Tomas Pueyo Profile picture
Dec 7, 2021 14 tweets 4 min read Read on X
Why Europeans colonized America before Africa, in two maps and one story:

Map 1:
Northern Africa, bordering the Mediterranean, has been part of the Eurasian cultures for thousands of years.

South of that, it didn't get conquered until the 19th century, while America got conquered 3 centuries earlier despite being farther. Why?
For centuries, there was the Sahara barrier. The distance to cross was just too big. Impossible by foot, and only possible by sea through the Red Sea in the East, on the path to India, because of inhabitable stops on both sides
I explain in this article why going beyond ports was really hard. Basically: no Suez canal, hard to build/transport fleets, far from home, few local stops... Trade possible, invasion hard

So this is why, for centuries, Subsaharan Africa was out of reach.

unchartedterritories.tomaspueyo.com/p/the-splinter…
But why was it out of reach once ships could sail all the way to America? Couldn't armies just sail past the Sahara?

They could. And then they'd die.
Because of this guy.
Map 2:
As Europe grew and its ships improved, they immediately started sailing down the western coast.

But people and cattle putting a foot in Africa dropped dead immediately when they caught Malaria
So for centuries, Europeans had no presence in Africa except for a few trading posts on the coast. This is from 1850
What changed?
Quinine.
Now Europeans survived in Africa.
What were failed invasions before could now start.
And this is the change from 1880 to 1914, just before WWI. This period is called the Scramble for Africa. Just about 30 years.
So these two maps explain why Europeans didn't colonize Africa until the end of the 19th century: the Sahara barrier and the Malaria barrier.

Obviously, malaria breeds where there's heavy rainfall, so the quick transition between Sahara and Malaria areas was crucial.
Here's another thread on why Africa is the way it is
And one on why the Caribbean is the way it is
And one on why China is the way it is

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Tomas Pueyo

Tomas Pueyo Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @tomaspueyo

Dec 5
Why are the top 20 US cities where they are? (including metropolitan areas): 🧵

1. New York: It became the trading hub between the Great Lakes and the Atlantic regions when it built its canals through the Appalachians

Image
2. Los Angeles:
• Trading hub between the world (Pacific) and the US (railways)
• Weather + biggest coastal valley on the Pacific➡️agriculture & cheap building
• Oil
• Landscapes + far from the East Coast centers of power➡️Attracted the film industry

Image
3. Chicago:
Trading hub between the Mississippi River Basin and the the Great Lakes area (and hence the world, via New York)

Image
Read 20 tweets
Nov 26
People think we must shrink the world's population to be happy, but they're wrong

A world with shrinking population would be decaying, poor, brutal, violent, hopeless

A world with 100 billion people would be dynamic, rich, innovative, peaceful, hopeful
🧵 Image
1. In the last 2 centuries, the world got better as the population exploded:
• Richer
• Live older
• Lower child mortality Image
Image
Image
Image
• Fewer homicides
• Fewer war deaths
• Fewer hours worked
• Lower share of poor people
And much more: fewer infections, diseases, accidents. More racial equality, sexual equality. Instant access to all the knowledge in the world. We can go anywhere, whenever we want... Image
Image
Image
Read 17 tweets
Nov 19
We can raise our population on Earth from 8 billion to 100B humans if we want to

Would we starve?
Be too crowded?
Would pollution explode?
Ecosystems collapse?

No! Don't believe alarmist degrowthers. This is why they're wrong: 🧵 Image
Degrowthers put a label to "how many humans can the Earth sustain": carrying capacity

Their estimates vary wildly
Wait, what? What a surprise, the mode of their estimates is 8B—exactly the current number of ppl on Earth

WHAT A COINCIDENCE!Image
Or they lack imagination: OMG the Earth is already on the brink. Surely not one more soul fits here!

And then they try to find out what limits we might be hitting. Their most common fears are:
1. Room
2. Food
3. Water
4. Energy
5. Pollution
6. Resources
Let's look at each:
Read 20 tweets
Nov 13
Can desalinated water deliver a future of infinite water?
Yes!
• It's cheap
• It will get even cheaper
• Limited pollution
• Some countries already live off of it

We can transform deserts into paradise. And some countries are already on that path:🧵 Image
Crazy fact:
Over half of Israel's freshwater is desalinated from the Mediterranean!
And the vast majority of its tap water is desalinated too!
And it costs less than municipal water in a city like LA! Image
It's not the only country. Saudi Arabia is the biggest desalinator in the world. 50% of its drinking water is desalinated. It's 30% in Singapore, a majority of water in the UAE...

What if we applied this, but at scale across the world? Image
Read 18 tweets
Nov 12
President-elect @realDonaldTrump could own the environmentalists by solving global warming on his first day in office, and do it for 0.1% of current climate investments

Here's how: sulfate injection 🧵 Image
1. GLOBAL WARMING
2024 is the 1st year we pass 1.5ºC above pre-industrial levels
This is caused by CO2
Some side-effects of this CO2 are good, but it's undeniable that the planet is warming fast, and it could create some nasty pbms Image
1. GLOBAL WARMING
2024 is the 1st year we pass 1.5ºC above pre-industrial levels
This is caused by CO2
Some side-effects of this CO2 are good, but it's undeniable that the planet is warming fast, and it could create some nasty pbms
Read 18 tweets
Nov 9
Should you be able to experiment on your own cancer?

This expert virologist did. It was the 3rd time her cancer appeared. It didn't bode well. So she injected viruses in her tumor and it shrunk.

But most journals didn't want to publish her results. Why? Because they're dumb 🧵
Beata Halassy got cancer in 2016, then again in 2018, and again in 2020. That looked awfully bad. She knew if she continued in the traditional route, her cancer might eventually prevail. So she decided to try what she knew about: viruses Image
Here's the theory:
1. Select a virus that is likely to attack your target cancer cells
2. Because cancer cells neutralize the immune system, they're more likely to be killed by viruses than healthy cells
Read 17 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us!

:(