Civilization And Savages

it all started with domesticating bovines. Once you have that, you have a beast of burden that can run the plow and give rise to agrarian diets, and leisure time.

Why do some areas not develop? A lack of beasts of burden is one (without a best of burden, you have no need for a wheel and cannot operate a plow). In some places i'd say that heavy duty agriculture would be rather difficult.

But until you can address the lower levels of mazlow's pyramid, you don't get to the point where you can dream, and solve problems that you don't really even have by creating technology.

Yeah, he definitely tries his best to circumvent any discourse suggesting that any particular "race" is inherently just plain more intellectual. That would come off as really racist in todays society. I do believe a lot in what he says, personally I think a lot of our disparities in technological advancement between cultures or at least the rise of deep thinking derives from ones nutritional state and no longer needing to hunt for food. Linus Pauling, biochemist/noble prize winner had a similar theory.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
it all started with domesticating bovines. Once you have that, you have a beast of burden that can run the plow and give rise to agrarian diets, and leisure time.

Why do some areas not develop? A lack of beasts of burden is one (without a best of burden, you have no need for a wheel and cannot operate a plow). In some places i'd say that heavy duty agriculture would be rather difficult.

But until you can address the lower levels of mazlow's pyramid, you don't get to the point where you can dream, and solve problems that you don't really even have by creating technology.

So intelligence has nothing to do with it?

originally posted by: Aristotelian1

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
it all started with domesticating bovines. Once you have that, you have a beast of burden that can run the plow and give rise to agrarian diets, and leisure time.

Why do some areas not develop? A lack of beasts of burden is one (without a best of burden, you have no need for a wheel and cannot operate a plow). In some places i'd say that heavy duty agriculture would be rather difficult.

But until you can address the lower levels of mazlow's pyramid, you don't get to the point where you can dream, and solve problems that you don't really even have by creating technology.

So intelligence has nothing to do with it?

You seem very hung up on the intelligence side of this.

Are you by any chance the 140+ IQ dude?

originally posted by: AKelp
Yeah, he definitely tries his best to circumvent any discourse suggesting that any particular "race" is inherently just plain more intellectual. That would come off as really racist in todays society. I do believe a lot in what he says, personally I think a lot of our disparities in technological advancement between cultures or at least the rise of deep thinking derives from ones nutritional state and no longer needing to hunt for food. Linus Pauling, biochemist/noble prize winner had a similar theory.

I agree about nutrition. It is factual that nutrition plays an important role in information processing.

originally posted by: Aristotelian1

originally posted by: enlightenedservant
It depends on what we should consider "advanced". The way I see it, most of the "primitive" cultures were more advanced than us in many ways. Let's use modern terminology to see what I mean.

They generally had sustainable farming and sustainable hunting practices, so they'd never deplete their resources. They didn't waste anything from their kills and crops, so they had no need for landfills or toxic waste dumps. All of their materials were biodegradable or made from rocks/clay/wood/etc, so they never polluted their environment with toxic crap. They had 100% organic food supplies. Their carbon footprint was virtually nonexistent.

And they were incredibly crafty, mastering even the most mundane plants in their environments, which would then be used in medicines & ointments, poisons, recreational drugs, tooth fillings, adhesives, paints and dyes, and much much more. Contrast that to modern civilizations, where most people can't grow their own food, can't make their own clothes, can't catch or tame wild animals, and have brains filled with needless crap like pop culture, sports trivia, and other pointless topics. It's hard to say we're more "advanced" than they were.

Clearly some of our technology is better (like medical, computing, and communications technology), but much of that is in the eye of the beholder. Even in modern times, there will always be people who don't want to live in a metropolis, don't care for the "merits" of really tall buildings, and don't want to spend resources sending probes throughout the solar system (or spend resources on any type of infrastructure at all). Would you see people like this as being uncivilized too, even though they live in the supposedly "civilized" countries?

And of course, there's the moral argument against creating and maintaining weapons systems that can kill all life on Earth. I consider that the most barbaric and savage development in human history.

Advanced-"ahead or far or further along in progress, complexity, knowledge, skill, etc."
By definition, some cultures are more advanced than others. Neat post though!

Yeah, but "advanced" at what? More advanced in the art of wasting resources? More advanced at polluting our own waters, air, and land? More advanced in the art of mass killings? In the early 1900s, the West made significant "progress" in creating biological and chemical weapons, too.

And many of the more "progressive" movements in these "advanced" societies are trying to lower our carbon footprints, use sustainable hunting and agricultural advancements, do away with nuclear technology, use biodegradable materials, go back to completely natural food supplies, etc. So it seems like many of the great "advancements" we've made have actually taken us in the wrong direction, hence the need to go back to what some consider "primitive" techniques and habits.

