justcool:


Whether it is the principle factor or not, the bottom line is that my point is made; "that such climatic changes are not purposeless but fit in well in a universe designed for life to thrive." And I rest my case.

The case is very well rested on that point alone.

From the types of arguments I see in this thread, I won’t be surprised if somebody tries to deny that climate has an effect on the color of the skin of humans.

That will be the next thing that somebody will be gearing up to claim, I am sure. Perhaps the mode of government and political disposition were greater determinants of skin color as well!

The point that posters are not seeing is that cultures in the equatorial regions developed the technology that they needed to survive too; but their climate did not require as much technological protection as was required by those in the temperate regions. Hence cultures in the temperate regions developed more technologically.

So simple, it is a wonder that this could be disputed.

Somebody made mention about the need to shelter from heat; he forgot that our forefathers invented the mud house architecture. The mud house was enough to combat the need to keep from heat; it keeps you cool in the day and warm(to a certain degree) in the night. Such technology would not suffice to deal with climatic demands of Europe; the mud house wouldn’t handle the have weight of snow deposits on it roof during winter. The mud house wouldn’t shelter you from coldness of winter.

The African had no need to think about supplying his mud house with running water because there was always a river not too far away, and the weather always allowed water to be in liquid form. The European had to think about how to keep the water liquid during winter; he had to think on how to make the water run in his house so that he wouldn’t have to go out in the cold during winter to fetch water; he even had to look for a way to bath and relive his bowls within the warmth of his house. You see his climate demanded a more sophisticated technology than the mud house.

Maybe still this exact and undeniable analogy will not suffice to show Pastor AIO an effect on the mind and technology of a people by their climate!

Observing quietly and reading responses on this thread, it starts to seem everyone has accepted (to one extent or the other) the argument so patiently set forth by particularly DeepSight but individuals egos are causing a very gradual fall-back. Sort of like an army withdrawing slowly or asking for concessions so as not to lose face.

I think NOT rubbing "victory" (whatever that means) in will make the transition faster.

Just my thoughts.

haha Na wa o. See as una dey make me out to be devil. anyways. . .  I really can't debate much cause it's too hectic and time consuming so this'll likely be the last one 

justcool:
Look at countries where there are a more dangers of natural disasters; these countries are the most technically advanced countries today; as opposed to Nigeria where nature is always gentle, and hence the people are lazy and don’t have good work ethics. Compare California, where there are always earthquakes with Nigeria. Three days ago a huge tree fell and destroyed the power lines here in California, within minutes Edison(Electricity Power supply company) was already there fixing it; I remember in Nigerian if such a thing happens, you have to go beg and bribe NEPA before they will show up, and they usually show up after days or weeks. The constant danger of natural disasters has caused the western world to learn to always be ready, to advance in technology and etc.

To summarize  Justcool's claims --> Countries with more dangers of natural disasters are the most technologically advanced. Nature is gentle to Nigeria hence the people are lazy and don't have good work ethic. i.e Nigerians are lazy because nature is kind to us and we don't have natural disasters.

I then proceeded to give a map that illustrates occurrence of earthquakes in the last century to check how valid this claim was. If I could find one that went further back in history I would have provided it.

Chile, Peru, Nicaragua, India, Mexico, Algeria all have more earthquakes than USA and all of western Europe except Italy.  Even Papau New Guinea is on par with the USA as far as earthquakes go. My map was dismissed as not going far back enough in history.

Where is this link between Natural disasters and technological advancement? Let's leave that for now.

Now. . . .  about climate and work ethic. My opponents have suggested a direct link between climate and character.


Some 18th century  French philosopher,  by the name of Montesquieu came up with a theory, variations of which have appeared in all types of places. Just to give u some insight into his belief system

Human nature, the philosophers believed, is as well ordered as the physical universe. In The Spirit of the Laws (1748), the French philosopher Montesquieu wrote: "The material world has its laws, the intelligences superior to man have their laws, the beasts their laws, and man his laws." Montesquieu thought that a science of human nature was possible, and he became one of the first philosophers to try to formulate the basic uniformities of all human behaviour.

https://www.msu.edu/course/atl/125/fernandez/smedley.htm 

^^ I'm sure that kinda stuff sounds familiar to some of us. Laws govern everything, even human behavior. . . I beg to differ. Anyways, moving on

This is his theory.

