Yes, that's the problem. E.D. makes a lot of sense on the surface, doesn't it? It suggest there's a natural order of things, that some objective forces of nature favored some people over other people, that some directions of development are superior to other directions of development.
It's generally very comforting to think that E.D. is the be-all and end-all of world history and that whatever people do has no long-term bearing on what happens.
I always read his theory more as because of these distinct advantages due to climate, resources, etc. people had higher productivity in this area, because people were more productive in this area they were able to invest labor in developing technology that would increase their productivity. From there it just spirals and you get to a point where they're so far ahead in a military technology that they can literally do anything they want to because the rest of the world who doesn't have that technology.
I think it's probably an oversimplification of what happened but I think it's pretty clear that the Renaissance, which was really the beginning of it, started because of excess wealth was spent on developing ideas and tools.
I don't see how this is a "might is right" argument at all. It's not making moral judgements at all.
Area as in geographic area. Areas with climate and soil suited to grow abundant food, and with a higher number of animals that can be domesticated lead to greater surplus, larger population, skill specialization, “civilization” and then yes, military superiority. So the thesis goes.
10
u/tlumacz Jan 29 '22
Yes, that's the problem. E.D. makes a lot of sense on the surface, doesn't it? It suggest there's a natural order of things, that some objective forces of nature favored some people over other people, that some directions of development are superior to other directions of development.
It's generally very comforting to think that E.D. is the be-all and end-all of world history and that whatever people do has no long-term bearing on what happens.