How did they go from mudhut dwelling barbarians to the most prosperous nations on earth?

How did they go from mudhut dwelling barbarians to the most prosperous nations on earth?

Attached: images (2).jpg (643x477, 43.92K)

that's just a psyop

The environment didn't allow lazyness nor degeneracy. Hunt food, kill other tribe, protect women. grug life.

which country would be berry tribe

I wouldn’t call them most prosperous. Only Norway is a petrostate right? They’re not out of the ordinary some advanced society.

hunter gatherers everywhere had very lazy lives, no different from one another for the most part.

Nordic material culture was about the same as most other hunter gatherers too, and when they got exposed to farming/pastoralism it didn't improve by a whole lot. Your logic doesn't make sense especially when there are much harsher conditions around the world that require more effort and intelligence yet those places are poor.

>How did they go from mudhut dwelling barbarians to the most prosperous nations on earth?
swedish admixture

Being white brought us greatness, but now we are great to a fault, and we try to accommodate lesser brown people out of literal and unironical pity. It has done us no good.

>most prosperous nations on earth

I think it involved their prefrontal cortex but correct me if I'm wrong.

>most prosperous
you haven't posted anglo countries though

it was all the resources we stole from afrikkka or so ive heard

Mudhut era was really short honestly, it was normal wooden longhouses since before the viking era started.

My ancestors threw the annoying and antisocial people out in the cold. Eventually the cream settled at the top to now feed the invading Hoard.

We are engineers and scientists on par with you - Polhem, Nobel etc.

Serious question. Is Environmental Determinism accepted in the Nordic countries as a theory of prosperity?

oil

>there are much harsher conditions around the world that require more effort and intelligence
Maybe those places are too harsh then, like Greenland. Don't know which places you are thinking about?
You can't claim Africa is difficult to survive in when they have barely needed to domesticate animals and can gather and hunt to this day. Of course the natural selection pressures looks different then.

No, because Nordic nations were poor as fuck until 20th century. Norway found oil and became rich so I guess you could argue for it in their case but Denmark, Sweden adn Finland just built up welfare states in the aftermath of WW2 and that enabled the uplifting of poor people thanks to the social democratic policies.

A harsh and unforgiving climate meant that people had to cooperate or die. A high trust culture forms the basis of any highly advanced society. That and a willingness to part with wealth to support a robust social safety net. Compare that to peoples who developed in tropical climes where the only skills that hypertrophied were those that involved looking for the first thing they could grab, eat or screw and then hot-footing it out of there. Low trust societies filled with greedy and selfish individuals predictably results in dysfunction, hardcore corruption and widespread poverty

1. No place is poor as fuck. We don't have gold and diamond reserves. We have created our wealth with ingenuity.
2. Why doesn't "social democratic policies" work in Africa which is extremely rich in natural resources?

No, it isn't but maybe it should?

Environmental Determinism is the need to develop according to environmental adversity. I don't think finding oil comes into it. But I did understand.

in fact, it is the most accepted hypothesis in the academic environment, but it is extremely debated. Thats why I asked. That's what he said but more complex.