Montesquieu’s story:
Warm climate => laziness => poverty and despotism
Geography determines “human attitudes”
Human attitudes determine both economic performance and political system.
Institutions potentially influenced by the determinants of income.

“The heat of the climate can be so excessive that the body there will be absolutely without strength. So, prostration will pass even to the spirit; no curiosity, no noble enterprise, no generous sentiment; inclinations will all be passive there; laziness there will be happiness,”
"People are ,  more vigorous in cold climates. The inhabitants of warm countries are, like old men, timorous; the people in cold countries are, like young men, brave".

Moreover, Montesquieu argues that lazy people tend to be governed by despots, while vigorous people could be governed in democracies; thus hot climates are conducive to authoritarianism and despotism.

From lecture notes of an economics prof at MIT  www.mit.edu/files/1064">http://econ-www.mit.edu/files/1064


For the record Montesquieu argued against slavery, except in some cases where he thought it was ok. .  (I suspect it was sarcasm tho. . .don't know his writing style well enough to be sure)

7.--Another Origin of the Right of Slavery

There is another origin of the right of slavery, and even of the most cruel slavery which is to be seen among men.
There are countries where the excess of heat enervates the body, and renders men so slothful and dispirited that nothing but the fear of chastisement can oblige them to perform any laborious duty: slavery is there more reconcilable to reason; and the master being as lazy with respect to his sovereign as his slave is with regard to him, this adds a political to a civil slavery.
Aristotle endeavors to prove that there are natural slaves; but what he says is far from proving it. If there be any such, I believe they are those of whom I have been speaking.
But as all men are born equal, slavery must be accounted unnatural, though in some countries it be founded on natural reason; and a wide difference ought to be made between such countries, and those in which even natural reason rejects it, as in Europe, where it has been so happily abolished.

http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch15s4.html

Now. . . besides these quotes and comments on montesquieu, a philosopher, not a biologist, nor anthropologist, I can't find any academic sources linking  climate to work ethics. I am not convinced. My experience of Africa does not agree with that. You guys can decide for yourselves if you are convinced or not.

Moving on to the most contentious of the issues being discussed, climate and technological ingenuity.

By technological ingenuity I mean an impulse to invent new stuff. Not adopt existing technologies, but coming up with new stuff that was not there before. A lot of places are developed, but that does not mean they are all full of great inventors. Some places just adopt technologies from other places. UAE has lots of stuff but i doubt they invented much. Just trying to make a point and distinction here. Let's not confuse being developed with being ingenious. When I say a culture of technological ingenuity i mean a culture where people are just coming up with new stuff like no man's business. SO when u show me a map and tell me look at developed nations, that doesn't speak to what i'm talking about.

So I'm not saying no one elsewhere ever invented anything, I'm talking about societies where inventions become a part of their identity. I think this is where I messed up before because i didn't really explain what i meant. Ancient China had this culture at some point and then lost it. Though the inventions were not coming as fast as they were when Europe had their awakening, compared to anything else at the time they were no doubt the champions of technological ingenuity. The point I'm trying to make is that without a change in climate, this impulse appears and disappears in cultures. I think it's obvious there are other factors at play besides climate.

so when I read  the responses justcool and deepsight are giving, they are not speaking to what i'm talking about. They seem to be talking about some general overarching influence that climate has on pretty much every living thing. That's a lil too convenient for this debate IMO.

At some point after the dark ages, Europe comes to life. they just start pumping out all kinds of stuff.

My opponents say it was necessity, like the need for heat. OK. If this necessity was present in western europe, it was present in the east, north, china and everywhere else with cold climate. they all need heat, they all need food, they all need to get work done more efficiently, the all want to excel, i imagine, and they all have the same climate. We do not see the same technological creative impulse across the board. Why are these spurts of creativity seen only at certain locations at certain times, while climate is a constant. Until you can answer that, all you have is an abstract theory with no empirical data to back it up. And like I said without the specifics, I'm deaf.

