if it's "muh genetics" then why was europe just as 'primitive' for most of history? why were the superior teutons living in huts while persians, chinese, mesoamericans etc. built incredible monuments?
>what were the material conditions that made europe the breeding ground for innovation
- the north european plain and the eurasian steppe facilitate the rapid spread of technology across all eurasia. remember, writing was only invented 4 times, and not a single time in europe.
- not all crops and animals can be domesticated; europe, unlike many other regions, had access to an excellent range of animals for labour, food, textiles, etc. and a nutritious range of crops
- europe was not technologically ahead until about the 16th century, before which the islamic world and china were as advanced if not moreso
this only explains why eurasia was more advanced than sub-saharan africa, the americas and pacific islands etc. why?
- technology, animals, crops could not spread so easily to sub-saharan africa, as different climate zones and physical barriers like the sahara desert and lake nasser (an area of the nile that was very difficult to navigate) slowed it even more. technology nonetheless did spread - ethiopia developed its own script for instance - but a very slow rate
- the americas and pacific islands were colonised by humans much later than eurasia, they simply had less time to develop. nonetheless, advanced civilisations existed such as the aztecs, incans, tongoans and hawaiians.
to answer why europe ascended ahead of china etc. in the 16th century, you'd have to look into the material conditions that caused the renaissance, but this is enough to demonstrate it isn't 'muh genetics'