That's why I said it depends on what we should consider "advanced".

originally posted by: TerryDon79

originally posted by: Aristotelian1

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
it all started with domesticating bovines. Once you have that, you have a beast of burden that can run the plow and give rise to agrarian diets, and leisure time.

Why do some areas not develop? A lack of beasts of burden is one (without a best of burden, you have no need for a wheel and cannot operate a plow). In some places i'd say that heavy duty agriculture would be rather difficult.

But until you can address the lower levels of mazlow's pyramid, you don't get to the point where you can dream, and solve problems that you don't really even have by creating technology.

So intelligence has nothing to do with it?

You seem very hung up on the intelligence side of this.

Are you by any chance the 140+ IQ dude?

No. A psychometrist put me at 139. It's obvious that the primary causal agent of an advanced civilization is it's people. It's a non-sequitur to say,"This civilization has bovines, therefore it will one day be space- age." The prime mover of a civilization is it's people. The brighter the people, the more advanced the civilization.

PS: I have no idea who you are alluding to.

originally posted by: enlightenedservant

originally posted by: Aristotelian1

originally posted by: enlightenedservant
It depends on what we should consider "advanced". The way I see it, most of the "primitive" cultures were more advanced than us in many ways. Let's use modern terminology to see what I mean.

They generally had sustainable farming and sustainable hunting practices, so they'd never deplete their resources. They didn't waste anything from their kills and crops, so they had no need for landfills or toxic waste dumps. All of their materials were biodegradable or made from rocks/clay/wood/etc, so they never polluted their environment with toxic crap. They had 100% organic food supplies. Their carbon footprint was virtually nonexistent.

And they were incredibly crafty, mastering even the most mundane plants in their environments, which would then be used in medicines & ointments, poisons, recreational drugs, tooth fillings, adhesives, paints and dyes, and much much more. Contrast that to modern civilizations, where most people can't grow their own food, can't make their own clothes, can't catch or tame wild animals, and have brains filled with needless crap like pop culture, sports trivia, and other pointless topics. It's hard to say we're more "advanced" than they were.

Clearly some of our technology is better (like medical, computing, and communications technology), but much of that is in the eye of the beholder. Even in modern times, there will always be people who don't want to live in a metropolis, don't care for the "merits" of really tall buildings, and don't want to spend resources sending probes throughout the solar system (or spend resources on any type of infrastructure at all). Would you see people like this as being uncivilized too, even though they live in the supposedly "civilized" countries?

And of course, there's the moral argument against creating and maintaining weapons systems that can kill all life on Earth. I consider that the most barbaric and savage development in human history.

Advanced-"ahead or far or further along in progress, complexity, knowledge, skill, etc."
By definition, some cultures are more advanced than others. Neat post though!

Yeah, but "advanced" at what? More advanced in the art of wasting resources? More advanced at polluting our own waters, air, and land? More advanced in the art of mass killings? In the early 1900s, the West made significant "progress" in creating biological and chemical weapons, too.

And many of the more "progressive" movements in these "advanced" societies are trying to lower our carbon footprints, use sustainable hunting and agricultural advancements, do away with nuclear technology, use biodegradable materials, go back to completely natural food supplies, etc. So it seems like many of the great "advancements" we've made have actually taken us in the wrong direction, hence the need to go back to what some consider "primitive" techniques and habits.

That's why I said it depends on what we should consider "advanced".

All you're saying is that our technology has exceeded our humanity. You're making an argument against our ethics, not our technological progress.

a reply to: Aristotelian1

Of course a human advanced civilization needs people otherwise it wouldn't be a human civilization.

What would you class as intelligence?

Is it intelligent to not stick your finger in a river of magma from a volcano? Nowadays, the answer would be yes. Millions of years ago I would guess the first person to do it and express that it was bloody hot would be classed as intelligent by his/her peers.

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: Aristotelian1

Of course a human advanced civilization needs people otherwise it wouldn't be a human civilization.

What would you class as intelligence?

Is it intelligent to not stick your finger in a river of magma from a volcano? Nowadays, the answer would be yes. Millions of years ago I would guess the first person to do it and express that it was bloody hot would be classed as intelligent by his/her peers.

No, you missed the point. The brighter the people, the more advanced their culture is going to be.

originally posted by: enlightenedservant

originally posted by: Aristotelian1

originally posted by: enlightenedservant
It depends on what we should consider "advanced". The way I see it, most of the "primitive" cultures were more advanced than us in many ways. Let's use modern terminology to see what I mean.