I think Europe saw technology as something that could be exploited in a way that no one else did, whether for profit, for conquest, or just for creativity's sake. . . But i just don't see how one can put it on climate.



I want to apologize to Justcool because when i started this debate i was really just goofing around. I really wasn't getting in a serious debate. Na Christmas time, and i was just in one of those mischievous moods and was just talking my own so i wasn't really clear about anything I was saying and maybe I was a little rude. but my intention was not to be a jackass. . ok maybe it was but I really wasn't trying to offend anyone.

I'm out . . . I'm working on my mixtape and all this intellectual $hit is killing my creativity.  God bless y'all.

@Krayola
First of all you don't have to apologise to me for anything; I hold absolutely no grudges towards you and neither have I taken any offence due to anything that you have said. You have the right to express your views, and you have the right to disagree with me or label my views wrong.

And its not a matter of winning or losing; because we only exchanging views not fighting a war. So my dear friend, eventhough I disagree with your views in this thread, I still respect you.

Krayola:

haha Na wa o. See as una dey make me out to be devil. anyways. . .  I really can't debate much cause it's too hectic and time consuming so this'll likely be the last one and it'll be mostly quotes. 

To summarize  Justcool's claims --> Countries with more dangers of natural disasters are the most technologically advanced. Nature is gentle to Nigeria hence the people are lazy and don't have good work ethic. i.e Nigerians are lazy because nature is kind to us and we don't have natural disasters.

Here let me clarify something; I dont want to be labelled as being prejudiced rowards Nigerians. You neglected the principle that I was trying to express, rather you held on to the words that used. And also you took my words out of context. When I said "lazy"; I do not mean that the Nigerian is inherently lazy. What I was trying to say is that the Nigerians, especially our forefathers, could afford to be "laid back" because of the climate that they lived in. They did evolve to the dangers in their environment but such dangers did not require them to advance as technologically as the Europeans did. Surviving the Nigerian climate did not require as much technology as the European climate did.

The Nigerian work ethic was good enough for the Nigerian cultures and way of life; but it doesn't suffice to deal with the European cultures and way of life. And today the whole world, including Nigeria, is copying the western system of government which is a product of the European culture. The Igbo work ethics is good for the Igbo civilization; the Hausa work ethics is good for the Hausa civilisation; the Yoruba work ethics is good for the Yoruba civilization and etc. But when we try to copy the western civilisation or set up country Nigeria according to the western style; then we will encounter problems because the system we are following didn't evolve from our culture. This is the major reason why Africa is backwards today. One can equally say that we evolved a work ethics that doesnt suit the western structure that we are trying to set up.

The Nigerian way of life or work ethics could be discribed as "Lazy" compared to the western or European because the European evolved in an environment where he always had to keep track of time; he had only a few months of warmth, then comes the cold period that forced him to retire. Consequently certain activities had to be done only with a certain time frame. So they evolved a culture where one always had to be on the go.


The African, our fore fathers, were more "laid back" because they could afford to; and hence they evolved cultures of slow moving, peaceful, laid back life.

When I used the word "lazy" I mean "laid back, or not needing to be in a haste." The principle is that people adapt to their environments. Today the crumbling economy has added another threat to the Nigerian environment forcing the present day Nigerians to be more innovative and less lazy and more hardworking. We see Nigerians traveling out of the country all over the world doing al sorts of jobs Why? Because they need  to survive, they are forced to do so because of the crumbling economy in Nigeria. A Nigerian in a bad situation will work extremely hard if you give him the opportunity to, so will a whiteman, indian and etc; but when this bad situation is not there the individual, irrespective of where he came from, may not work so hard. It happened that after many centuries of having to be innovative in-order to survive, cultures incoprated this habit of being innovative into thier way of living; it became the fabrics of thier lives. While the people developing in areas where thy neednt to be innovative to survive devoloped a culture that does not value or encorage innovation.

So nobody is inherently lazy and it dosent matter wheather you are Nigerian or American; the bottom line is that people will do what they have to do to survive. The son of a wealthy American may end up being Lazy, while a poor Nigerian in America will work very hard. Our cultres evolved a "laid back" lifestyle, a lifestyle that became the fabric of the African life and made a print the attitudes of Africans; but the present economic crises in Africa is forcing us to let go of this "laid back" way of life. The warmth and confort that our forefathes had is now being denied the present Nigerians forcing them to evolve a different attitude. But nevertheless it will still take time before the we become innovative as Europeans.

