A friend sent me a link to a very interesting piece from the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation discussing why, as a general rule, hot countries are poor and cold countries are rich.
I’ve previously argued, along similar lines, that Scotland’s diabolical climate was an instrumental factor in its development and its influence on the world (doubters, see “How the Scots Invented the Modern World: The True Story of How Western Europe’s Poorest Nation Invented Our World and Everything in it”, not written by a Scotsman I might add).
Historically, surviving in Scotland required not so much hard work as brute force. Scots became self-sufficient, resourceful and industrious by necessity (unlike the lily-livered English who by March each year were prancing through sun-dappled orchards while their Scottish counterparts were still digging potatoes out from three feet of permafrost*). Incidentally, the other predominant factor, according to Arthur Herman, the author, was being the first country in the world with near-universal education and literacy (borne of religious prerogative).
Many Scots, including my own great-grandmother, soon left the motherland in search of new and greener pastures. Of course, many of them gave up and settled for the frozen wastelands of Canada* instead, bringing this blog neatly back to the CBC piece:
Although, anyone that thinks hot countries are doomed to poverty clearly hasn’t seen the CIS parking lot at 8.15 am!
*Statements denigrating non-Scottish nations not necessarily factually or historically accurate