/edu/ - Education

I think the book guns germs and steel will help you. The bell curve is pretty much garbage and is pretty much a joke for you to post that unscientific nonsense here, the question is worth discussion but cool it with the /pol/ pixelated jpg propaganda please.

"97% of all generally agreed major historical accomplishments in arts and sciences since 14th century made by males" Do you take this at face value? Can you not see how retarded this is? Women couldn't go to university no shit there are less female academics. We literally use arabic numberals, is Greece Northern Europe? A lot of science and art came from there buddy… Who the fuck says what's a major accomplishment in art?

>low Chinese Nobel prize winners for population
The image implies this is genetics, could it be that the Nobel prize is a western institution and therefore has biases? Could it be that they've only recently come out of insane amounts of poverty?

>97% of accomplishments in science came from Europe and North America
Oh I thought Northern Europe had a monopoly on science? Same number, 97% again? Sounds like someone can't analyse some data to me

>muh jews steal
I don't want to take the bait but did you really not have a less retarded image

>>1016
They should do this for 5th century BC to 15th century. Northern Europe would have little to show for.

>>1016
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'

>>1017
Yes, I should have been more specific (though I did saw to ignore race in the OP), it's obviously a /pol/ meme but I wanted to talk about the development of different civilizations. Should have chosen a different pic, definitely.

>>1017
>low Chinese Nobel prize winners for population
This can be easily btfo’ed by just mentioning how Portugal’s only Nobel prize winner of note was the guy that invented and popularized lobotomy, Antonío Moniz. To this day the Nobel still refused to take this back even with the request of the Portuguese medical establishment.

>>1017
>guns germs and steel
When will this meme die?
> Women couldn't go to university no shit there are less female academics.
Man outperform women in fields like medicine (which are around 80% female) right now.
>>1019
>if it's "muh genetics" then why was europe just as 'primitive' for most of history?
The genome of a population changes across time. Europeans were primitive and then became more peaceful after 1300.
>>1122
>can't argue with statistics if you got one example

In the past three or four centuries most nations in Asia, Latin America and Africa have been the subject of colonial rule. In this colonial rule, the masses of people did not get fundamental education easily. Uncontrolled famines, genocides, the stealing of local resources, mangling of local industries and businesses, all occurred in colonially ruled areas in the World.

As an example, let's take India. Before British rule, the major empire in India was the Mughal empire. The Mughal empire was one of the greatest forces in the World at its peak, the gross domestic product (GDP) of India in 1600 was estimated at about 22% of the world economy, the second largest in the world, behind only Ming China but larger than Europe. By 1700, the GDP had increased to 24% of the world economy, even greater than Qing China and Western Europe. Real wages and living standards in 18th-century Mughal Bengal and South India were higher than in Britain, which in turn had the highest living standards in Europe. According to economic historian Paul Bairoch, India as well as China had a higher GNP per capita than Europe up until the late 18th century.
Up until 1750, India produced about 25% of the world's industrial output

During the Mughal era, there were great advances in observational astronomy, metallurgy, chemistry and other sciences.

After the decline of the Mughal Empire due to the weak rule of the late Mughal emperors as well as British interference in Mughal and municipal court, the British cemented themselves as the sole rulers in India, officially after the 1857 War of Independence.
The literacy rate in 1872 during British rule was only 3.2%

>>1125 (me)

In the colonial era, the community-funded gurukul system and temple-based charity education, began to decline as the centrally funded institutions promoted by the British began to gradually take over and the British budget for education of the entire country was less than half of the budget for the city of New York at the time.

The Indian literacy rate before the East Indian Company's interference was also quite low, however this resembled Western European literacy rates at the time. India still did have issues with mass-literacy before British rule, however. India had an ever-growing population and the gurukul system mainly accommodated "upper-class" people. The democratization of education in madrassas and other institutes during the Mughal era did however greatly benefit the literacy of many in the sub-continent.

It was after the British Empire rotted that mass-education could be implemented to a great extent in India.

>>1125
>In this colonial rule, the masses of people did not get fundamental education easily. Uncontrolled famines, genocides, the stealing of local resources, mangling of local industries and businesses, all occurred in colonially ruled areas in the World.
None of those things are unique to colonial subjects.
>Up until 1750, India produced about 25% of the world's industrial output
And immediately after the industrial revolution happened. No shit India's percentage of the world's industrial output is going to shrink if peasants have to compete against steam engines.
>The literacy rate in 1872 during British rule was only 3.2%
As opposed to what? And how does that even matter? The scientific advances of Europe began in 1600 with India nowhere to be seen. The time frame you are talking about is 200 years thereafter.

>>1124
>Man outperform women in fields like medicine (which are around 80% female) right now.
That’s the feature of bourgeois society desu. In bourgeois world women don’t do engineering, but in USSR they were.

