Yeah, the distinction I'm making isn't between barbaric and saintly societies, but between autocratic and liberal ones. Liberal societies can still be plenty violent--in the names of progress and civilization. That was supposed to have been the point of Napoleon's wars, to spread liberalism.

So the fact that liberal societies are violent and even self-destructively so isn't inconsistent with the hypothesis. It depends on what the violence is for. If the violence is part of a civilized revolt against natural norms, that indicates a hyper-myth that unites large populations and extracts them from default, Stone Age tribalism.

The question is why Africa hasn't been united by that kind of collective myth or mission. I'm saying the harsh climate helps to hold them down. Being kept down in that sense might be good for them in the long run, as I say at the end of the article, since the liberal revolt against nature might be imprudent.