When searching about this subject I came across this thread: https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2000lw/why_didnt_native_american_and_african/
And the answers were very informative and helpful. I live in Brazil, and when I wonder about the history of my country, I find myself questioning why the native population was dominated and largely executed by another culture. Thinking about how the human ancestors of the native american, african, european and asian are probably very close, I can't stop considering climate differences as a factor in the formation of cultures. With exceptions, great part of the tropical societies of the world were colonized by europeans and others. Could it be possible that the difficult cold climate of the european region - something that is negative to agriculture and also brings people together, in the sense of promoting the development of refuges from the cold (that could become cities) - have induced the exploration of further lands? And could it be that the climate prompted a "need" to the creation of ships and armory and weapons, which wasn't ever the case for the thriving successfully managed tropical societies, who had plentiful resources to live by, thus becoming "vulnerable" to attacks? I'm sorry if I sound rude in any way. I am a biologist, but I am really interested in history. I want to make it very clear that in any way I am considering the colonizing societies of the Age of Discovery more evolved than the others. I really would like an anthopological approach on this matter. Living on an ex-european colony I find myself very intrigued with all of the scars from the exploration and slavery era. I believe all cultures are beautiful on their way, and I do not agree with social darwinism. Sorry for the very long text.
Could it be possible that the difficult cold climate of the european region - something that is negative to agriculture and also brings people together, in the sense of promoting the development of refuges from the cold (that could become cities) - have induced the exploration of further lands?
How would you reconcile their theory with the fact that civilization was "invented" in warm regions? Mesopotamia, Egypt, the Indus Valley - these were all warm climates that produced the earliest civilizations, domesticated the first animals, raised the first cities?
With exceptions, great part of the tropical societies of the world were colonized by europeans and others.
That seems more the consequence of social, economic and technological changes rather than climate. The voyages of exploration began with the need to find alternate trade routes to India and China, because the old routes were taken over by Islamic empires that began taxing the trade. Most colonies began as trading posts of companies which themselves owe their origin to capitalism, which enabled private individuals to raise enormous amounts of cash needed to build ships and risk them on multi-year trade voyages to distant lands.
Those are social, economic and political changes, where do you see the direct hand of climate? Or more recently, the industrial revolution produced technological change, providing Europeans simultaneously with a surfeit of manufactured goods, as well as the need for colonies to source raw materials and to sell finished products.
Climate may have indirect effects. For example, tropical diseases such as sleeping sickness have very likely kept large parts of Africa from developing sufficient population density to create large empires. Obviously, not all ecosystems are equally productive and deserts and polar regions may not produce enough food calories to support much human activity.
But other than that, I don't see any particular dominant role for climate.