| FORUM | ARCHIVE |                    | TOTAL QUIZ RESULT |


  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Why the Americas didn't have these things?
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login


Welcome stranger, click here to read about some of the great benefits of registering for a free account with us and joining us in our global online community.


Why the Americas didn't have these things?

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123 5>
Author
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Why the Americas didn't have these things?
    Posted: 02 Jun 2014 at 03:59
It is interesting why the Americas lacked many things that Eurasia have up to the contact. I believe that is the main proof hyperdiffusionism is wrong.

The problem with hyperdiffusionism is it never take into account the DIFFERENCES rather than the similarities. For instance, any culture in Eurasia influenced each other. You can check that noticing the spread of math and stylistic fashions. For instance, you can detect the influence of Greece in India's mathematics and sculputure. The influence of India in East Asia in religion and arts. The influence of China in the west mainly on inventions., etc.

You can't do the same with the Americas because those inventions and arts were developed in different times and in other context. So, the question is NOT whether there are some similarities but WHY certain critical inventions in Eurasia didn't exist in the Americas.

For instance, it is not very smart to ask why there is paper among the Mayans and the Chinese, or why zero was known by Mayans before invented in India, or why Andes peoples knew the air pressure toys in the same fashion of Zeno of Alexandria. Those aren't "influences" but just parallel inventions.

You must ask, instead, why the Americas lacked things so obvious like the following that I show as an example:
Inventions

(1) wheeled chariots
(2) gears (without gears you don't have clocks, cranks and lots of technology. You don't have machines!!)
(3) Iron
(4) Alphabet
(5) Writing (most civilizations used nemonic symbols rather than writing, except Mayas).
(6) Ships (navigation was in canoes, inflatable boats and balsa rafts, no mather Mantenos knew the sail)
(7) The arch (invented in 5th century B.C., the arch never reached the Americas.
(8) The string musical instruments! (except a very singular exception, the string instruments were totally unknown in the Americas.
(9) Distilled drinks.

And the following animals and plants.
(1) Wheat and rice (totally unknown in the Americas, but the basic foods of Eurasia)
(2) Cows (large scale meat and milk producer), Ox (heavy duty animal)
(3) Horse, donkeys
(4) Sheep, goats
(5) Chickens.
(6) Wine
(7) Milk, Cheese and Yogurt
(8) lettuces, cabbage, bananas, olives, barley, coffee and a thousand other vegetables

Just no name a few. None of those were in the Americas at contact. So why not?? Simple answer: there wasn't diffusion of inventions, culture and goods from Eurasia to the Americas before contact.


Edited by pinguin - 02 Jun 2014 at 04:22
A point of view from the antipodes
Back to Top
Sponsored Links


Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 Jun 2014 at 04:01
A point of view from the antipodes
Back to Top
caldrail View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Rushey Platt
Status: Offline
Points: 1165
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote caldrail Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 Jun 2014 at 20:41
It ought to be remembered that the native Americans were effectively a stone age people. Some of the resources they needed to build a western style civilisation weren't there, nor did the secrets of metalworking migrate there from the Balkans where it was discovered about 6000 years ago. However, the ability of Indian tribes to become sophisticated depended on circumstance. Firstly, many tribes had an agrarian culture which they dumped wholesale when the horse arrived with the Europeans in the 17th century (They "lost the corn" according to native mythology). The idea that the Native American was in synch with nature is a bit exaggerated. They became better at it - they had to, since they had somewhat wastefully previously gotten into the habit of stampeding herds of buffalo over cliffs to extract the resources a single dead animal could provide - and this might be one reason why the mammoth had previously declined rapidly), but that lifestyle was not universal.

I came across an article in an archaeological magazine from 1857 which compared tribes in ancient Britain with contemporary Native Americans, referring ion particular to the plight of the 'digger Indians', who led a very wretched life subsisting on gathering roots and such, under pressure from tribes better equipped with forearms obtained by trade with white settlers.

It's worth pointing out however that the Cherokee developed their own alphabet.
http://www.unrv.com/forum/blog/31-caldrails-blog/
Back to Top
fantasus View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 08 May 2009
Location: Denmark
Status: Offline
Points: 1943
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (1) Thanks(1)   Quote fantasus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 Jun 2014 at 22:00
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

It is interesting why the Americas lacked many things that Eurasia have up to the contact. I believe that is the main proof hyperdiffusionism is wrong.
Just no name a few. None of those were in the Americas at contact. So why not?? Simple answer: there wasn't diffusion of inventions, culture and goods from Eurasia to the Americas before contact.
That there was very (exttremely) little contac before a little more than 500 years ago is byn far the most likely.  If there has been innovations from "old wolrld" would not have been absent in the Americas - as well as the opposite way round. On the other hand those innovations could have appeared independently, as many others undoubtly did, so isolation can not stand alone as "explanation". What then about the Americas being populated so much later than the other big continents? Though that is right the Americas has been populated for more than tens millenia, and there is a small possibillity even more than twice that time(though that is disputed). That is at least nearly 3 times the time of "written history", and we can add: the "initial ancestral population(s) of the ancient americas did not start from "zero".It is hard to see any reasons to believe they were "behind" the majority of mankind when they migrated. There is reasons to believe they came from a rather "challenging" environment in Northeastern Asia and later the Northwestern America(Alaska and surroundings) and took the initiative to migrate (though possibly somehow "pushed" by environmental changes). That seems evidence of some abilities in itself. Therefore it could be neither lack of ability(intelligence etcetera) by the population, nor "lack of time" is the whole explanation.
The total size of  territories of the Americas are significantly smaller (about half) than for the three (or should we really say two?) continents from where humans came. In addition the two large "massive" parts of the Americas are at longer distance from each others than those of the "pld world", only connected by the long, narrow messoamerican "corridor", and the Carribean "step stones". We may also guess coomunication on average was more difficult because of natural barriers than many parts of the "old world, not least its European and surrounding parts. the later has not so high mountains and highlands and many waterways. Therefore likely less communication and less spread of ideas and innovations. The later reinforced by the north-south extension of the Americas (as J. Diamond says).
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest Group
Guest Group
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (1) Thanks(1)   Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03 Jun 2014 at 11:14
Good reply fellas. But, It's pretty clear why the Americas didn't have these things. The ancient aliens were clearly biased against the natives of the Americas.  Wink
Back to Top
Captain Vancouver View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 30 Sep 2010
Location: Vancouver Isle
Status: Offline
Points: 2153
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (1) Thanks(1)   Quote Captain Vancouver Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03 Jun 2014 at 12:11
I think you are on the right track, M. Penguin. When we look at history, I think we can see an exponential type of development of these kind of ideas. One thing leads to speculation about another, which leads to...

