Does environmental determinism have any validity anymore?

File: fedoraneckbeard.jpg (40KB, 487x491px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 487x491px

>Does environmental determinism have any validity anymore?

>>1882109
Nope. Severely btfo by history and common sense.

Take this one: men in harsh climes create civilizations. While Junglefaggots aren't inclined to do so because muh food is available everywhere.

Doesn't really answer India or Southeast Asia and honestly sounds like a theory someone who hasn't lived in a Jungle made up. In addition it doesn't take on several factors such as meme jungle tribes growing in population and necessitating more organization.

The way societies lived is determined more than their meme environment. I'm not saying that the environment has no major bearing on human societies - it fucking has- but it doesnt take into account other factors such as population growth, culture of a given group, the influence of other societies, nor random fucking chance.

>>1882112
Poe's law in full effect on that picture. mine craft and dwarf fortress kinda making me say satire, but who knows

Environmental probablism

>>1882177
Wouldn't environment palsy a huge role in the development of cultures and the rate of population growth? Obviously something like the Steppe can support far less people than Italy, and the resources available would have a large impact on what is used in their cultural and military traditions.

>>1882109

In it's hard form no but it would be insane to discount environmental influences. The wine vs beer divide in Europe, for example, is largely a result of environment (because not all of Europe can grow grapes).

>>1882335
You're right, landscape isn't irrelevant in the habits and cultures of peoples throughout history, but it definitely is not a deterministic factor in any great sense. Furthermore, the more complex the society the less relevant the landscape becomes for their habits and cultures. Instead a far more important factor is simply how the people inside and outside the state organise themselves and relate to each other.

>>1882387
Wouldn't the geography have a large impact on all of this though? I wouldn't suggest that it is the only factor, but it seems to make sense that it would be the prime factor in early stages of development.

For example, the lack of farm animals in Algonquin territory is probably a pretty important factor in why they didn't develop complex societies like the Mesopotamians did, among other things.

>>1882480
What about Siberian/Northern Europeans too, the chill factor had to have played a role in their agricultural development among other things

>>1882480
>>1882486

You're right in a way, but the thing is farm animals are the products of humans interacting with their environment, and not having access to standard European animals does not mean you cannot farm. Take Llamas in South America, Turkeys in Central and North America, and even dogs across the world as examples. Also, a lack of agriculture does not mean your society can not become complex - many nomadic peoples develop quite complex social structures between themselves and their neighbors.

The environment impacts what resources a group of humans have access to, but it does not impact how they use those resources, or how they grow as a society and gain more through hostile and peaceful interactions with other humans. The fundamental flaw with environmental determinism is that it demands similar climates produce similar results for a society - but even people groups who settle in the exact same places do not develop in the same manner.

Environment is an interesting factor when studying the development of a society, but it's like a natural law such as gravity, or a set of tools a people have available. The important part of the environment for history is the self evident fact that different people will do different things in an environment, and how they go about doing those things. Living on an island doesn't mean you have to fish, living in the desert doesn't lead to monotheism.