Is there a kernel of truth in the notion that someone who is easily angered is a “hothead”?

In previous discussions, I have suggested that high temperatures may affect cultural development by hindering advanced cognitive functions.

Consider a high-performance computer, which requires a cooling system to function optimally. Air and liquid coolants absorb heat from the CPU and redistribute it.

What happens when such a computer overheats? According to Dell Technologies:

Your Dell computer can overheat due to insufficient airflow resulting from dust or debris obstructing the air vents, exhaust ports, or a blocked fan. An overheating computer may restart unexpectedly, shut down, or face performance issues. Eventually, excessive heat can damage internal components.

When overheating occurs, users may observe various symptoms, such as:

• Fans spinning faster and becoming noisier to dissipate heat.
• Intermittent shutdowns or restarts.
• Unexpected declines in system performance.
• The computer becoming unresponsive or lagging during intensive tasks.
• Startup error messages may appear.

The human brain, much like a computer, processes information and can suffer from overheating. While low temperatures can also impair cognitive functioning, that issue is more easily remedied with layers of clothing. In extreme heat, particularly in developing countries where air conditioning is a luxury, individuals have limited options for relief.

I propose that the prevalence of tribalism in the global tropics may be linked to this overheating phenomenon, suggesting that nations in hot climates face greater challenges in modernizing due to a tendency toward heightened emotional responses.

A glance at a global map of ongoing conflicts reveals a striking pattern:

The majority of current wars are situated in tropical and subtropical regions, particularly near the equator, where temperatures remain high year-round. The notable exception is the war in Ukraine, which can be attributed to Russia’s vast territory and historical conflicts over dominion.

The evidence is compelling: the hottest regions of the planet are often embroiled in conflict, with wars diminishing as one moves toward cooler northern or southern climates.

For example, the northern part of South America experiences significant warfare, with Colombia, the closest country to the equator, having the highest fatality rates. Conversely, the southern, cooler half of the continent remains largely peaceful.

Similarly, Africa is predominantly war-torn, with severe conflicts centered in the hottest regions of central Africa. In stark contrast, the cooler southern part of the continent enjoys relative peace.

This global mapping reinforces the idea that climate may contribute to heightened cultural volatility.

However, it’s crucial to acknowledge that cooler regions are not immune to conflict. The two world wars originated in Europe, highlighting that historical and social factors also play significant roles in warfare. The relative peace among modern democracies is an anomaly in the broader historical context.

Thus, climate should not be viewed as the sole cause of cultural shortcomings; biological, psychological, social, and historical factors are also significant. Climate may simply emerge as a more prominent factor when other influences are mitigated by modernization.

Modern advancements do not guarantee peace; indeed, the horrors of the world wars and ongoing conflicts involving the United States illustrate this. However, secular humanism may counteract our innate tribal instincts, which often lead to aggressive responses.

Tribalism stands in opposition to humanism. Yet, in the face of a common extraterrestrial threat, humanity might unite against the invaders, temporarily adopting a higher form of tribalism.

Beyond this speculation, the conflict between progressive society and the natural world can be characterized as a metaphorical war against nature, driven by economic interests and a pervasive disdain for what is perceived as nature's chaos.

The struggle for progress often results in a “war” that is rooted in metaphor rather than literal conflict, motivated by convenience and greed. In contrast, the authoritarianism and violence endemic to tropical and subtropical regions reflect a more primitive state of societal development.

Ultimately, only certain regions have navigated past the default states of monarchy, feudalism, and other oppressive structures. It is perhaps no coincidence that modernity flourished in Europe’s temperate zones, later extending to North America and Australia, both situated outside the tropics. The integration of Greco-Roman philosophy into Christianity may have fostered a humanist outlook, with climate potentially playing a supportive role in these revolutions.

Early agricultural societies faced immense challenges, learning to store food and manage populations through mythic narratives. Our species is naturally inclined toward small, mobile groups of foragers.

Northern regions likely found it easier to grasp scientific concepts, as they did not contend with relentless heat. Cooler climates may have facilitated reflection, debate, and experimentation, enabling reformers to envision progress in human rather than merely tribal terms.

This raises the question: Can secular humanism take root in the tropical regions to address the civilizational and tribal impediments to modernization? It is not merely about introducing science, philosophy, or humanist values to developing nations; these cultures possess their own philosophies and moral frameworks. However, cultures in the torrid zone seem less progressive than those in temperate areas.

Understanding humanism does not equate to the motivation necessary for establishing democratic, capitalist, and scientific institutions. Northern nations, aware of humanist principles, often fail to apply them consistently, as evidenced by America's historical practices of slavery and systemic sexism.

Could there be inherent traits in tropical climates that hinder industrial and liberal advancements, distracting inhabitants with minor disputes?

While the First World has exploited the Third World politically and economically, this disparity stems from cultural inequalities. The First World achieved modernization, allowing them to dominate the less developed nations. This point aligns with the climatological hypothesis under discussion.

In conclusion, it is essential to clarify that this hypothesis does not imply any racial bias. I am not interested in genetic distinctions among populations, and while different climates may create conditions for genetic variations, it’s unlikely that sufficient time has elapsed since the Neolithic era for significant cognitive changes to occur. The focus here is on the impact of climate on cultures, rather than on genetic or racial differences.

I compile my writings from Medium into paperback and eBook formats, available on Amazon. If you're interested, check out titles like *Our Oddity in Deep Time, Aristocrats in the Wild, and Questing for Epiphanies in a Haunted House, each containing over 500 pages of my essays on philosophy, religion, and politics.*