised for example, that means half the population can't contribute to the development of that society.
3. Evolution
If a society is rigid and does not change as technology is introduced into that society, then the society will fall behind over time compared to other societies that do make use of such technology. As Darwin said, it's not the fittest that survive, but the most adaptable.
4. Absolute advantages
This is the most rare of them all, and it is ALWAYS short-term only. Sometimes somebody just happens to live on a gold mine, like oil-rich countries. This is not usually enough to ensure prosperity on its own, however. Likewise there can also, I think, be absolute disadvantages. If you happen to be unfortunate enough to settle under a volcano, then there's always the risk of sudden depopulation.
I'm the main developer for the site. If you have any problems, ideas, questions or concerns please send me a message.
Let's revive the forums!
cooldudebro:
I think I already know the reason why, and it is not cultural factors that lead to prosperity or poverty. It is some economic factors.
I've often pondered this myself. I agree with
@Admin
- but I'd extend his "Trade" list to include this one concept. Often places that offer the best conditions for subsistence seem to be some of the poorest. My theory behind this is that the NEED for trade becomes secondary.
In Africa for example, stuff grows if you just look at it the wrong way. Historically, wildlife has been abundant and the climate lends itself to relatively easy living.
Add to that the geographic isolation admin mentioned, and there really can't have been too much incentive for historic Africans to go looking for trade.
Even today, in countries like Samoa, you can have a surprisingly good quality of life by subsistence living.
Poverty is often in the eye of the beholder.