They generally had sustainable farming and sustainable hunting practices, so they'd never deplete their resources. They didn't waste anything from their kills and crops, so they had no need for landfills or toxic waste dumps. All of their materials were biodegradable or made from rocks/clay/wood/etc, so they never polluted their environment with toxic crap. They had 100% organic food supplies. Their carbon footprint was virtually nonexistent.

And they were incredibly crafty, mastering even the most mundane plants in their environments, which would then be used in medicines & ointments, poisons, recreational drugs, tooth fillings, adhesives, paints and dyes, and much much more. Contrast that to modern civilizations, where most people can't grow their own food, can't make their own clothes, can't catch or tame wild animals, and have brains filled with needless crap like pop culture, sports trivia, and other pointless topics. It's hard to say we're more "advanced" than they were.

Clearly some of our technology is better (like medical, computing, and communications technology), but much of that is in the eye of the beholder. Even in modern times, there will always be people who don't want to live in a metropolis, don't care for the "merits" of really tall buildings, and don't want to spend resources sending probes throughout the solar system (or spend resources on any type of infrastructure at all). Would you see people like this as being uncivilized too, even though they live in the supposedly "civilized" countries?

And of course, there's the moral argument against creating and maintaining weapons systems that can kill all life on Earth. I consider that the most barbaric and savage development in human history.

Advanced-"ahead or far or further along in progress, complexity, knowledge, skill, etc."
By definition, some cultures are more advanced than others. Neat post though!

Yeah, but "advanced" at what? More advanced in the art of wasting resources? More advanced at polluting our own waters, air, and land? More advanced in the art of mass killings? In the early 1900s, the West made significant "progress" in creating biological and chemical weapons, too.

And many of the more "progressive" movements in these "advanced" societies are trying to lower our carbon footprints, use sustainable hunting and agricultural advancements, do away with nuclear technology, use biodegradable materials, go back to completely natural food supplies, etc. So it seems like many of the great "advancements" we've made have actually taken us in the wrong direction, hence the need to go back to what some consider "primitive" techniques and habits.

That's why I said it depends on what we should consider "advanced".

There is a lot less risk in the trade off of moving from stone tools to mining for steel in its effect on the environment VS splitting uranium in a nuclear reactor for energy. While you're absolutely right that we've left a terrible footprint on the planet, we have made advancements and perhaps the next ones we make will be a move to cleaner sources of energy where we instead give back to nature without disruption, but thats not to say splitting uranium is not advanced, it definitely is for our time and anybody before us! The question is why do cultures advance so unevenly and drastically?

I don't know if it can be chalked up to only, or even mostly, intelligence. People from all over the world have come to the US, or other "advanced" nations, been educated in and brought up in a different Environment, and become successful in just about all levels of our society.

Others, of course, have been less successful.

But of course, success and intelligence are not necessarily going to go hand in hand.

Bring one of these successful people back to their home village and their people may not even be very impressed.
"What? You can't even make your own clothes? You don't know anything about making medicine from plants? You cannot hunt, butcher, cook and use every part of this certain animal for various tools, weapons, jewelry and other useful and desirable items? You could never take a wife/husband from our tribe/community, because the only place you know how to survive is in the environment you were brought up in, which is much different than our own, and no man or woman brought up in our community, in their right mind, is going to place any value on the things you are talking about. And it has nothing to do with a lack of intelligence, because all of us have memorized the vast wisdom of our ancestors about all the plants and animals in our area which is no simple task. So, I must conclude that probably any one of us could go and memorize all the things you learned. After all, you did it, and you were once one of us."

a reply to: Aristotelian1

It is stupid and racist to try to make out that some races are cleverer than others.

Go and fly a kite.

originally posted by: Aristotelian1
When one examines all the diverse and wonderous cultures that currently do, and have existed on this planet. One cannot help but notice a curious disparity of technology and cultural refinement. What separated ancient Egypt from ancient Papua New Guinea? Or England in the 1600's from the North Ameixan Native American tribes? Or modern day Western Europe from modern day Republic of Congo?

What is your opinion? Why is it that some cultures are so much more advanced than others?

Personally, I think that Jared Diamond's "Guns, Germs, and Steel" concept works well to explain the situation before 1500 BC. It starts to fall apart a bit after that and is not terribly accurate in recent history. Basically the idea is that the ones who had animals that were large enough for transportation, turned to farming early, and developed trade and technology ended up doing well.

You can read about his theory here

originally posted by: Aristotelian1

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: Aristotelian1

Of course a human advanced civilization needs people otherwise it wouldn't be a human civilization.

What would you class as intelligence?

