I can think of a couple of advanced civilizations which developed in warmer climes immediately (Indus valley and Egyptian). Would like to believe climate contributed much lesser (unless extreme like Tundras) to advancement of civilization vs other factors - easier transport/availability of water/natural resources.
Among the 70 hottest countries, only three make the list in terms of economic output per capita: Qatar, UAE, Singapore.
Among the 100 hottest countries, only four make the list (Saudi Arabia is added to the prior group at #71).
It's a rather staggering data point. Basically all the best economies are in the coolest half block. Only Singapore exists in the hottest 100, as a non-resource state.
The best economies group starts near avg ~15 celsius and on down on the list, with Portugal and Greece. Israel and Australia are outliers at 19c & 21c.
In the bottom ~66 coolest, you have this group:
US, China, Japan, Germany, UK, France, Italy, Spain, Canada, Switzerland, Portugal, Greece, Norway, Sweden, Finland, Denmark, South Korea, New Zealand, Belgium, Luxembourg, Liechtenstein, Monaco, Austria, Ireland, Netherlands, Czech, Slovakia, Slovenia, Iceland, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, Russia, Turkey, Chile.
Uruguay just missed that list, they're #70 coolest and have a per capita output ($17k) comparable to Latvia, Hungary and Chile.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nomi...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_average_y...
When I first moved to Thailand, the first thing that went was my sense of fashion - - it was just too hot to care, and I was soon in shorts and flip flips like the locals. And during midday, if you are outside, there is a general listlessness in the air. The heat is oppressive.
Such economies are losing a huge amount of productivity amongst their blue collar class because it's just too damned hot to do anything.
It sounds silly when said, but air conditioned and affordable undergarments would be a game changer for the planet.
Taiwan ($25k output) is also comparable to Australia on avg yearly celsius, it'd be hit or miss to make the top 100 hottest countries list. Thailand has a shot of breaking out of the grouping. They're about as hot as Singapore, and their GDP per capita has climbed to ~$7,200 (up from $2k 17 years ago). Given another 10-15 years I could see them matching something like Hungary or Poland today (~$15k output). And before the crash, for a decade, Venezuela used to be a moderately successful economy and they're also comparable to Singapore on heat (another oil resource state though).
Puerto Rico is an example of this in action. Prior to the hurricane their per capita output was $32,000. Comparable to Italy and South Korea. Yet few would make that comparison, in regards to quality of life, development level, et al. It's of course an artificial inflation, with Puerto Rico getting to ride the US economy.
The second poorest state by output is Arkansas, at $42k. That prompts an odd situation of then comparing Arkansas versus countries with similar per capita output such as Japan, UK, France, New Zealand, etc.
Does Kentucky ($47k) really compare with Finland ($50k)? Or is that mostly the benefit of riding the US output machine. Some states certainly compare better with Finland, such as Massachusetts or Washington for example. Except their output levels are astronomical at $82.5k and $74k.
And all of that naturally opens up questions about Singapore or Australia's output benefit re China. Or Canada's benefit from being next to the US and isolated (versus eg EU nations being near each other and all competing for trade).
And that's because it's not the explanation, which probably lies in The difference between income and product, the differences in the distribution in income, and the difference in lifestyle from tying up resources trying to compensate for the reduced security of weaker social safety nets.
Even if you gave Kentucky universal healthcare and pumped up the social safety net, I think it would take a lot more than that to match the overall quality of life that a Finland offers. That includes everything from culture to architecture to crime / murder. The same is true of other elite outcome nations like Japan, New Zealand, Sweden and Denmark. Maybe Kentucky could develop that given time, or maybe it remains a Greece, Portugal, Hungary or Bulgaria of the US, a lower tier economy state vs the elite outcome states. The poorer nations of Europe usually have normal, functioning welfare states, free education and universal healthcare; it doesn't by itself do much to put them up with the better economies, as so much more goes into it. There's a strong argument that the geographic nature of Kentucky alone might be enough to permanently trap it in a lower tier condition.
My argument is that the only reason relatively backwards states like Arkansas have GDP per capita figures like France and the UK (preposterous on the surface), is because they're heavily free riding on the immense output condition of the US as a whole. I think it's quite obviously true.
The US has a homelessness and poverty rate like Canada. It has free healthcare for the bottom 25%. It spends as much on its welfare state as a share of its economy as Australia and Canada (and rising). Most of its $7.x trillion in government spending goes to welfare state programs / social safety nets of one sort or another. None of that properly explains why Arkansas can have the output per capita of the UK or Japan. The only thing that explains it well, is Arkansas gets to ride the US $62,500 GDP per capita figure (they perform at a subpar level, so their per capita output is 1/3 lower than the national figure). They get innumerable benefits from being part of the US, in terms of the USD standard, smooth national cross border trade, energy supply, military protection, federal subsidies, and so on. Kentucky for example is the third most dependent state when it comes to federal money. Those are pretty huge system benefits that few countries will ever get to experience.
What you de facto have, is states like Washington, California, Illinois, Virginia, New York, Massachusetts, Texas, Colorado, et al. heavily carrying states like Kentucky or Arkansas. If you're in Europe, and you're N.Macedonia, Ukraine or Serbia, Germany is not doing very much at all to carry you by comparison. And if you're Bulgaria, Hungary, or Croatia within the EU, the same is still true, only to a lesser extent (which partially explains the huge gap in economic output & development between EU nations, far larger than the gap between between US states; Bulgaria has been a member of the EU since 2007, yet their per capita output has barely climbed since 2008, ie hasn't narrowed with the far wealthier nations; the same is true of Hungary, they've seen very little net improvement or narrowing since 2004/2005). US states by comparison have it exceptionally good when it comes to the way they get to ride the overall US economy and its various perks.
Without being part of the US system, I think you'd see a far more dramatic divergence of outcomes among US states. You'd get the nations of Arkansas or Kentucky with a GDP per capita of $10,000 or $15,000, in the same manner you see that type of large divergence in outcomes in eg Europe and Asia.
With Kentucky, given the population, you can imagine New Zealand as a baseline.