Why is Switzerland, a landlocked, mountainous nation with few natural resources, one of the wealthiest countries on Earth? Why have civilizations in the temperate Eurasian landmass historically dominated those in the tropics and the Americas? For centuries, thinkers have grappled with this fundamental question of global inequality, and one of the most powerful—and controversial—answers lies right under our feet: geography.

The idea that the physical environment dictates the destiny of its inhabitants is known as environmental determinism. It’s a theory that posits that everything from a society’s wealth and political structure to the very character of its people is shaped, if not locked in place, by its climate, topography, and natural resources. It’s a seductive idea because it offers a simple, tangible explanation for a complex world. But it’s also a dangerous one, with a dark history of being used to justify prejudice and conquest.

From Ancient Whispers to Colonial Justifications

The roots of environmental determinism run deep. Ancient Greek thinkers like Aristotle argued that people in cold, northern climates were brave but lacked political sophistication, while those in Asia were intelligent but lacked spirit. Greeks, naturally, living in the perfect intermediate climate, possessed the best of both worlds. This line of thinking was a neat justification for their own perceived superiority.

The theory truly blossomed, however, during Europe’s Age of Exploration and colonial expansion. Thinkers like the French philosopher Montesquieu argued in his 1748 work, The Spirit of the Laws, that climate had a direct impact on a nation’s temperament and government. In his view, the heat of the tropics made people “lazy” and “passion-driven”, best suited for despotism, while the bracing cold of Europe fostered industriousness, vigor, and a love of liberty.

It’s easy to see how convenient this theory was. It provided a seemingly scientific rationale for European dominance. Colonialism wasn’t just conquest; it was the natural order of things. Europeans were “fated” by their superior geography to rule over those whose environment had supposedly rendered them passive and inferior. This deterministic worldview helped soothe the conscience of empires, framing exploitation as a civilizing mission preordained by the planet itself.

Guns, Germs, and Geographic Luck

While classic environmental determinism fell out of favor in the 20th century for its overt racism and simplistic arguments, its core idea was famously revived in a more sophisticated form by scientist and author Jared Diamond in his 1997 Pulitzer Prize-winning book, Guns, Germs, and Steel.

Diamond sidestepped the thorny issue of cultural or racial superiority. His argument was one of pure geographic luck. He asked why Eurasian civilizations developed the “guns, germs, and steel” that allowed them to conquer other peoples. His answer was geography:

• The Axis of Power: Eurasia has a wide east-west axis. This means that regions along the same latitude share similar day lengths and climates, allowing crops, domesticated animals, and human innovations to spread relatively easily across thousands of miles—from the Fertile Crescent to Europe and China.
• Geographic Barriers: In contrast, the Americas and Africa have a north-south axis. This creates dramatic climate variations over shorter distances, making it extremely difficult for crops like maize (which originated in Mexico) or animals like the llama to spread from one region to another.
• The Farm Factor: Eurasia was also blessed with the world’s highest concentration of domesticable wild plants (like wheat and barley) and animals (like cows, pigs, sheep, and horses). This agricultural head start allowed for food surpluses, which in turn supported larger, denser populations, specialized labor (soldiers, priests, craftsmen), and centralized governments. The close proximity to farm animals also exposed Eurasians to a host of pathogens, leading to the development of immunities—the “germs” that would later devastate populations in the Americas.

For Diamond, it wasn’t that Europeans were smarter or better; they just hit the geographic jackpot.

The Problem with Predestination

Despite the elegance of Diamond’s argument, many geographers and historians argue that even this “neo-determinist” view goes too far. The primary critique is that it minimizes human agency. It treats societies as billiard balls, set in motion by environmental forces with little regard for culture, political choices, technological innovation, or sheer historical accident.

Critics point to numerous counter-examples:

• Singapore: A tropical island city-state with virtually no natural resources, it transformed itself into a global economic powerhouse through astute political leadership, strategic investment in education, and a focus on international trade.
• North vs. South Korea: Two nations sharing the exact same peninsula, climate, and historical geography, yet one is a prosperous, technologically advanced democracy and the other is an impoverished, totalitarian state. The deciding factor isn’t geography; it’s politics and ideology.
• The “Resource Curse”: Many nations rich in natural resources, like Nigeria (oil) or the Democratic Republic of Congo (minerals), are plagued by poverty, corruption, and conflict. The resources, rather than a blessing, often fuel instability.

This led to the rise of an alternative theory: possibilism. Possibilism argues that the environment doesn’t determine our path, but rather offers a set of possibilities and constraints. Humans, through their culture and technology, are the primary agents of change who choose from that menu of options.

Geography’s Enduring Influence

So, should we throw the map out entirely? Not at all. To deny the influence of geography would be as foolish as to believe in its absolute power. The reality lies in a nuanced middle ground.

Being a landlocked country like Bolivia or Uganda undeniably presents significant challenges for trade and economic development that a coastal nation like Japan does not face. The prevalence of tropical diseases like malaria, as economist Jeffrey Sachs has argued, places a heavy and lasting burden on African economies, affecting everything from healthcare costs to worker productivity.

And in the 21st century, geography is perhaps more relevant than ever. Climate change is a fundamentally geographic phenomenon. Rising sea levels pose an existential threat to low-lying nations like the Maldives and major coastal cities from Miami to Mumbai. Shifting weather patterns are altering agricultural zones, creating new challenges for food security worldwide.

Ultimately, the power of geography is not that it writes our destiny, but that it deals us our opening hand. Some hands are stronger than others. But history has shown time and again that it is human ingenuity, cooperation, political systems, and institutions that determine how that hand is played. We are not merely where we live, but how we choose to live there.