This tends to start off small. One tool is made by our simian ancestors, and 100,000 year later, another is conceived. Timelines are slow without fresh thinking. History is all about the ever increasing intensity of innovation and events.

But if we fast forward to today, we see that this sort of thing is still going on. Many young entrepreneurs and technocrats like big cities, because this is exactly where they can be exposed to new ideas.

The new world simply had the disadvantage of being at less of a crossroads than other spots in the old world.
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03 Jun 2014 at 12:12
Originally posted by caldrail caldrail wrote:

It ought to be remembered that the native Americans were effectively a stone age people. Some of the resources they needed to build a western style civilisation weren't there, nor did the secrets of metalworking migrate there from the Balkans where it was discovered about 6000 years ago.


I think you lack some information in here. The Americas were settled by peoples in all the spectrum of development, and although many could fit the description of "stone age people", including advanced civilizations as the Toltecs, Aztecs and Mayans, it is not true for the civilization of Peru, that were skillful metalworkers. For instance, they had copper and broze metalurgy, and even have some extravagant alloys of platinum that nobody else in the world had at that time. In battles, the Peruvians used bronze maces, and therefore the need to develop trepanation to save injured soldiers that had received a mace on the head Confused. Peruvians were so sophisticated metallurgists they also have "automatic" wind furnaces...

Originally posted by caldrail caldrail wrote:


However, the ability of Indian tribes to become sophisticated depended on circumstance. Firstly, many tribes had an agrarian culture which they dumped wholesale when the horse arrived with the Europeans in the 17th century (They "lost the corn" according to native mythology). The idea that the Native American was in synch with nature is a bit exaggerated. They became better at it - they had to, since they had somewhat wastefully previously gotten into the habit of stampeding herds of buffalo over cliffs to extract the resources a single dead animal could provide - and this might be one reason why the mammoth had previously declined rapidly), but that lifestyle was not universal.


Certainly. Like in Eurasia, there were peoples with all the degrees of development in the Americas. That's something we should remember.

Originally posted by caldrail caldrail wrote:


I came across an article in an archaeological magazine from 1857 which compared tribes in ancient Britain with contemporary Native Americans, referring ion particular to the plight of the 'digger Indians', who led a very wretched life subsisting on gathering roots and such, under pressure from tribes better equipped with forearms obtained by trade with white settlers.


True. Particularly for the pre-Roman times, when the so called "Barbarians" dominated most continental Europe.

Originally posted by caldrail caldrail wrote:


It's worth pointing out however that the Cherokee developed their own alphabet.


True. After contact, though by Sequoia. In the Americas the alphabet was introduced, and the only full script was a mixture of ideographs and syllabary: the Mayan writing.

 
A point of view from the antipodes
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03 Jun 2014 at 12:24
Originally posted by fantasus fantasus wrote:

That there was very (exttremely) little contac before a little more than 500 years ago is byn far the most likely.  If there has been innovations from "old wolrld" would not have been absent in the Americas - as well as the opposite way round. On the other hand those innovations could have appeared independently, as many others undoubtly did, so isolation can not stand alone as "explanation". What then about the Americas being populated so much later than the other big continents?


Right on! Indeed. That's a good explaination. The Americas was settled about 15.000 years ago, but the first high culture appeared just 3.000 years ago. So there was not much time to develop civilizations at the same level of Eurasia. I have estimated that at contact the Americas was at least 3.000 years behind Eurasians in technical development. If left alone, I bet by the year 4500 AD it would be like Europe at beginning of the Age of Discovery. So, it is a wonderful thing natives achieved so interesting cultures by themselves.

Originally posted by fantasus fantasus wrote:


Though that is right the Americas has been populated for more than tens millenia, and there is a small possibillity even more than twice that time(though that is disputed). That is at least nearly 3 times the time of "written history", and we can add: the "initial ancestral population(s) of the ancient americas did not start from "zero".It is hard to see any reasons to believe they were "behind" the majority of mankind when they migrated. There is reasons to believe they came from a rather "challenging" environment in Northeastern Asia and later the Northwestern America(Alaska and surroundings) and took the initiative to migrate (though possibly somehow "pushed" by environmental changes). That seems evidence of some abilities in itself. Therefore it could be neither lack of ability(intelligence etcetera) by the population, nor "lack of time" is the whole explanation.


Indeed. But it took a long time to convert the original hunter-gatherers and fishermen settlers into farmers. First, they had to invent farming!!! and that started no more than 5.000 years ago, at a time when in Eurasia there were already large civilizations like Summer and Egypt

Originally posted by fantasus fantasus wrote:


The total size of  territories of the Americas are significantly smaller (about half) than for the three (or should we really say two?) continents from where humans came. In addition the two large "massive" parts of the Americas are at longer distance from each others than those of the "pld world", only connected by the long, narrow messoamerican "corridor", and the Carribean "step stones". We may also guess coomunication on average was more difficult because of natural barriers than many parts of the "old world, not least its European and surrounding parts. the later has not so high mountains and highlands and many waterways. Therefore likely less communication and less spread of ideas and innovations. The later reinforced by the north-south extension of the Americas (as J. Diamond says).


Certainly. Only about a few centuries before contact there is evidence of increase commerce between South America, Mesoamerica, the Caribbean and North America, but never in the volume we could observe since historical times in the Mediterranean Sea or the Silk Road.




A point of view from the antipodes
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03 Jun 2014 at 12:26
Originally posted by Captain Vancouver Captain Vancouver wrote:

The new world simply had the disadvantage of being at less of a crossroads than other spots in the old world.


Cosign. Clap
A point of view from the antipodes
Back to Top
fantasus View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 08 May 2009
Location: Denmark
Status: Offline
Points: 1943
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote fantasus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03 Jun 2014 at 16:39
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

Originally posted by fantasus fantasus wrote:

That there was very (exttremely) little contac before a little more than 500 years ago is byn far the most likely.  If there has been innovations from "old wolrld" would not have been absent in the Americas - as well as the opposite way round. On the other hand those innovations could have appeared independently, as many others undoubtly did, so isolation can not stand alone as "explanation". What then about the Americas being populated so much later than the other big continents?
 

Right on! Indeed. That's a good explaination. The Americas was settled about 15.000 years ago, but the first high culture appeared just 3.000 years ago. So there was not much time to develop civilizations at the same level of Eurasia. I have estimated that at contact the Americas was at least 3.000 years behind Eurasians in technical development. If left alone, I bet by the year 4500 AD it would be like Europe at beginning of the Age of Discovery. So, it is a wonderful thing natives achieved so interesting cultures by themselves.
 