The bottom line is that people react to dangers around them. These dangers could be from their Climate, crumbling econony, health issues and etc, it doesnt matter where the danger comes from poeple will react to it by developing means to survive it.

About the example that I gave with NEPA, let me explain further. The NEPA worker can afford to delay fixing a broken wire because "whats the worst that can happen in Nigeria when there is no electricity?" Also, the government can afford to toy with NEPA; after all whats the worst thing that can happen without electricity in Nigeria? Compare it with having no electricity during mid winter!! Lives will be lost; so the electric power suppliers had to be on thier guards always. And the government cannot afford not to give them enough money for the maintenance of ther equipements. Power failur during winter can affect all the sectors of the government whitin minutes.

So when I used the word "lazy" I dont mean it in a bad or demeaning way. Nigerians can be very hard working.

Krayola:

I then proceeded to give a map that illustrates occurrence of earthquakes in the last century to check how valid this claim was. If I could find one that went further back in history I would have provided it.

Chile, Peru, Nicaragua, India, Mexico, Algeria all have more earthquakes than USA and all of western Europe except Italy.  Even Papau New Guinea is on par with the USA as far as earthquakes go. My map was dismissed as not going far back enough in history.

Where is this link between Natural disasters and technological advancement? Let's leave that for now.

The link is in the map that you provided. List all the technological advancements and achievements done in earthqueck prevention and detection and tell me where those advancements were made. See how they correspond to the blue dots on your map above, in the areas where are more earthquacks. Look at all the contries that you listed and that all of them have earthquack detection programs. Look at how many seismologists came from those countries. Does Nigeria have seismologists?

Why single out earthquack; its easier to survive earthquack and than it is to live through other natural phenomonea like winter and etc.

Pastor AIO:

This is a very deep comment that ties in neatly with the topic of this thread.  The formulas of which you speak are not just any mathematical formulas but specifically LINEAR Formulas. 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linear_equation

Good grief. Where does one start to correct your misapprehensions? The element of climate plays a leading role in the development of culture in an environment. This does nothing to exclude the many other elements and factors at play. There is however scientific evidence for the pre-eminence of the climatic factor in this regard.

The current discourse on climatic effects on technology arose not from any "mathematical" or "linear" attempt to constrict things, but from the simple point that climatic change fits with a designed universe: the title in the OP is a snide inference querying the likelihood of linear patterns suited to functionalities emerging from a process of chance - this is a different point from the specific analysis of climate as a leading factor in the development of technological inclinations historically: the only link being that which justcool pointed out - namely that climatic conditions fit with the idea of a universe so designed for purpose. Contrary to both your and Krayola's insinuations, that derivative is neither a mathematical nor strict - linear formulation of any sort that attempts to cage or restrict the varied influences at play in human development: this point has been made on this thread to the point of being hoarse, for God's sake.

So nobody is attempting to compress diverse human imperatives into a singular mathematical or linear construct. The OP had a purpose for deploying the word "linear": and that was clearly with reference to patterns of design. So again, it seems to me that you do not take this discourse seriously for you are repeatedly trying to read absurdity into what is clearly and succintly expressed.

Krayola:

To summarize  Justcool's claims --> Countries with more dangers of natural disasters are the most technologically advanced. Nature is gentle to Nigeria hence the people are lazy and don't have good work ethic. i.e Nigerians are lazy because nature is kind to us and we don't have natural disasters.

That is not a good summary, because he did not make mention of natural disasters only. He has talked about climatic conditions as a whole. A better summary would be to state that a the more challenging the environment, the more innovative men are compelled to be in order to survive therein. I am sure even you will be hard pressed to dispute this.

Where is this link between Natural disasters and technological advancement? Let's leave that for now.

Earthquakes are rare sporadic occurences and as such it is most superficial to attempt to build an entire climatic argument based on such. Rather you must look to constant climatic factors that affect the way of life of a people and as such govern their culture. . .such as temperature.

