• Ben Matthews
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 day ago

    I think if you plotted political inclination as a function of distance from coast, globally, you might find quite a good correlation. Various plausible explanations. For example, in tougher mid-continental climates you need to store and protect stuff to survive the winter / dry-season, so people there evolved (including self-filtering migration) to have more tribal loyalty.

    • takeheart@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      16 hours ago

      Hmm always thought it’s cause big cities need big fresh water, that’s why there’s a good chance that historically they formed near streams/lakes. Typically near the coast rivers slow down and branch out, giving good access to natural resources and also trade. Trade increases prosperity and exposure to other cultures.

      • Ben Matthews
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        11 hours ago

        Indeed trade links relevant, so navigable rivers played a big role - before railways, our main transport was either boats or horses (or camels). Horses needed a lot of grass, which thrives in drier mid-continental climates where trees don’t survive wildfires. For example the Mongol empire was good at trade and connecting cultures, covered a huge area, but not (for long) near coasts, and still demanded intense tribal loyalty (elements of such culture was absorbed by the next empire which gradually pushed it back…).