On the other hand we should not forget the peoples of the ametricas probably dod not start from "zero" or even "behind" comparable populations elsewhere. The initial colonizers where likely at least as able and "adapted", with as good tools and innovative as any other populations in comparable environments at the same time. There is absolutely no reason to believe otherwise.
But likely they all came from a somewhat cold environment, since even when climate was warmer, northeastern Siberia and Alaska, and the waters around were not that hospitable. So they had to "re-adapt" to a lot of other, warmer environmental settings as they moved.

Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:


Originally posted by fantasus fantasus wrote:


Though that is right the Americas has been populated for more than tens millenia, and there is a small possibillity even more than twice that time(though that is disputed). That is at least nearly 3 times the time of "written history", and we can add: the "initial ancestral population(s) of the ancient americas did not start from "zero".It is hard to see any reasons to believe they were "behind" the majority of mankind when they migrated. There is reasons to believe they came from a rather "challenging" environment in Northeastern Asia and later the Northwestern America(Alaska and surroundings) and took the initiative to migrate (though possibly somehow "pushed" by environmental changes). That seems evidence of some abilities in itself. Therefore it could be neither lack of ability(intelligence etcetera) by the population, nor "lack of time" is the whole explanation.


Indeed. But it took a long time to convert the original hunter-gatherers and fishermen settlers into farmers. First, they had to invent farming!!! and that started no more than 5.000 years ago, at a time when in Eurasia there were already large civilizations like Summer and Egypt 
 
We should not forget 15000 years is very long time compared to our lives. Once there was the belief the world was not even created!

Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:


Originally posted by fantasus fantasus wrote:


The total size of  territories of the Americas are significantly smaller (about half) than for the three (or should we really say two?) continents from where humans came. In addition the two large "massive" parts of the Americas are at longer distance from each others than those of the "pld world", only connected by the long, narrow messoamerican "corridor", and the Carribean "step stones". We may also guess coomunication on average was more difficult because of natural barriers than many parts of the "old world, not least its European and surrounding parts. the later has not so high mountains and highlands and many waterways. Therefore likely less communication and less spread of ideas and innovations. The later reinforced by the north-south extension of the Americas (as J. Diamond says).


Certainly. Only about a few centuries before contact there is evidence of increase commerce between South America, Mesoamerica, the Caribbean and North America, but never in the volume we could observe since historical times in the Mediterranean Sea or the Silk Road.

Itnd to think the environmental difficulties for contact in the Americas played a big role, so it was not so much the later arrival of humans as those internal factors that made the difference. We may look only at the big mountains. The Alps and the Pyrrennees appears as less forbidding than say the Andes, since they are both of smaller area and lower. *Then there is other geographical differences.
Back to Top
truthsetsfree View Drop Down
Pretorian
Pretorian


Joined: 30 May 2014
Location: hell
Status: Offline
Points: 158
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote truthsetsfree Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03 Jun 2014 at 17:08
Did America really lack all those things though? I will give you an example. They say Atlantis can't be South America because no bulls (or elephants, horse, etc) yet there is evidences that South America did have bulls or "bulls". From my Atlantis Tiahuanaco paper:

little ceramic stone bulls on rooftops everywhere in Lake Titicaca? 'Pottery cow' / cow shaped vase / cow sacrificed & entrails put in vase (fertilit ceremonies, Larousse mythology pg 491)? Seated "deer" figure carrying a club (Larousse world mythology, looks bull/cow like though the antlers aren't cow but deer). Mochica stirup vessels [cow head]? bull god at Chavin (Sitchin)? communities worship bull at pucara/near puno on titicaca? bull(s) of pucara? standing on a bull in a stone carving sw of Titicaca? Raimondi monolith deity's face of a bull? El Lanzon anthropomorphised bull face? Rimac horned crown [~ Rimmon/Ramman]?
[priest cutting throat has horn/ear-like projections head?]


They did have wheel toys so must have known wheel.
They assert that Egyptian pyramids were tombs but honest scholars admit that this isn't necessarily so certain.
No writing/alphabet? plenty of evidences that Peru had writing: colango stone, etc. They still can't decipher Mexican picture writing! Mexican ahau "love, union, glyph" ~ Hebrew ahaba "love" / hebrew ehad "one" / Egyptian ahom "letter a, bird" / Greek agape "love" / Accadian aka "love".
No bananas?!
No ships? Reed boats were pretty advanced/superior.
No arch? One of the evidences of contact is corbelled arch in America.

The truth is that when Atlantis "sunk" (Americas shifted) there was a catastrophe and what happened is that there was in consequence a time lag/gap in the New World. Americans say them selves that there were people before the flood who were turned to stone.

You say Americas lacked so many things that Eurasia had which sounds alot like robbing Americans of their achievments that you accuse "(hyper-)diffusionists" of!

The reality is people keep harping on the differences and ignoring/minimisng/explaining-away the similarities. Differences are easy to explain because humans develop own differences.
It just seems very clever convenient cunning tactic to create a new "hyper-" diffusionist label. The way i see it is we must synthesise both isolationism and diffusionism, and/or i don't agree that current orthodox isolationism is right versus diffusionism wrong but more the other way around.

What about list of tons of evidences that there was certainly contacts between Old & New Worlds? Some examples from my list in my 'Atlantis - Tiahuanaco' paper: cocaine and tobacco found in Egyptian New Kingdom mummies; Indian elephant found in American (ref Don MacKenzie); 3 pyramids of Sipan look very much like the 3 pyramids of Giza; Quinoa/Keen-wah "mother of all grain" ~ Eve/Hawah "mother of all living"; sun stands still story (& same c 1400bc date); tower of Babel story; 4 world ages/rivers of Eden; heliolithic culture; etc. There are sources with tons of evidences inlcuding Nigel Davies and Pierre Honore. A number of evidences are not possible to have been independently developed twice.

Of Americas it is said: "The further back we go the higher the culture". Many cultures of world spring up suddenly in full blown maturity with little or no prior local development. (Not just native cultures but even Egyptian etc. Likewise many culture bearer myths even in advance civilisations like Sumerian (Oannes).)

Political correctness should not interfere with truth/scholarship. It is wrong to deny there were contacts just because you assume it is "racist". I seek the truth not political/racial agendas. Also i totally disagree with orthodox seemingly being so cunningly deceptive and outright lying or twisiting or denying.

There are finds in north america like serpent rings which evidence past origins in South America/"Atlantis".

Americas was not settled tens of thousands of years ago, that is only orthodox evolutionist theory based on fallible dating methods. They can not prove their dating/dates. How can you have such a hugh gap like from 15000 to 3000 too?! Traces of humans has been found in every period of the geological time scale (compare 'forbidden archaeology' by cremo & thompson, human bones found under dinosaur bones in south america, etc).

