So the hippie may have got something right again? I've traveled in the Middle East, and as the figures you posted pointed out, there simply isn't enough ariable land for the populations that have become so huge, in comparison to what they once were, and how degraded the environment is now, compared to what it once was. Deforestation, over-grazing, centuries of trying to scratch a crop out of thinner and thinner soil, along with the lack of water put most of the region behind the eight ball. Deforestation has been an enormous problem, which has been going on there for centuries, but far worse with the population explosion. Education is the key, because if the oil/gas runs out, or you don't have it, like the Jordan example you used, these countries have to produce intellectual capitol. The people are highly intelligent and motivated... they just have governments that almost all suck, badly. And yes, we aren't helping things much. D&D. Impeach Dildo and His Battery.
I believe that book is Guns, Germs, and Steel by Jared Diamond. It is very interesting and somewhat novel, if repetitive. But you may mean another book. Diamond keeps talking about the ME as the start of it all, and the "fertile crescent package" between the Tigress and the Euphrates.
Their governments more than suck. They've shortchanged them in the one area that is absolutely fundamental when it comes to rising out of poverty and underdevelopment. That area being education. Higher education in the Middle East is non-existent. And if you want expertise in a technical field in math or science, then there is zero chance of learning a damn thing in the Middle East. In Saudi Arabia, higher education consists of publicly funded religious institutions that don't give a damn about any occupation relevant in the modern economy. You have countries with double digit unemployment and continue to import scientific experts when millions of oil jobs could be handed out to locals. (and combine that with the absurd expectations of privilege by locals, leading to massive imports of low level labor from other parts of Asia) And on top of that, the government is forced to overpay those oil workers by 3 and 4 times the median salary elsewhere. The educational system there is a sham and their failure to invest in it is why developing countries like India and China (which have phenomenal education systems) will always kick their ass in technical expertise and scientific literacy. To keep it going on the guns, germs, and steel story - Europe gained its power not only from its access to resources, but also the types of food and grain that grew locally, its geopolitical and geographical situation in relation to the rest of the world, its climate, etc.... It was a perfect storm for Europe. And while the Middle East is considered a culture hearth, its growth was capped by the resource situation that only allowed for limited growth. And desertification of the Middle East has basically ruined areas that were once extremely fertile. The Middle East today isn't the same place it was thousands of years ago. The land isn't productive and oil accounts for basically the entire economy.
I don't think pop density/arable land area is such a big deal in today's global climate. Japan does pretty well for what it has. Singapore is mostly a giant city that has a savvy and educated citizenry to carry out its regional strategy. I'm with the corruption and poor education crowd for why the area is disappointing for its potential. Sure, oil rich kingdoms have the money to build an industrialized infrastructure in several of their cities, but they don't have the middle class or the freedoms, both social and economic, to support it once billions are sunk into these massive construction projects. It's the typical plan for failure that has plagued most third world nations since after WW2. It's just that they've had the oil capital to stay out of debt, and historically Arab leaders/monarchs who have realized this invested more abroad than taking risks at home. Maybe it's not these leaders' fault and Syrianna with the book "Confessions of an Economic Hitman" have more truth than fabrication in them. I don't know for sure, but I bet several Arabs think more of the latter.
Were you thinking of Guns, Germs and Steel? If you were its not natural resources but geographic location that the author argues for.
Damn being a slow rookie... I see I was beat to it. Anyway Guns, Germs and Steel doesn't argue that natural resources were a key factor for European domination as Europe as a continent is relatively resource poor compared to the Americas, Asia and Africa only that the geographic location of Europe gave them an advantage.
I thought it was the naval power which allowed them to continually expand control and such the wealth out of the world. That's how they went from the dark ages to the enlightment.
you continue to bring out stats that prove my point that it is corruption, nut natural resources are the reasons behind the demise. Your example of EGYPT is right on. Egypt has the biggest river in the world passing through it, it is surrounded by water from 2 sides was always an agricultural country since the days of the Pharoas, and now , like you said it can't feed itself and it is surviving on borrowing from the west. The Aswan Dam is preventing all the cilt from enterning the land and the goventment is keeping the rest of the country deserted. The Tourism I was talking about was the ancient and religious sites in that area in addition to the modern sites on the red sea. Without factoring in the OIL, the natural resources that the Europians have today they always had, and the deserted aread in the ME for the most part have always been there, but you can not say that the ME did not dominate the world for several hundreds of years.
That was part of it but Jared Diamond's argument is more basic than that. He believes that Europeans were able to develop that sort of technology has to do with that they were uniquely geographically situated to benefit from the ideas and technology throughout the Eurasian continent and then be in position to advance those and spread them through conquest.
One can't overlook the fact that Britain had the coal to drive her industrial revolution, along with the attendant technological advances. She wasn't bereft of natural resources. Add the overseas empire to supply raw materials not found in or near Britain, and you have the makings of a economic/technological powerhouse. D&D. Impeach Dildo and His Battery.
Europe wasn't bereft of natural resources but compared to the other continents it was resource poor. How did England get that overseas empire? Since England itself had limited resources it makes sense that the English would use their technology to go and find other resources.
I wouldn't argue that, but Diamond says "Europeans were able to develop that sort of technology has to do with that they were uniquely geographically situated to benefit from the ideas and technology throughout the Eurasian continent and then be in position to advance those and spread them through conquest." (using your words... I haven't read him) I don't necessarily disagree with his statement, not entirely, but I do find it too simplistic. Why is geography such a factor for Europeans developing technology taken from the Eurasian continent? Certainly, geography gave Great Britain natural protection from her enemies, so long as she had a better navy than they did. How does that explain France? Or Italy? Or Spain? Italy was for centuries a collection of smaller states, as was Germany. Spain was invaded successfully by the Moors, at least until they were thrown out. France struggled for centuries to become the France we are used to seeing on a map. Why didn't Asia Minor, what became Turkey, benefit from its position? Or China, who had so many technological advances before Europeans, and didn't use them the same way? I would argue that the biggest factors were cultural differences, not geography. D&D. Impeach Chump and His Buddy.
Islam is a religion. America is a country. You using the word "American" here is interesting, to say the least.
Have you read the entire J. Diamond book? If I remember it, he would argue that you can't completely separate culture from geography. Here's an example. Having the right species of plants and the right climate leads you to be able to domesticate animals more quickly than people in other regions. The fact that Euros lived in close proximity to livestock meant they built up immunities to certain diseases that then, when they traveled, whiped out other cultures, who had not domesticated livestock.
Yes you can. They certainly dominated their region, but not the world. They didn't even dominate the "known world" during thier height of greatness. I'm not trying to belittle you or Egypt. Egypt was a very powerful player, but were also repeatedly conquered by opposing nations, whom installed puppet governments during this "several hundreds of years." You really should look at the history books again and take into account the other empires that "ruled their world" at the time.