Now. . . .  about climate and work ethic. My opponents have suggested a direct link between climate and character.

It beats me how you can even attempt to deny this. Take one year off and go unclothed to a tropical island in the carribean and attempt to survive there. Then take another one year off and go unclothed again to the woods in switzerland or the Alps, and try to survive there.

No be long tori dem go take tell you whish one hard pass. There is no doubt that one environment is more challenging and will compel you to build and innovate more if you will survive, whereas the other environment has virtually all the creature comforts already laid on by nature. I beats me silly that you can fail to see the simple and obvious fact that the nature of an environment determines the work that must be done in order to live successfully therein. This is soooo elementary and sooo damn obvious I am shamed to be bothered to waste precious time on the point.

Some 18th century  French philosopher,  by the name of Montesquieu came up with a theory, variations of which have appeared in all types of places. Just to give u some insight into his belief system
https://www.msu.edu/course/atl/125/fernandez/smedley.htm 

^^ I'm sure that kinda stuff sounds familiar to some of us. Laws govern everything, even human behavior. . . I beg to differ. Anyways, moving on

This is his theory.
From lecture notes of an economics prof at MIT  www.mit.edu/files/1064">http://econ-www.mit.edu/files/1064


For the record Montesquieu argued against slavery, except in some cases where he thought it was ok. .  (I suspect it was sarcasm tho. . .don't know his writing style well enough to be sure)

http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch15s4.html

Now. . . besides these quotes and comments on montesquieu, a philosopher, not a biologist, nor anthropologist, I can't find any academic sources linking  climate to work ethics. I am not convinced. My experience of Africa does not agree with that. You guys can decide for yourselves if you are convinced or not.

Hate him if you like. He is stating some home truths. People are forced to work harder to survive in harsher environments. That is indisputable.

Moving on to the most contentious of the issues being discussed, climate and technological ingenuity.

By technological ingenuity I mean an impulse to invent new stuff.

And where was the impulse to invent new stuff in Sub-Saharan Africa of the sort that would tend towards heat based technologies? Please joo.

The point I'm trying to make is that without a change in climate, this impulse appears and disappears in cultures. I think it's obvious there are other factors at play besides climate.

For the zillionth time Krayola, please stop deliberately and repeatedly trying to read absurdity into what is being said. Simply note as follows -

1. NOBODY has denied the existence of myriad other factors at play: that would be absurd - in the same way as you also said you do not deny climate plays a role.

2. What has been made clear is that Climate creates environments that challenge people and over-time prod them to develop innovative tendencies and approaches to survival.

3. Accordingly it is wrong for you to imagine that anybody is positing a situation whereby once it is cold, the suddenly innovation and industry magically appear instantly: these things take long and varied periods of time: and the nature of the environment etches itself into the approach that the people tend towards in their overall culture and technical imperatives.

4. This explains the ebb and flow of innovation: that it does not appear as a given constant at all times in all temperate regions. Many ancient innovations for example may suffice for the needs of a people for centuries even in such a zone: thus leading to a lull in innovation, whereas other factors may also play their hand in requiring them to innovate other things - war, being an example of such a factor.

5. Notwithstanding all of this the evidence remains that virtually all the innovative tendencies have arisen within the temperate regions.

At some point after the dark ages, Europe comes to life. they just start pumping out all kinds of stuff.

This statement is a failed internal inconsistency in itself. You cannot just state "after the dark ages" without ruminating on the factors that caused that period to recede, and the factors that led towards innovations. What caused the "after the dark ages". Why was there a different period following that period.

As I said, there is a natural ebb and flow to these things anyway, and it is absurd for you to seek a mechanical instanta sort of result based on the elements that we have outlined: rather over time a more challenging environment will still result in greater tendencies to innovation because challenges and necessities, like we all know, are the mothers of invention and innovation. Do you dispute this?

Further you cannot expect that even people in challenging environments would not have periods of depression?

This is all too mathematical and mechanical of you then: whereas you accuse others of being so!