Andes was pushed up suddenly within Human civilisation lifetime. Even Velikovsky quotes Darwin on evidences of this. Beach remains found in Andes. Pacific plants in Andes. Tiahuanaco megalithic can't have been built in rarified atmosphere. "Sea ports in the Andes". Etc.


Edited by truthsetsfree - 03 Jun 2014 at 17:16
Back to Top
toyomotor View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2014
Location: Tasmania, AUST.
Status: Offline
Points: 5242
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote toyomotor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03 Jun 2014 at 17:38
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

Originally posted by Captain Vancouver Captain Vancouver wrote:

The new world simply had the disadvantage of being at less of a crossroads than other spots in the old world.


Cosign. Clap
 
Precisely, and that's the explanation for why many communities progressed faster than others. Contact with other communities was the channel for religion, architecture, language and so on.
 
The Americas were at the end of the cul de sac, not at the cross streets, so it missed out on many developments already in use by other communities.
 
 
 
 
It's not that I was born in Ireland,
It's the Ireland that was born in me.
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05 Jun 2014 at 12:35
Originally posted by truthsetsfree truthsetsfree wrote:

Did America really lack all those things though? I will give you an example. They say Atlantis can't be South America because no bulls (or elephants, horse, etc) yet there is evidences that South America did have bulls or "bulls". From my Atlantis Tiahuanaco paper:


Please Truthsetsfree. Don't be so gullible. There weren't elephants in the Americas but just mamuts. And there weren't horses or cows neither. That's well documented.


A point of view from the antipodes
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (1) Thanks(1)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05 Jun 2014 at 12:43
Originally posted by fantasus fantasus wrote:


On the other hand we should not forget the peoples of the ametricas probably dod not start from "zero" or even "behind" comparable populations elsewhere. The initial colonizers where likely at least as able and "adapted", with as good tools and innovative as any other populations in comparable environments at the same time. There is absolutely no reason to believe otherwise.
But likely they all came from a somewhat cold environment, since even when climate was warmer, northeastern Siberia and Alaska, and the waters around were not that hospitable. So they had to "re-adapt" to a lot of other, warmer environmental settings as they moved.


Indeed, but archaeology shows Paleo-Indians (the scientific term for the earlier settlers) were very backwards in culture and technology. There is a general agreement agriculture, architecture and social organizations are native to the Americas, developed after at least 10.000 years of the hunting-gathering fase of development.
But still some things from Eurasia remains in Native American cultures. Inventions like the drums, the teepee, for instance, and forms of shamanism and certain beliefs are still traceable to Siberia.

Originally posted by fantasus fantasus wrote:


We should not forget 15000 years is very long time compared to our lives. Once there was the belief the world was not even created!


Sure. But in the Americas the agricultural revolution didn't start 15000 years ago but around 5000 ago only. And by the time earlier civilizations appeared they were already out of sync with Eurasia, with an important delay in development.


Originally posted by fantasus fantasus wrote:


Itnd to think the environmental difficulties for contact in the Americas played a big role, so it was not so much the later arrival of humans as those internal factors that made the difference. We may look only at the big mountains. The Alps and the Pyrrennees appears as less forbidding than say the Andes, since they are both of smaller area and lower. *Then there is other geographical differences.


Actually, I don't agree on that because by some strange reason the more advanced civilizations in the Americas developed in the hardest conditions, while there are plenty of places in the New World that are real agricultural paradises, where civilization never shown.


A point of view from the antipodes
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05 Jun 2014 at 12:44
Originally posted by toyomotor toyomotor wrote:

Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

Originally posted by Captain Vancouver Captain Vancouver wrote:

The new world simply had the disadvantage of being at less of a crossroads than other spots in the old world.


Cosign. Clap
 
Precisely, and that's the explanation for why many communities progressed faster than others. Contact with other communities was the channel for religion, architecture, language and so on.
 
The Americas were at the end of the cul de sac, not at the cross streets, so it missed out on many developments already in use by other communities.
 


Absolutely Thumbs Up



A point of view from the antipodes
Back to Top
toyomotor View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2014
Location: Tasmania, AUST.
Status: Offline
Points: 5242
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (1) Thanks(1)   Quote toyomotor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05 Jun 2014 at 15:50
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

Originally posted by toyomotor toyomotor wrote:

Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

Originally posted by Captain Vancouver Captain Vancouver wrote:

The new world simply had the disadvantage of being at less of a crossroads than other spots in the old world.


Cosign. Clap
 
Precisely, and that's the explanation for why many communities progressed faster than others. Contact with other communities was the channel for religion, architecture, language and so on.
 
The Americas were at the end of the cul de sac, not at the cross streets, so it missed out on many developments already in use by other communities.
 


Absolutely Thumbs Up
 
Quote Proudly mongrel of Neanderthal and African chimp
 
What? No Denisovan? No Australoid?Wink



It's not that I was born in Ireland,
It's the Ireland that was born in me.
Back to Top
Fintan View Drop Down
Samurai
Samurai


Joined: 10 Aug 2015
Status: Offline
Points: 101
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Fintan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26 Aug 2015 at 16:13
Hello, it is clear (for me) that the American more advances civilitations have become to a dead end street.
They had do their best and the barbarian indians have not other example to follow. Couriously, as you say, the simultaneity that you can find in Eurasia you can't find in America, probably because they were not much and were isolated by the terrain.
You have make a list of things that lack in America, would be interesting to make a list of common things.

I can say you that the same kind of trees you can find in North America in the same clima than in Europe, in california than in mediterranean Spain. Maybe was just a question of time, but I doubt it.
Why you don't have a silk way or similar in américa? Maybe they have to make better boats and this go quick. But they were still in the age of stone.
By the way you say "contact", not conquest. Or you are refering to the Vikings that don't represent Eurasia or we have to change conquerors by contacteros.
Back to Top
franciscosan View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master


Joined: 09 Feb 2015
Location: Littleton CO
Status: Offline
Points: 10105
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote franciscosan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27 Aug 2015 at 10:45
Eurasia is horizontal, Americas is vertical.  It is easier to travel along the same latitudes (similar climes) than it is to travel on same longitude (I think I got those right).  Jared Diamond talks about that.

Actually, the Greeks and Romans tried to introduce new things to the Americas, but the Americas had strong unions, protectionistic policies and they kept the Greeks and Romans trade commodities out, until the Greeks and Romans went away.  If the Americas hadn't done so, well we might not be having the financial problems that we have with Greece today.

They had dogs in the new world, and so therefore, the domestication of dogs must have been before the (last) major migration.