>>1128
>And immediately after the industrial revolution happened. No shit India's percentage of the world's industrial output is going to shrink if peasants have to compete against steam engines.
So the stealing of resources from Indian industries has no play here? The British still exploited many industries in India for valuable materials to sell for greater prices.

>None of those things are unique to colonial subjects.
They are in comparison to the education of Western European citizens. See pic related.

>As opposed to what? And how does that even matter? The scientific advances of Europe began in 1600 with India nowhere to be seen.
Eh? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_science_and_technology_in_the_Indian_subcontinent#Late_Medieval_and_Early_Modern_periods_(1206%E2%80%931858_CE)

>>1125
>The literacy rate in 1872 during British rule was only 3.2%
Among Hindus, literacy was always limited due to cast system.

>>1133
I outlined that before. However it was still greater than during the Mughal era. Plus, madrassas and Hindu schools were given funding by the government

>>1132
>So the stealing of resources from Indian industries has no play here?
Yeah. After the end of colonial occupation of India in 1850 Britain increases it's GDP. So Britain is not dependent upon India and most likely it's the other way around. India eventually comes to enjoy the fruit of the industrial revolution and capitalism which improves their material wealth. If at the end of the day India's wealth increases then what oppression are we really talking about?
>They are in comparison to the education of Western European citizens.
India isn't even in that graph.
>History_of_science_and_technology_in_the_Indian_subcontinent
Missing the point. Europe's list of achievements after 1600 is greater.

>>1137
>After the end of colonial occupation of India in 1850 Britain increases it's GDP.
End of colonial occupation of India in 1850? What?

>>1137
>India eventually comes to enjoy the fruit of the industrial revolution and capitalism which improves their material wealth.
The only people who enjoyed the fruit of the industrial revolution in India were the national bourgeois.
>If at the end of the day India's wealth increases then what oppression are we really talking about?
“Some recent research suggests that British rule did little for India in economic terms. Britain gained hugely from ruling India, but most of the wealth created was not invested back into the country. For example, from 1860 to about 1920, economic growth in India was very slow - much slower than in Britain or America.”
“In 1820 India's GDP was 16% of the world total, by 1870 it had fallen to 12% and by 1947 had fallen further to 4%. India's per-capita income remained mostly stagnant during the Raj, with most of its GDP growth coming from an expanding population. From 1850 to 1947 India's GDP per capita had grown only slightly by 16%, from $533 to $618 in 1990 international dollars.”
“Indian textiles were banned from import in the Calico Acts of 1720.

After the British victory over the Mughal Empire (Battle of Buxar, 1764) India was deindustrialized by successive EIC, British and colonial policies (see Calico Act above).”
“Yet as the British cotton industry underwent a technological revolution during the late 18th to early 19th centuries, the Indian industry stagnated and was deindustrialized.”
“British control of trade, and exports of cheap Manchester cotton are cited as significant factors, though Indian textiles had still maintained a competitive price advantage compared to British textiles until the 19th century. Several historians point to the colonization of India as a major factor in both India's deindustrialization and Britain's Industrial Revolution. British colonization forced open the large Indian market to British goods, which could be sold in India without any tariffs or duties, compared to local Indian producers who were heavily taxed. In Britain protectionist policies such as bans and high tariffs were implemented to restrict Indian textiles from being sold there, whereas raw cotton was imported from India without tariffs to British factories which manufactured textiles. British economic policies gave them a monopoly over India's large market and raw materials such as cotton. India served as both a significant supplier of raw goods to British manufacturers and a large captive market for British manufactured goods.”

>>1137
>India isn't even in that graph.
Retard, can you not compare data? 3.2% in 1872 for India. Now compare that with the rest of the countries during that time.

>>1139
>In 1820 India's GDP was 16% of the world total, by 1870 it had fallen to 12% and by 1947 had fallen further to 4%
% of world's total GDP is the most dishonest metric you could possibly use. Just going by wikipedia, India's total GDP is $125.7 billion and $213.7 billion from 1850 to 1947 respectively. You make it look like their GDP loses 66% of their value, when it actually increases by over 100%. Fuck off i won't even read the rest of your post.
>>1140
>3.2% in 1872 for India. Now compare that with the rest of the countries during that time.
Yeah so India has a low literacy rate compared to the rest of the world and somehow that proves how all the scientific advances made by the the rest of the world are unfair? How about India's literacy rate and scientific lack of achievement have the same underlying cause.

>>1141
>% of world's total GDP is the most dishonest metric you could possibly use. Just going by wikipedia, India's total GDP is $125.7 billion and $213.7 billion from 1850 to 1947 respectively. You make it look like their GDP loses 66% of their value, when it actually increases by over 100%. Fuck off i won't even read the rest of your post.
So global GDP doesn’t matter? Although India’s GDP grew, it didn’t grow to a meaningful extent when we consider global GDP.

