Yali’s question basically asks why some groups of society flourished while others simply did not. He asks why the Europeans were able to take over African nations instead of Africans taking over European nations. This is a very important question to consider because it is something I believe should never happen again. Although it is unfair to press technological advances on groups who don’t want it, it’s important to make sure the groups who do advance more quickly and more efficiently don’t take advantage of other less developed nations who are fine with the way their society works. Unfortunately some people still believe those groups who haven’t advanced as quickley of the United States for example, are less important or a burden to society. By studying this question I truly believe those people will be less racist and less naive.
I believe that Yali’s question could be pursued by many different fields of study simply because there is not just one possibility for why some nations developed much more rapidly than other nations. However I believe that a biological scientist and a social scientist might be the most interested in pursuing this question. Biological scientists would be very interested in the role that disease played in the answer to Yali’s question. Since nearly all animals that could be domesticated lived solely in Europe, Europeans became immune to the disease that these animals carried. When they went to colonize African nations, huge percentages of the natives died because they were not immune to these diseases. Social scientists would also be interested in studying what drives a group of people like the advanced Europeans to believe that their way of life is how everyone should live. Were they driven by resources, leadership, religion, or one of many other reasons.