Of course, Australia really missed out, it has crazy marsupials and monotremes.  Wild!
If it had been more in the crossroads, it could have had ordinary animals like monkeys, 
wolves and bison!
Back to Top
wolfhnd View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 18 Feb 2015
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 816
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote wolfhnd Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27 Aug 2015 at 14:11
I believe that cultures evolve analogous with physical evolution.  In other words mutation selection something new.  Most inventions are at least partially accidental and can substitute for mutations, the culture is simply part of the environment the same as a species is part of the ecosystem it evolves in.  We know that not all beneficial mutations survive because there is the problem of genetic isolation.  Isolation can be geographical or simply a function of breeding habits etc.  Stable and resource abundant environments slow evolution because a small change may only be beneficial enough to cause speciation when survival is uncertain.  Beneficial mutations may simply be diluted in such an environment or eliminated by chance.

In following this discussion it is important to remember that technology is not just mechanical it involves tools such as languages including math and logic.  Culture should be thought of as technology because culture or technology allow the big brain humanoid to evolve not the other way around.  Many tools not just stone was involved.

In a culture if something like a wheel is discovered by chance it may be just a curiosity if there is no significant competitive pressure for it to be adopted.  It may also be adopted by a tribe for a short while but disappear again if that tribe doesn't survive or it may not be suited to an isolated location such as the Andes.  It may also reappear when lost if environmental conditions favor it.  Selection like mutation is random as the environmental conditions dictate.

Selection in cultures as in physical evolution will favor new forms if the environment is stressful.  Having co evolved with culture humans have developed the ability to manipulate the environment leaving other humans as the major selective stress on most populations or at least the culture.  In the America's population density was fairly low.  When stressed populations simply moved to a new locations.  This is especial true for non agricultural communities.  With the introduction of agriculture new forms of stress and solutions natural arise.  Not only does the efficiency of agriculture leave people with more time to tinker with new ideas it also makes them more vulnerable to cultural disruptions as they are no longer mobile.   Those highly organized agricultural cultures in the Americas were still not under the same kind of stress as those in the Middle East and Asia because population density remained low.  In reference to my earlier example there were few competing cultures to make the adoption of the wheel a significant factor in survival as may have been seen in egypt or else where where there was constant competition for resources. 

Cultures like genomes have built in mechanism to resist variation.  Cultures have high fidelity duplication between generations.  Cultural survival is in fact more about fidelity of transmission than efficiency as just like genes there "purpose" is to reproduce themselves not to adopt more efficient mutations.  Custom often out weighs logic in the decision to adopt some new invention.  Most of the advanced culture in the Americas were exceptionally hierarchical and rigid. 

Cultural evolution speeds up just as physical evolution does under stress.  The adoption of one new technology promotes the development of more.  It could be though of as a arms race with only those cultures that readily mutate surviving.  

Nothing I have said should be taken to mean that nomadic life in the Americas was not stressful or that agricultural life was not subject to random environmental changes.  The difference is solely one of having the adaptive option of moving on to somewhere less populated.  

As with all species reproductive success seems to be the key to geographical expansion.  It could be thought of as accidental with the first major migration of humans coming from places where stress must have played a part in the spread of cultures.  Given enough time agricultural competence would most likely have made the Americas peoples in the same pattern as seen in Europe and Asia.  Nomadic people slowly being eliminated by agrarian societies.   Native American simply suffered from an abundance of space that they had not yet filled sufficiently to force an acceleration of cultural evolution before the arrival of europeans.  The mongols in Asia of course being an example of the reverse process where reproductive success lead to encroachments on agrarian societies.  Again however populations had very little unoccupied space to expand into and survival required the adoption by the nomads of iron and other technologies already developed by the agrarian peoples.           
            


Edited by wolfhnd - 27 Aug 2015 at 14:12
Back to Top
fantasus View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 08 May 2009
Location: Denmark
Status: Offline
Points: 1943
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote fantasus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28 Aug 2015 at 01:46
Originally posted by wolfhnd wolfhnd wrote:

I believe that cultures evolve analogous with physical evolution.  In other words mutation selection something new.  Most inventions are at least partially accidental and can substitute for mutations, the culture is simply part of the environment the same as a species is part of the ecosystem it evolves in.  We know that not all beneficial mutations survive because there is the problem of genetic isolation.  Isolation can be geographical or simply a function of breeding habits etc.  Stable and resource abundant environments slow evolution because a small change may only be beneficial enough to cause speciation when survival is uncertain.  Beneficial mutations may simply be diluted in such an environment or eliminated by chance.

In following this discussion it is important to remember that technology is not just mechanical it involves tools such as languages including math and logic.  Culture should be thought of as technology because culture or technology allow the big brain humanoid to evolve not the other way around.  Many tools not just stone was involved.

In a culture if something like a wheel is discovered by chance it may be just a curiosity if there is no significant competitive pressure for it to be adopted.  It may also be adopted by a tribe for a short while but disappear again if that tribe doesn't survive or it may not be suited to an isolated location such as the Andes.  It may also reappear when lost if environmental conditions favor it.  Selection like mutation is random as the environmental conditions dictate.

Selection in cultures as in physical evolution will favor new forms if the environment is stressful.  Having co evolved with culture humans have developed the ability to manipulate the environment leaving other humans as the major selective stress on most populations or at least the culture.  In the America's population density was fairly low.  When stressed populations simply moved to a new locations.  This is especial true for non agricultural communities.  With the introduction of agriculture new forms of stress and solutions natural arise.  Not only does the efficiency of agriculture leave people with more time to tinker with new ideas it also makes them more vulnerable to cultural disruptions as they are no longer mobile.   Those highly organized agricultural cultures in the Americas were still not under the same kind of stress as those in the Middle East and Asia because population density remained low.  In reference to my earlier example there were few competing cultures to make the adoption of the wheel a significant factor in survival as may have been seen in egypt or else where where there was constant competition for resources. 

Cultures like genomes have built in mechanism to resist variation.  Cultures have high fidelity duplication between generations.  Cultural survival is in fact more about fidelity of transmission than efficiency as just like genes there "purpose" is to reproduce themselves not to adopt more efficient mutations.  Custom often out weighs logic in the decision to adopt some new invention.  Most of the advanced culture in the Americas were exceptionally hierarchical and rigid. 

Cultural evolution speeds up just as physical evolution does under stress.  The adoption of one new technology promotes the development of more.  It could be though of as a arms race with only those cultures that readily mutate surviving.  

Nothing I have said should be taken to mean that nomadic life in the Americas was not stressful or that agricultural life was not subject to random environmental changes.  The difference is solely one of having the adaptive option of moving on to somewhere less populated.  