>Yeah so India has a low literacy rate compared to the rest of the world and somehow that proves how all the scientific advances made by the the rest of the world are unfair? How about India's literacy rate and scientific lack of achievement have the same underlying cause.
I wasn’t saying that anything was “unfair”, I was saying that the lack of literacy is a reason for the lack of scientific innovations. When almost all of the general population isn’t even literate, it’s obvious why there won’t be many scientific inventions or innovations in the area.

>>1142
>So global GDP doesn’t matter?
Yes.
>Although India’s GDP grew, it didn’t grow to a meaningful extent when we consider global GDP.
Oh well sucks for them.
>I was saying that the lack of literacy is a reason for the lack of scientific innovations.
And i am saying that both literacy and scientific innovations are interconnected. If your nation does not care about one it most certainly does not care about the other.

>>1143
great argument.

>>1143]
NTA.
>i am saying that both literacy and scientific innovations are interconnected
US has some of the worst literacy rates, yet they are a country that publishes the most scientific papers: https://www.wyliecomm.com/2019/03/us-literacy-rate/

>These countries were the year's the largest contributors to papers published in the 82 leading journals tracked by the Nature Index.
1. United States of America
2. China
3. Germany
4. United Kingdom
5. Japan
6. France
7. Canada
8. Switzerland
9. South Korea
10. Australia
https://www.natureindex.com/news-blog/top-ten-countries-research-science-twenty-nineteen
They should be grouped near the top of the scale, yet they are all over the place (e.g. SK has higher literacy rate than France, yet published less papers than France).

>>1145
But the US has a greater population and many intellectuals and scientists from different countries work there

>>1145
But when we compared India’s literacy rate of approx. 3% with the US’ approx. 85% at the time, there’s a staggering difference

>>1145
So for the fun of it i analyzed the correlation between literacy rate and scientific papers per capita. It turns out the correlation is .3 which means my blatantly obvious statement is correct.

>>1145
>in the 82 leading journals
All of them in English, I assume?

>>1150
Why should that matter? Only 4 of the 10 listed countries have English as a first language, and they're evenly spread out: 1, 4, 7, 10.

>>1151
Because fuck English, that's why. If those Anglo-countries had to learn a foreign language to publish scientific papers their output would halve if not completely disappear because they are all stupid shits incapable of learning languages.

>>1153
Eat a snickers.

>>1146
This. Even scientists from developed countries move to USA.

>>1145
>imperialist countries have bigger universities
imagine my shock

>>1153
For better or for worse (worse, mostly) English is the de facto language of science and the world. At this point, it is those who refuse to learn English, who sequester themselves in their own language that are holding back progress. Spain has it's own internet and language subculture, Germans and Russians too, Chinese and Japanese as well, French too. So now I am expected to learn Spanish, German, French, Russian, Chinese and Japanese fluently just so I could speak to those people instead of them just learning English? I'd be open to all of us learning a common language like Esperanto, but I don't see a big push for it.

And for the record, English is not my first language. I'm also not opposed to learning languages, I am learning one now because I live in a non-English speaking country that isn't my own. I also speak a little Spanish and I did five and two years of Italian and German, respectively. But I have no illusions that without years of intense study and immersion I could get close to a level in those languages where I can understand their scientific literature. Most people don't have time for that.

We can analyse history for why English is the dominant language but crying about spilled milk isn't going to change the fact that for now we're stuck with English. You can get with the times, or continue complaining that Chinese scientists only learned English and not every language on the planet.

>>1016
"The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers: Economic Change and Military Conflict from 1500 to 2000" by Paul Kennedy is a decent materialist analysis of this question.

Free download of the book: https://b-ok.cc/book/1202051/0a82b6

The tl;dr answer is that the geopolitical fragmentation of Europe and constant wars helped to spur technological innovation (that has uneven benefits for different places, ex. Britain benefits more than Portugal from coal mining techniques used to drive steam engines).

Colonizing countries generally didn't get wealthy due to their colonial conquests, colonial conquest was generally the result of an economic and technological gap between Britain and the Mughals, for example, that had been growing for some time.

>>1141
>Yeah so India has a low literacy rate compared to the rest of the world and somehow that proves how all the scientific advances made by the the rest of the world are unfair? How about India's literacy rate and scientific lack of achievement have the same underlying cause.

Yes, they do, which is the comparative underdevelopment of India, something only as recent as the last couple hundred years. If your argument is that this is due the inherent nature of Indian genetics then I encourage you to walk into the cafeteria of any large tech company or university in the United States.

it doesn't matter because IQ fluctuates with each generation based on environmental factors on pregnant women.
the reason the Mesopotamian got to civilization first is because they were on the fertile crescent, where farming was easy as fuck and they had loads of surplus resources to feed the brains of their offspring.
there are also events in history where women undergo poverty due to some geopolitical event and then their children come out brainlets.
basically IQ is epigenetic

>>1124
Are you sure it’s not 97% female