To me, the works of Khaldûn, Montesquieu, and Buffon all build upon one another with similar attitudes towards the natural world and climate (though their theories differ), while Humboldt strikes a very different tone. Khaldûn has a strong sense of anthropocentrism in his writing. A particular detail on his map I find fascinating is the way lands that do not provide direct benefits to humans and human civilization are labeled as useless. Further, any lands that are deemed to not fit his definition of civilization are labeled as empty, though Khaldûn does not specify whether those lands have been directly observed. In his section on humans and climate, Khaldûn provides a strong stance of climate determinism. He concludes that temperate climates produce people of the best character and traits, which maps neatly onto his concept of civilization or the lack thereof. The way the text is written certainly racializes people based on the climate they live in, but after reading it, I am left wondering how the translation influenced the terms used. Montesquieu interestingly generates an even stronger sense of determinism via climate, which broaches on rhetoric that is rather dangerous. He creates a strict binary that people in cold climates are virtuous and strong, while people from hot climates are foolish and devoid of morals. He unfortunately uses this assertion as a way to justify slavery; by stating that people from hot climates are not deep thinkers, they would be better suited to slavery. I find it very interesting the way he characterizes humans as inflexible and unadaptable; climate determines who they will be. Buffon was a rather puzzling read. He states that nature still holds power over humans, but also asserts the great power they have to influence their environment. He also asserts differently from the past two scholars that humans are not subject to drastic changes that nature creates. He, like Khaldûn, extols the virtue of humans leaving their imprint on nature. Overall, these three scholars work from similar frameworks of temperature extremes, with a focus on heat and cold, and an attitude towards nature as something for humans to use, an admiration for continued productivity (civilization) above all else. Humboldt, from the very beginning, creates a stark contrast. He emphasizes the interconnectedness of all living things and there is a sense of mutualism with nature. He finds nature and the environment to be something worth studying rather than a means to a human-made end. He spends his time discussing all the joy and wonder there is to be had from studying nature. While the other three scholars published their works with the intent of bettering humankind in a physical manner, Humboldt emphasizes the individual experience of nature as a way to branch out intellectually and emotionally.