As with all species reproductive success seems to be the key to geographical expansion.  It could be thought of as accidental with the first major migration of humans coming from places where stress must have played a part in the spread of cultures.  Given enough time agricultural competence would most likely have made the Americas peoples in the same pattern as seen in Europe and Asia.  Nomadic people slowly being eliminated by agrarian societies.   Native American simply suffered from an abundance of space that they had not yet filled sufficiently to force an acceleration of cultural evolution before the arrival of europeans.  The mongols in Asia of course being an example of the reverse process where reproductive success lead to encroachments on agrarian societies.  Again however populations had very little unoccupied space to expand into and survival required the adoption by the nomads of iron and other technologies already developed by the agrarian peoples.           
            
A tempting analogy, but when I think a bit about it I am sceptical. New ideas an inventions are as I see it, very different from mutations. Not least since humans from the start set goals and aims and consider purposes.
Back to Top
wolfhnd View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 18 Feb 2015
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 816
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote wolfhnd Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28 Aug 2015 at 03:33
Originally posted by fantasus fantasus wrote:

A tempting analogy, but when I think a bit about it I am sceptical. New ideas an inventions are as I see it, very different from mutations. Not least since humans from the start set goals and aims and consider purposes.

It would be foolish to not recognize that any analogy between physical and cultural evolution is limited in application.  However it would be equally foolish to assume that cultures have primarily evolved with a goal in mind.  Scientist usually use the term stochastic instead of random, which is a mathematical concept, acknowledging that the physical world is highly deterministic.  It can be assumed that evolution is neither random physically or culturally but the causes of selection are hidden in complexity.
    
It's not so much the discovery as the adoption and spread of new tools that is "random" selection although many discoveries are accidental.  Even after tools are discovered they may or may not be widely adopted unless there is environmental pressure to do so.  Take nuclear weapons for example it is estimated that developing the first weapon took 20 percent of the U.S. resources.  Most people at the time were not even aware that nuclear fission existed and certainly would not have agreed to invest that kind of resources on the bases of the opinions of a few scientist on an unproven concept.   The conflict that made such an investment necessary was largely the result of Germany and Japan seeking additional resources and living space which is ultimately little different than any other social species evolution.  While it can't be said that WWII was a "random" event in many ways it was as random as any environmental change in "nature".  At first nuclear physics was just human curiosity with no goal in mind.  It must have been the same for people who first discovered metallurgy.  Something interesting happens in the fire pit and it gets explored with no particular goal in mind.  Once you have bronze weapons however the switch to steal seems almost inevitable. 

What makes the analogy meaningful is the close relationship between cultural and physical evolution.  Humanoids started using tools an estimated 2.6 million years ago while their brains were still very small.  It seem unreasonable to ascribe considered purpose to the adoption of tools at that time.  Certainly the "goal" was not to evolve a larger brain but that was the consequence.  Paradoxically the universe seems to evolve from order to disorder complexity.

Human ability to adapt to and manipulate the environment has largely left "natural" selection behind to the casual observer.  Population growth however is unregulated and is putting adaptive pressure on humans to manipulate the environment in ways not seen before.  Control of population outside of China seems as random as that of any other species.  We are trying to adapt to population growth by controlling our environmental impact by adopting new tools.  If it were not for our reproductive instincts however most environmental adaptation would be unnecessary and I suspect very slow.  Despite the conventional wisdom that industrialization is the major cause of environmental degradation agriculture and livestock remain the largest cause of lost biodiversity related to human activities.  Even the use of dirty fossil fuels would have little impact if the human population was halved.  So while we have the ability to adapt it is still not the case that cultural evolution is highly directed.  Like any other species we are the engaged in our instincts and the symbiotic relationship between environment and "random" population growth.

The next phase in cultural evolution however is likely to be very different.  Gene manipulation will allow control over physical evolution and the culture or technologies of the future will rival human intelligence.  It seems likely that the course of evolution leads to dead matter in the form of artificial intelligence replacing biological life.  Machines in theory can evolve to even survive the ultimate environmental change of the sun going dark.  One can even imagine machines that are comprised of energy not matter if they continue to evolve on their own.  No one however set the goals and aims and consider purposes of technology to this end. 

As creatures with agency we need to start thinking more seriously about controlling cultural evolution.  The environmentalist and socialist as well as conservatives however often make choices that do not embrace the necessary risks that result from our limited knowledge.  The decisions we make should not be based on fear but optimism about technological possibilities.  Risk avoidance is ultimately suicidal and we should embrace a bit of selective "randomness".           

       


Edited by wolfhnd - 28 Aug 2015 at 03:34
Back to Top
franciscosan View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master


Joined: 09 Feb 2015
Location: Littleton CO
Status: Offline
Points: 10105
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote franciscosan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28 Aug 2015 at 05:49
Lordy, Lordy, Lordy,
If all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.  I hope that if we went to the art museum and looked at the Gaugan, you wouldn't talk about a blind variation and natural selection.  (There is nothing blind about Gaugan and those Polynesian girls, although there probably is a little "selection" going on.)

As far as you discussing the next phase of cultural evolution, that _sounds_ like you are flirting with eugenics.  Just want you to know, that is sort of what it sounds like:P
Back to Top
wolfhnd View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 18 Feb 2015
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 816
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote wolfhnd Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28 Aug 2015 at 08:42
For those not as widely read as franciscosan here is an explanation of blind variation  http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/BLINDVAR.html 

I of course exaggerated my case for population pressure as the primary explanation for cultural evolution to make some points.  The first point being that human behave more like other social animals than they are often able to accept.  The second is the immorality of unregulated reproduction something few people are willing to talk about or even consider.  The position of organizations like the Catholic Church on birth control and sexuality in general are immoral and lead to unnecessary suffering.  More important those positions are based on a form of authority that removes agency from individual by limiting there choice and are ultimately dehumanizing.  

 "As far as you discussing the next phase of cultural evolution, that _sounds_ like you are flirting with eugenics.  Just want you to know, that is sort of what it sounds like:P "  Is a perfect example of poisoning the well.  To much choice only confuses people and they need clever people to decide the real consequence of a message right?

Eugenics, Nazis, Scientific Communism, Racism, labels people attach to otherwise innocent proposals to distract from the actual content.  Unfortunate for such arguments it is never the case that even the most horrendous examples of inhumanity are completely free of validity.  Was everything the Nazis believed in "evil",  everthing associate with communism utopist, or should race never be a consideration?  Those negative attitudes that reject consideration of aspects of various ideologies come from a faulty absolutist mentality of good and evil that is not relevant to the "real" world.

