Are the Desert People Winning?

It's the ultimate culture clash.
The desert mentality, against the rain forest mentality. If it were up to me, I'd go with the rain forest view. This is a blog about a Discover magazine article. In it, Robert Sapolsky compares two different kinds of cultures as equals; the desert, and the rain forest.

I have no idea why the desert culture seems to be winning, but I can guess. The desert cultures had to fight for survival in every aspect of their lives. It was a constant battle between the people and their surroundings for possesion of the precious little resources available. Everyone had to hoard as much as they could find, and it really was a survival of the fittest. Later on, these behaviours translated to a fear their way of life will not survive, so they faced everything as a war in order to be the conquerors, and force their ideas on others as right.

On the other hand, their tropic-dwelling counterparts are much more assured of their survival, so they were able to more naturally adopt a laid back lifestyle, still based on survival, but more comfortable and confident with the way things were.

Obviously if you go back to a time where everyone was just trying to survive against the elements, everyone had their set of problems, but according to this cross-cultural study, those who lived in more lush climates have built up very different cultures; ones that were much more open to all opinions, and naturally comfortable with a variety. With differences. Other more typically dry (desert or ice) cultures were more the kill and conquer ones, and these two different approaches are very much alive in the world today. They were carried through religion and other traditional behaviours.

I would like to think that in Toronto culture there are no more constraints that religion or tradition used to have regarding rights and freedoms, but unfortunately that is not so. I am afraid I cannot quote directly, but I once read in another piece of literature that even though religion has lost much of its power and ability to govern peoples' behaviour in larger urban cultures, people are still fishing around, holding onto the same beliefssimply out of stubbornness. You know, the old constricting, "this is the way it was always done". Long after the reason is gone, the wherefore keeps hold.

This article is fascinating for me, and this book; A Cross-Cultural Summary by Robert Textor, would also be interesting to browse through. It would be interesting to see the patterns between cultures and draw my own conclusions. I am becoming more interested in cultures as I seek to define myself, and look for more liberal lifestyle approaches.

Sapolsky remarks that these cross-cultural examinations are often marked by people crying "racist!" at European cultures (ie the "conquerors") using these studies simply for their own proof "that northern European ecosystems produced superior cultures, more advanced morals, technologies, and intellects, and better schnitzel."

Well, they aren't superior. They are just different. That is probably why the subject of culture and differences are being subdued and censored, but that's another post. One difference: desert dwellers are often monotheistic, those who live in the tropics, polytheistic. Millions think monotheistic is better, and would gladly kill or convert (all throughout the centuries, not just current events) to prove they were right. These different climates explain family behaviours, belief systems, sexual patterns, militarism, hunting, what people eat, on and on and on. The main message: your culture is a product of your ecosystems. People need to do that to survive.

When you get to the section "Which kind of culture would you prefer to get traded to?" Sapolsky's writing takes off. It's a brilliant and powerful article. It's also short and sweet, and worth the cover price of $6.50 Cdn. Well, that and Discover is usually a good magazine.