I think the fact that the majority of the 'rich' nations population consisting of Europe and North America (Japan/SK/AU/NZ are a smaller population base) speaks to this.
You could just ask why those 2 regions are so rich right now and the answer i think has much to do with military dominance starting a few hundred years back.
The climate line seems to be artificially pushed by "Look the southern hemisphere below latitude -40 is as wealthy as europe/NA above latitude 40". There's literally <2million people below latitude -40... (that's the top of Tasmania, part of NZ and patagonia for reference) How can they suggest what they are suggesting without consideration of this? As in the data of "oh look southern hemisphere is rich near the poles too" is just based on a handful of people living there.
Don't worry. In 20 years, people with no knowledge of history will be writing articles asking why are the richest countries those with some random fact that unites China and India.
Human societies, viewed as systems, have changes occurring over decades and centuries. Taking short snapshots will fool you about the nature of these systems.
There is no such thing as national average IQ. There are things that make claims about average IQs, but they're based on fraudulent data (the data basically has to be fraudulent, because nobody has ever conducted a global national survey of average IQ).
> You could just ask why those 2 regions are so rich right now and the answer i think has much to do with military dominance starting a few hundred years back.
That doesn't seem as explanatory as much as it just pushes the explanation further away in time. How did Europe arrive at "military dominance starting a few hundred years back?" At which point we just start quoting Charles Mann and Jared Diamond and the more droll will make subtle remarks about how the North Americans' syphilis really did a number on the European monarchies.
You could just ask why those 2 regions are so rich right now and the answer i think has much to do with military dominance starting a few hundred years back.
The climate line seems to be artificially pushed by "Look the southern hemisphere below latitude -40 is as wealthy as europe/NA above latitude 40". There's literally <2million people below latitude -40... (that's the top of Tasmania, part of NZ and patagonia for reference) How can they suggest what they are suggesting without consideration of this? As in the data of "oh look southern hemisphere is rich near the poles too" is just based on a handful of people living there.