"The term "eugenics" to describe the modern concept of improving the quality of human beings born into the world was originally developed by Francis Galton. Galton had read his half-cousin Charles Darwin's theory of evolution, which sought to explain the development of plant and animal species, and desired to apply it to humans. Galton believed that desirable traits were hereditary based on biographical studies. In 1883, one year after Darwin's death, Galton gave his research a name: eugenics. Throughout its recent history, eugenics has remained a controversial concept." 

The idea that we should ban genetic engineering because it has the same moral implications as eugenics is weak at best and I would suggest immoral.  Preventing people from having access to forms of medical care that may allow their offspring to live better lives is exactly the same kind of authoritarian intervention that damned eugenics.  No one has the right to interfere with how you reproduce or deny you access to elective medical care unless they can prove that is generally harmful.  People do on the other hand do have a moral obligation to limit there reproduction to sustainable levels or where they are unable to provide a reasonable quality of life for their offspring.  The controversy should be over what are sustainable levels and what constitutes a reasonable quality of life not issues from the dark ages that makes sex something god should deal with by tossing dice.

Through out history the trend has been to focus on the quantity of life.  A farmer wanted as many children as possible to help on the farm.  Nations wanted as large a population as possible to secure their position.  Churches wanted as many members as possible to preserve their political dominance.  Large families were not only a "practical" asset they were considered socially desirable.  It is also true that life was precarious and often children died leaving the parents destitute in old age.  None of these justifications for unlimited reproduction exist today and we should focus on the quality not the quantity of life.

Reproduction is as selfish as anything else humans do.  People do not have kids to create new "souls" they have sex and reproduce because their instincts both as individuals and within the social environment compel them to do so or simply for the pleasure associated with family.  Having more kids than you can reasonable care for or the ecosystem can support is not only selfish it is immoral.  The question of authoritarian control of reproduction is hardly even relevant.  If people will not or cannot act in the best interest of society voluntarily then the concept of liberty is meaningless.   
   

 
Back to Top
fantasus View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 08 May 2009
Location: Denmark
Status: Offline
Points: 1943
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote fantasus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28 Aug 2015 at 20:13
Things are not that clear to me. One reason may probably be when arguments are "stretched to make something clear" they may as well do the opposite( making exaggerations just to make a point)! And if this kind of analogies are "limited in application"(in your Words "foolish to deny") were are the limits?
Back to Top
wolfhnd View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 18 Feb 2015
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 816
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote wolfhnd Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29 Aug 2015 at 06:54
Originally posted by fantasus fantasus wrote:

Things are not that clear to me. One reason may probably be when arguments are "stretched to make something clear" they may as well do the opposite( making exaggerations just to make a point)! And if this kind of analogies are "limited in application"(in your Words "foolish to deny") were are the limits?

It is not so much that analogy is completely accurate as it is that it highlights issues that are normally ignored.  The contribution of population growth and pressures to immigration and subsequent displacement of natives is not covered often.  Reproductive success in human is realistically as important a topic for humans as it is for any other social species.

More importantly it is not the case that the world can be divided into the "natural" and unnatural.  These terms imply a false sense of purpose to human activities that is largely a delusion when considered in a broader perspective.  A lobster trap demonstrates human purpose but ultimately how is it more purposeful than a caddisfly trap.  It is important to consider human tool use or technology as a difference in degree not kind. 

Like any other species once humans developed a competitive advantage population growth was no longer subject to "natural" containment.  This obvious fact gets ignored because it is unpleasant to consider how infant mortality and starvation effects cultures differently and effects migration and displacement patterns. 

It is also important to consider how technology starting more than 2 million years ago has created a situation that is irreversible.  Population growth and technology are intimately linked with the key technology in recent human history being agriculture.  This simple technology was all that was required to introduce environmental degradation sufficient to destroy most biodiversity and to some degree cultural diversity given enough time.  Human environmental degradation is a perfectly "natural" process that closely resembles the events following any species population explosion.  The role of any specific culture in environmental degradation is thus suspect and is more relevant to concentration, disbursement and time factors than eventual outcome.

I think it is also important to consider that "natural" environmental change is likely to be as significant a factor in the future as man made changes.  I'm not talking about the distant collapse of the sun or even the inevitable return of volcanic activity or the perhaps evitable collision with bodies from space.  History and science both tell us that short term cooling is devastating to cultures and has a high probability in term of decades or at least centuries of returning but is totally ignored by most people.  In the longer term glaciation is almost certain to return and have consequences almost unimagined.  We have become so focused on human activity that we have lost sight of our true relationship with nature.     
I'm not trying to discount the significance of human activity only put it into perspective that reflects a need for greater flexibility in thinking about the issues involved.  I would argue for example that food security should be a higher priority than containing co2 emissions based on natural climate variability.  That however is just one example of how policy must be driven by a more realistic contemplation of human vulnerability.  We cannot and will not escape the need for adaptation in the foreseeable future.

I'm also trying to formulate the immorality of unrestrained population growth in a context that respects human rights.  This topic is hardly discussed in the current climate of political correctness and sensitivity to cultural diversity.  There is a bit of hypocrisy in suggesting that technological exchange can take place without cultural transformation.   Keep in mind that the human species exists because of technology and will always be dependant on it.  Advancements in technology can solve some but not all of our problems and most immediate problems must be solved with existing technology in ways that minimize their negative impacts.      
      


Edited by wolfhnd - 29 Aug 2015 at 06:58
Back to Top
franciscosan View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master


Joined: 09 Feb 2015
Location: Littleton CO
Status: Offline
Points: 10105
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote franciscosan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29 Aug 2015 at 14:18
I sort of agree with Fantasus (sort of).  Wolfhound, you hit on so many things that it is hard to keep track of, I read, and my eyes glaze over and I have to read it again.  Slow down for us old foggies, focus on one issue, develop it.  When you hit on so many diverse topics, it is hard to know what to respond to.  Yes, there are connections between the origins of tool use, the natural/artificial distinction, co2 emissions, population, and human rights, but they are complicated enough that one can not just explain the connections in just one post.
PJ O'Rourke talks about (and is critical of) population control advocates overexaggerating the population problem.  He's fairly libertarian, but he is also Irish Catholic, so you might dismiss him because of that reason.  He is also a humorist so even on serious issues, he is fun to read.  I would suggest that you look at him and see what he says about how the zero growth people are full of hot air.  I assume that you have the critical ability to judge what he says for yourself.  Of course, there are also problems with 0 or negative population growth, particularly economic ones.  But I am sure that you know that as well.

btw, I wasn't saying that you were talking about eugenics.  I was saying that to my perspective what you say sort of sounds a little like eugenics.  If one person brings it up, it is probably just the perception of one person.  If more people bring up, however, then you might consider re-examining your beliefs, which after all is something one should often do on an issue one is actively engaged in.  But if you are sensitive about me bringing it up, that says something too, but not necessarily pro or con.  