Is it intelligent to not stick your finger in a river of magma from a volcano? Nowadays, the answer would be yes. Millions of years ago I would guess the first person to do it and express that it was bloody hot would be classed as intelligent by his/her peers.

No, you missed the point. The brighter the people, the more advanced their culture is going to be.

Not necessarily.

Creativity doesn't always equal intelligence. Done modern breakthroughs were discovered by accident and some were just by someone being creative.

Look at a spear. Do you think it's more likely that someone intelligent came up with the idea or someone saw an animal or person fall onto a pointy stick?

a reply to: Aristotelian1

I suspect its down to one thing only. You have cultures in the northern colder climates that have to develop technology to survive and those that can simply live off the land in warmer climes.

I think if you live in a lush area that provides then you can live in hunter-gatherer mode without any problems.

Hunter-gatherer living is not necessarily "primitive" or "savage". It can be sophisticated and refined, full of art and culture, and can possibly be a healthier society that 'modern' civilization.

I think development comes from scarcity and other difficult conditions where people have to adapt and get ingenious. For example if people move to a colder climate where food is not abundant in winter then they have to figure how to live in those conditions. Making shelter, farming, storing food etc.

Also if there is a large population in a particular city, then there are problems associated with that, or if competing cities live in proximity of each other then problems associated with conflict can occur, and there is development from that.

In a sense maybe hunter-gatherer cultures were lucky in a sense and so never had to develop in certain ways. .. that is lucky until they met other 'developed' cultures that destroyed them.

originally posted by: TerryDon79

originally posted by: Aristotelian1

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: Aristotelian1

Of course a human advanced civilization needs people otherwise it wouldn't be a human civilization.

What would you class as intelligence?

Is it intelligent to not stick your finger in a river of magma from a volcano? Nowadays, the answer would be yes. Millions of years ago I would guess the first person to do it and express that it was bloody hot would be classed as intelligent by his/her peers.

No, you missed the point. The brighter the people, the more advanced their culture is going to be.

Not necessarily.

Creativity doesn't always equal intelligence. Done modern breakthroughs were discovered by accident and some were just by someone being creative.

Look at a spear. Do you think it's more likely that someone intelligent came up with the idea or someone saw an animal or person fall onto a pointy stick?

I agree. I would like to separate the ideas of creativity and the idea of logic awareness.

A person can have a very creative out of box thinking and high visualization skill without being logically aware. Just look at for instance the spiritual crowd who with certain tools overstimulate part of their brain so that it start to effect the speech center and speak or sing in tongues for hour playing around with sound like a child. That people are able to achieve this and experience this do not mean they automatically can the use logic and awareness to understand the experience on a higher level and see how the experience was manifested in the biological body.

You can be one part more than the other. And people who do not have awareness are easy to manipulate and often suffer from self deceit.

Some Cultures/religions is a perfect example on how the majority of people with low self awareness can force insane practices on even the aware by following dogma that is not following the golden rule that become a race to the barbaric bottom. Comply with our dogma or die. You are either for us or against us. Dogma is not allowed to be examined by awareness. Nazi movement is a perfect example of this.

Other cultures/religions instead try to increase awareness and creativity will make sure they never break the golden rule. Taoism is an example of a religion that the further dogmatic you become the more peaceful you are to all.

originally posted by: Aristotelian1
What is your opinion? Why is it that some cultures are so much more advanced than others?

I'm going with religious beliefs as being a big inhibitor of scientific progress. That, and other things, like the "need" to wage large-scale wars, or feed and water tens of thousands of people as opposed to smaller tribes.

It's like "they" say, necessity is the mother of all invention. If you don't need certain things, why would a culture take the time to solve a non-existent problem?

originally posted by: Aristotelian1

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
it all started with domesticating bovines. Once you have that, you have a beast of burden that can run the plow and give rise to agrarian diets, and leisure time.

Why do some areas not develop? A lack of beasts of burden is one (without a best of burden, you have no need for a wheel and cannot operate a plow). In some places i'd say that heavy duty agriculture would be rather difficult.

But until you can address the lower levels of mazlow's pyramid, you don't get to the point where you can dream, and solve problems that you don't really even have by creating technology.

So intelligence has nothing to do with it?

Sure it does. But we (and our homonid brothers and sisters) walked around chasing mammoths for over 100k years. Once we left Africa and the levant, mammoth chasing was how humanity survived.

Hunter gatherers can be intelligent. Technology is not a display of intelligence. Its more of a display of hubris. A desire to conquer nature rather than live within it. We could use our vast intellect in a different way....its simply a tool. And that tool was in place 190k years before we decided to use it to conquer nature and domesticate her animals and plants.