Why were white europeans able to dominate the world?

Actually statically the Chinese are dominating the world. Population/genetically and language wise, they win the numbers game if you look at that as a basic measuring standard. However, the more mixed genetically a population becomes, the more laterally expressive it will be. The absorption of Neanderthal hominids into homo sapiens is a fact of history but there is no one factor that facilitated this transition. At 8 Billion and growing the human genome will continue to evolve more eclectically if ideological strategies don’t slow it down intentionally. Either way, at around 10 Billion persons, we are going to find ourselves in serious trouble where food production, energy and arable land and fresh water runs out and is not sustainable at the current growth curve. Genetic selection will then be more closely controlled through technology by a selective elite.

the constant striving to advance in all areas, philosophy , science, exploration, construction, medicine, mathematics, etc; also mercantilism, capitalism, individual rights

Protestant work ethic. I'm not sure why white Europeans are the most advanced and intelligent of the people historically or why white Americans are now but it sure appears that way. Even when we use others for a goal, like the Germans to get to the moon, the greatest advancements generally come from Europe pre-1800 and the USA post-1800.

A great example of this was the Monroe doctrine. The United States of America was the only country both smart enough and then mighty enough to call an entire hemisphere off limits to the rest of them.

Early on Africans and Indians welcomed the Europeans not knowing they would be taken advantage of and European weapons were already more advanced.

And now we've advanced from conquering the world we have a space force and if you Google "mission impact" you'll see we're blowing up things in outer space. Time to conquer the universe.

No they're #2 behind Ashkenazi Jews.

Because the Europeans we're evil and bad, and the rest of the world was good.

Am I doing political correctness right?

"taken advantage of"? Africans welcomed Europeans, so they could sell slaves to them.

Correct. The Bell Curve states this, and this is why Jews are overrepresented in Nobel Prizes and other high-IQ fields. If the requisite IQ (let's say for a discipline like physics) for a Nobel Prize is 175 or higher, that's only 4 SD above the average, compared to 5 SD for whites and 6 SD for blacks.

That's also why affirmative action is so stupid: the Left believes that every group inherently has the same average IQ, and that "discrimination" is the only reason for IQ/income differences. So, a person who's 3 SD above the mean (if their group's average IQ is 85) is only 130 IQ, while that's 151 IQ if you're Asian and 145 if you're white.

I'm mostly repeating an earlier post. Protestantism, but not Catholicism? Which produced the rise of the hospital? Catholicism (which was one with Eastern Orthodoxy until mid 11th century). Which produced the first few dozen universities? Catholicism. I'm not knocking the contributions of Protestantism, but it gave us neither the hospital, the university or the glories of a place such as Florence (I don't deny that there were great Protestant artists of northern Europe, but compare Florence with say Amsterdam or anywhere else). And "bank" has its origins in the Italian language. Here's an excerpt from Merriam-Webster for "bank:"

"The literal meaning of Italian banca was “bench,” but the word was also used for the benchlike counter at which an early money changer transacted business, and later to describe the money changer’s shop itself—the bank. When the banking trade spread from Italy to France, and then to England, the Italian word went with it and became our English bank."

The banking trade certainly has a root in Catholic culture.

There are about 35 lunar craters named for Jesuits (a subset of Catholics). The Jesuits are all too often traitors to Catholicism nowadays, but this indicates Catholic scientists made many significant contributions.

Read Jared Diamond's book Guns, Germs and Steel. Accidents of geography and circumstance favored the Europeans. Nothing whatever to do with genetics or race. Or so he says.

Long, well-reasoned posts won’t resolve the thread. There are posters who refuse to accept any answer other than genetic superiority as the one and only cause.

Well, certain groups have lower IQ and are more prone to crime. People who can trace their ancestry to the continent of Eurasia are the opposite, however.

There'a bout a 99% chance this thred is uo because rojo has refused to let mods delete it.

I can't imagine a group of mods ALL collectively going down the front page like this:

"Delete"

"Delete"

"Delete"

"OhHhh! hEres a GoOd oNE... KeEpeR!!!"

Nobel prize doesn't have a 'requisite IQ' , and I am not sure how you effectively test IQ in 3rd world illiterate areas, in the same way you do with university graduates

Another thing about this theory. The early explorers brought these things to feudal Japan. The Japanese quickly adopted the guns into their warfare. They already had steel but maybe they adopted better steel. They were already immune to the germs.

They were not conquered. The guns helped the rise of the Tokugawa Shogunate, which then severely restricted foreign access to the country for centuries.

And then Commodore Perry showed up on a gun BOAT. And he said, trade with us or else. And so the Japanese traded, and got a pretty good deal in the end.

Moral of the story is have the best boat.

I have seen it argued on this thread that the constant warfare between small European nations lead to advancements. If this is the case why were no similar advances made in other areas with constant tribal warfare like the Americas or sub-Saharan Africa.

Again...necessity is the mother of invention.

Go right to the foot of Africa, sparse group of people mostly living comfortably, fishing etc...pretty much laying on the beach. They're not expecting some white , bearded dudes on boats with guns to be popping in for a drink are they?

Explorers and boats, plus technology. Were other nations/regions travelling abroad and trying to conquer? Most were happy staying where they were (which to me is the right/moral approach anyway). Europeans should not have gone overseas and plundered, decimated foreign populations with their diseases, tried to take their land. Lets face it, it wasn't altruistic. As a European it's a part of our history I'm not proud of at all. We had no business doing that, and it wrecked many other countries who were living relatively happily before that. I wouldn't trade advances in technology for losing 90% of the population and all that came with it.