Back to Top
wolfhnd View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 18 Feb 2015
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 816
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote wolfhnd Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29 Aug 2015 at 15:05
The argument is not about caring capacity it is about environmental impact, cultural evolution and the historical consequences of population imbalances on political organization.  If you ignore the fact that climate change is unavoidable then you can come up with some pretty extreme carrying capacity numbers but you still have to deal with the other issues.

I said anthropogenic global warming is likely not as serious a problem as natural climate change but is simpler to understand and is a useful political ploy to gain control of corporations and governments.  You need not question the sincerity of environmentalist or political activist to see that the lack of attention to population growth is ignored for political and emotional reasons.  You talk about eugenics but refuse to address the immorality of selfish reproduction and the effect it has on the quality of life of people who choose to be responsible.  Eugenics is not under discussion but it certainly poisons the well to bring it up when their is no mention of forced compliance with responsible reproductive behavior.

If biodiversity was a real concern then agriculture and population growth is a key consideration but people don't have the moral courage to discuss it for fear that someone will say they are in favor of things like eugenics and are racially motivated.   If you fail to see this as a problem then I suspect you see nothing wrong with twitter storms and guilt by association either.  Most of the current political activist I find to be extremely shallow and irrelevant but noisy, obstructive, and vindictive.  This even accounts for the irrelevant references in every science paper to global warming even if the paper is totally unrelated.  Squeaky wheels so to speak get the attention and create a mob mentality.  I would even throw people like the "great" intellectual Chomsky into this category although his time is over I would guess. 

Sorry if I ramble but I'm trying to set up a very specific argument that requires background.  


Edited by wolfhnd - 29 Aug 2015 at 15:10
Back to Top
wolfhnd View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 18 Feb 2015
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 816
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote wolfhnd Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29 Aug 2015 at 16:20
Here is an article on global carrying capacity.


Overpopulation Is Not the Problem

"The world population is now estimated at 7.2 billion. But with current industrial technologies, the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations has estimated that the more than nine billion people expected by 2050 as the population nears its peak could be supported as long as necessary investments in infrastructure and conducive trade, anti-poverty and food security policies are in place. Who knows what will be possible with the technologies of the future? The important message from these rough numbers should be clear. There really is no such thing as a human carrying capacity. We are nothing at all like bacteria in a petri dish."

"The only limits to creating a planet that future generations will be proud of are our imaginations and our social systems. In moving toward a better Anthropocene, the environment will be what we make it."


There is nothing in this article I would not agree with.   It is however as simplistic as the serious studies that suggest the carrying capacity is 2 billion which seems to be the number most scientist suggest is possible to sustain at a high standard of living.  Both points of view seem to ignore the unavoidable changes in climate we know are coming.  Those changes are of course so far off in the future that it would be mad to consider them seriously.  In the short term the historical records are all that are needed to question if they have considered climate events on the one to two year scale.  Those are survivable with adequate planning but I see no political will to address them.  The next ice age of course could also be survivable with current or higher population levels if we can engineer the climate some 2 thousand years in the future which I believe we can.  What seems unlikely is that we can engineer around volcanic events that we can hardly understand let alone predict and those could happen at any time and will happen on various scales over varying time spans.  Despite the exaggerated consequences of global warming it is certain it is not the worse case we should plan for. 

The more complicated issues surround sharing the planet with other life forms.  Is it immoral to sacrifice human numbers for biodiversity and natural habitats?   I can't answer that question because it is highly subjective but I do know there are people that would sacrifice their lives to preserve wildlife.  Even more complicated are the issues surrounding ecosystems.  The recent count of polar bears showing an increase or at least no decrease suggest we can't even understand macrofauna let alone micro organism in relation to the environment.  Agriculture may prove to be less sustainable than we currently believe due to changes in micro organism within ecosystems but we just don't have that kind of sophistication.  At this time any calculation of carrying capacity is little better than a guess.

What we don't have to guess at is that population pressures effect political organization because that is evident in the historical record.  Demand for resources remains a powderkeg of unexplored conflict between cultures.  It is highly unlikely based on current political organization that resource distribution can be peacefully resolved.  One only need to look at China and it's recent conflicts in Southeast Asia to be worried.

What I have explored up to this point is the historical consequences of unbalanced population growth and how it has effect moral considerations.  More importantly I have explored how human behavior viewed over long periods of time is as undirected as that of any other species despite the illusion of technological and social planning.  The subsequent questions involve population growth currently and in the future and how that effect social instability migration, conflict and moral agency.   



        
Back to Top
fantasus View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 08 May 2009
Location: Denmark
Status: Offline
Points: 1943
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote fantasus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29 Aug 2015 at 17:30
It is hard to answer either "agree" or "disagree", since the question what it is all about seems to grow for each post. What it seems to be not about is why the (ancient) Americans dod not have these Things. And it seems to be less about history than aboput future issues of population Growth and probably other issues. But how more precisely those problems and issues are seen, what eventual solutions or what to do seems one big question to me. What You may be against seems too. Some points we may not disagree about, since very few will. That History don´t follow a grand masterplan seems to be such a point we can agree upon. So can probably everyone that does not believe in some extreme tjheories of hidden Groups that over generation stay behind every event like in a theatre of puppets.
Back to Top
wolfhnd View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 18 Feb 2015
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 816
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote wolfhnd Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29 Aug 2015 at 19:37
Originally posted by fantasus fantasus wrote:

It is hard to answer either "agree" or "disagree", since the question what it is all about seems to grow for each post. What it seems to be not about is why the (ancient) Americans dod not have these Things. And it seems to be less about history than aboput future issues of population Growth and probably other issues. But how more precisely those problems and issues are seen, what eventual solutions or what to do seems one big question to me. What You may be against seems too. Some points we may not disagree about, since very few will. That History don´t follow a grand masterplan seems to be such a point we can agree upon. So can probably everyone that does not believe in some extreme tjheories of hidden Groups that over generation stay behind every event like in a theatre of puppets.

Sorry about not addressing the original question but I think the original question leads to other question that are currently being poorly answered.  The differences between cultures raises moral issues and controversies.  Surely the meaning of the confederate battle flag is an example of a recent cultural clash that provoked exceptional controversy and misunderstanding.  I'm trying to avoid being controversial by intentional pecking around the edges of some emotionally provocative subjects. 
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123 5>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 12.01
Copyright ©2001-2018 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.109 seconds.