My opponents say it was necessity, like the need for heat. OK. If this necessity was present in western europe, it was present in the east, north, china and everywhere else with cold climate. they all need heat, they all need food, they all need to get work done more efficiently, the all want to excel, i imagine, and they all have the same climate. We do not see the same technological creative impulse across the board. Why are these spurts of creativity seen only at certain locations at certain times, while climate is a constant. Until you can answer that, all you have is an abstract theory with no empirical data to back it up. And like I said without the specifics, I'm deaf.

1. Do you deny that a challenging environment forces people to innovate more than a less challenging environment?

2. Do you expect that such innovative people will live in a constant and fixed mindstate after that, never suffering social depressions, etc?

That answers your question. There will be an ebb and flow based on many factors, but overall greater innovation will still reside in more challenging environments. Indubitable fact.

I think Europe saw technology as something that could be exploited in a way that no one else did, whether for profit, for conquest, or just for creativity's sake. . . But i just don't see how one can put it on climate.

Take up my challenge: spend one year in the carribean and one year in the Alps.

No be by mouth: you sef go confess whish place you go work tire pass.

haha U guys wan kill person. I swear na time dey kill me. I honestly just no get time to debate otherwise this debate would have gone very differently. I have responses that will deal will all your concerns very well but it'll just take too long to try to express all of it and I just don't have that kinda time these days. U don forget say all those days wey i dey siddon here all day I still be student 4 unifasity so na efiko dey worry me.  Now I'm on the grind tryna make that $$.  My mind is just in a different place right now. Abeg make una no vex.

@justcool ABout the earthquake map I think I was responding to a specific post u made about earthquakes in california, and not the post I quoted in my previous post. Here are more with other natural disasters. I still don't see a direct correlation with technology.

I also think that judging the world by European standards is not the way to go. That kinda thought is responsible for the eradication of lots of cultures across the globe and was used to justify colonialism and slavery. The idea that there is something noble about goin, unprovoked, into a society, conquering it and imposing one's own way of life, religion, etc on them is one i find nauseating.  I don't think we, or latin america are better off because of the white man. There are people living in traditional societies, even in the amazon jungle, or deserts that live happier more fulfilled lives than us with our laptops and fancy stuff. Different societies value different things and no one way is superior to others. That kinda thought na im dem dey call cultural imperialism, or as fela talk, kolomentality. "Things Fall Apart" by Achebe comes to mind right about now.

The way that we interact and do things in our everyday lives seems "natural" to us.  We are unaware of our culture because we are so close to it and know it so well.  For most people, it is as if their learned behavior was biologically inherited.  It is usually only when they come into contact with people from another culture that they become aware that their patterns of behavior are not universal.

The common response in all societies to other cultures is to judge them in terms of the values and customs of their own familiar culture.  This is ethnocentrism  .  Being fond of your own way of life and condescending or even hostile toward other cultures is normal for all people.  Alien culture traits are often viewed as being not just different but inferior, less sensible, and even "unnatural."  For example, European cultures strongly condemn other societies that practice polygamy and the eating of dogs--behavior that Europeans generally consider to be immoral and offensive.  Likewise, many people in conservative Muslim societies, such as Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia, consider European women highly immodest and immoral for going out in public without being chaperoned by a male relative and without their bodies covered from head to toe so as to prevent men from looking at them.  Ethnocentrism is not characteristic only of complex modern societies.  People in small, relatively isolated societies are also ethnocentric in their views about outsiders.
Our ethnocentrism causes us to be shocked and even disgusted at attitudes about other animals in different cultures.  This North American woman
considers her dog to be a close friend and essentially a member of her own family.  In the Muslim world, dogs are generally considered to be dirty animals that
are likely to be kicked if they get in the way.  In some areas of Southeast Asia, dogs have multiple functions, including being a source of food for people.
Our ethnocentrism can prevent us from understanding and appreciating another culture.  When anthropologists study other societies, they need to suspend their own ethnocentric judgments and adopt a cultural relativity approach.  That is, they try to learn about and interpret the various aspects of the culture they are studying in reference to that culture rather than to the anthropologist's own culture.  This provides an understanding of how such practices as polygamy can function and even support other cultural traditions.  Without taking a cultural relativity approach, it would otherwise be difficult, for example, to comprehend why women among the Masai   cattle herding people of Kenya might prefer to be one of several co-wives rather than have a monogamous   marriage.
Taking a cultural relativity approach is not only useful for anthropologists.  It is a very useful tool for diplomats, businessmen, doctors, and any one else who needs to interact with people from other societies and even other subcultures within their own society.  However, it can be emotionally difficult and uncomfortable at first to suspend one's own cultural values in these situations.

