Re: Reasons for apparent Technological Superiority of West over East?
- From: "Sylvia Knörr" <Sylvia.Knoerr_NoSpam_@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2005 01:48:40 +0100
"Comm" <no@xxxxxxxx> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:vSokf.9311$wf.2273@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> "Sylvia Knörr" <Sylvia.Knoerr_NoSpam_@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:dmlk71$b6m$00$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > "Comm" <no@xxxxxxxx> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
> > news:ykxif.6216$N45.3003@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > Because they were still at a hunter-gatherer level and didn't have any
> > domisticated plants or animals when they settled in Australia. They were
> > scarcely scattered groups of people, well adapted to their environment
and
> > had little reason to change their way of life until the arrival of
> > Europeans.
> Ehh... how they got to Australia was not a route hostile to more advanced
> strategies.
That's true, but Australia didn't have plants and animals which suited well
for domestication. So the people just remained at the hunter-gatherer level.
> >> The main thrust is that some places are north-south and others are
> >> east-west. China is also east - west.
> > Yes, the alignment of land masses had great impact on the spreading of
> > plants, animals, cultural achievements and ideas until humans had the
> > technological means to overcome these obstacles.
> You mean until some humans thought up technological means to overcome
> obstacles. That requires a lot of intelligence - and foresight.
Not only that. People also needed a REASON to overcome obstacles. Usually
people don't cross mountains and oceans unless they have some kind of
necessity to do that.
That would
> mean that those humans also selected in favor of such traits as
intelligence
> and foresight. I mean, the stuff just doesn't happen in a vacuum - no
> matter how many excuses "environmentalists" make for why SOME folks just
> never "got it." James Michael Howard has pretty strong proof as to why
ANY
> humans ever left Africa in the first place - I agree with what he's
> basically saying. That those that left were people that had lower levels
of
> testosterone - and hence were less aggressive. They left probably because
> they were bullied, picked on and HAD to get out. It's why every one else
> leaves such areas, by the way. they call it "white flight" but no - it's
not
> just white flight.
I agree that humans were selected in favor of intelligence, that's evident.
Yet I'm sceptical about the reasons you suggest why people move to other
places. Even if the testosterone and aggressivity levels might have
triggered some migration movements, there were probably other reasons as
well, like a deterioration of the climate, water and food supply, moving
with the prey etc.
> > For the same reason why individuals make different decisions depending
on
> > their personal biography. After all, it was not "China" or "Europe" who
> > chose anything, it was some LEADERS of the Chinese and European people -
> > individuals! Whether a decision turns out to be right or wrong can only
be
> > understood in the hindsight.
> No, I don't see that "one leader" does this or that. Governments tend to
> work bottom up, not top down. What the people wanted, for the most part -
> is what they got.
You got a point here.
Even modern China was very reluctant to modernize - like
> using machine to do what a village of people can do. Their ideas about
it,
> imo, were very good. Machines put the village out of work. Things are
more
> in balance the other way. But Chinese people have a strong foresight and
> are very intelligent - they have FOUND a way to modernize AND no one is
> starving there, everyone is pretty well off and useful with a job.
Yes, maybe the Chinese will prevail in the long run. They tend to reach high
effectivity with what they are doing.
> > I agree that humans and environment undergo a "co-adaption". But that
> > doesn't contradict Diamond's thesis generally, he just puts some more
> > stress
> > on the environment. Maybe he is a tad too rigid to deny the possibility
of
> > "collective traits" of ethnic groups.
> Diamond is one of those guys that refuses to believe that races exist at
> all. He'd never admit the FACT that they also have some innate behaviors,
> for the most part, in general. Yet now it turns out that basically, what
> you see with your eyes pretty much matches up with genetics.
Diamond just claims that the differences among races are NOT the relevant
factor for the differences of economic standards like we have them today.
Personally, I think there *ARE* innate racial behaviors, but the differences
are not strong enough that we couldn't level them by education, environment
etc.
> >> China closed up like a clam - AGAIN. Weird. Twice that happened
after
> >> dealing with the same people. Weird.
> > Don't know whether the contacts with Africans were crucial for the
Chinese
> > decisions to follow the path of isolation, I guess the reasons were more
> > complex than that. But I think Asians and Africans simply are as
different
> > as cats and dogs - they just can't get along with each other very well
> > (though there might be exceptions). Consequently it is just wise to
avoid
> > each other.
> Agree. They generally do - unless someone else tries to shove them
> together.
I agree with you that people shouldn't be forcefully shoved together *IF*
there is room enough for them to live separately. But if they live together
in one place, there shouldn't be any apartheid.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- References:
- Prev by Date: anthropology texts for the intelligent layperson
- Next by Date: Re: anthropology texts for the intelligent layperson
- Previous by thread: Re: Reasons for apparent Technological Superiority of West over East?
- Next by thread: Re: Reasons for apparent Technological Superiority of West over East?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