http://anthro.palomar.edu/culture/culture_2.htm




@deepsight Na person wey u go kill u dey find. I go respond as soon as I can. I know this Nairaland fit suck person in and I'm tryin to avoid getting sucked back in. . . . . Just so u know that french guy's theory is not taught as a valid theory. . . just used to communicate a chronology of thought on the issue from past times till present. Just wanna clear that up so u don't think it's valid cause it's in someone's lecture notes. I just posted the source for transparency reasons.

Here are some links to some papers please read em if u get time. They deal with some of the issues u raised. Very interesting  and educative. U know me I only deal with reputable academic sources so u know it ain't bull$hit. God bless. http://faculty.ucc.edu/egh-damerow/renaissance.htm   http://calteches.library.caltech.edu/657/2/Technology.pdf  
http://press.princeton.edu/chapters/i9007.pdf 

OK,   i no do again. o da bo.

Deep Sight:

Good grief. Where does one start to correct your misapprehensions? The element of climate plays a leading role in the development of culture in an environment. This does nothing to exclude the many other elements and factors at play. There is however scientific evidence for the pre-eminence of the climatic factor in this regard.

Please sir, present the scientific evidence. Or reference the study (currently viable) that states this.

Deep Sight:

The current discourse on climatic effects on technology arose not from any "mathematical" or "linear" attempt to constrict things, but from the simple point that climatic change fits with a designed universe: the title in the OP is a snide inference querying the likelihood of linear patterns suited to functionalities emerging from a process of chance - this is a different point from the specific analysis of climate as a leading factor in the development of technological inclinations historically: the only link being that which justcool pointed out - namely that climatic conditions fit with the idea of a universe so designed for purpose. Contrary to both your and Krayola's insinuations, that derivative is neither a mathematical nor strict - linear formulation of any sort that attempts to cage or restrict the varied influences at play in human development: this point has been made on this thread to the point of being hoarse, for God's sake.

So nobody is attempting to compress diverse human imperatives into a singular mathematical or linear construct. The OP had a purpose for deploying the word "linear": and that was clearly with reference to patterns of design. So again, it seems to me that you do not take this discourse seriously for you are repeatedly trying to read absurdity into what is clearly and succintly expressed.

I found the rest of this hard to read. I couldn't really make sense of it.

This post, unfortunately derailed badly!

Pastor AIO:

Please sir, present the scientific evidence. Or reference the study (currently viable) that states this.

PROVIDED extensively already. Sir if you are too lazy or too arrogant to read links, simply state so. Some of the links i provided were studies and research work by Harvard and Yale Scientists.

I found the rest of this hard to read. I couldn't really make sense of it.

Don't worry i will find time to translate it into Yoruba. Maybe that will help you.

Deep Sight:

PROVIDED extensively already. Sir if you are too lazy or too arrogant to read links, simply state so. Some of the links i provided were studies and research work by Harvard and Yale Scientists.

Don't worry i will find time to translate it into Yoruba. Maybe that will help you.

I wouldn't say laziness or arrogance. Rather I was too caught up in the festive period to really give anything full attention. I'll come back to Nairaland properly once everything's settled.

a Yoruba translation would be wonderful. Please do.

Deep Sight:

Don't worry i will find time to translate it into Yoruba. Maybe that will help you.

Pastor AIO:

a Yoruba translation would be wonderful.  Please do. 

LOL at Yoruba. 

Ol' boy this thread na real wa-ya o!  

@Pastor AIO: Please can you email me, I would like to run a little meta-Nairaland conversation with you? If you want, you can get a disposable email address (e.g. at mailinator.com), specify an adequate email lifespan and post the email here, then I can email you there (I promise not to be a bother). or you can mail me at myusername@yahoo.com 

Thanks in advance.

Ok