PDA

View Full Version : On The Influence Of Emotion Drugs On History


Jeff Corkern
9th October 2007, 08:07 PM
Some food for thought on the question of whether or not emotion drugs (marijuana, cocaine, Ecstasy, and so forth) should be legalized . . .

For y'all's consideration.


ON THE INFLUENCE OF EMOTION DRUGS ON HISTORY
by Jeffrey A. Corkern

In the early 1500's, the Spanish culture landed in the Americas and encountered the early native American cultures.

And VERY shortly after that, on a historical time scale, the early native American cultures were gone. With hardly any effort at all. Wiped out, crushed, extinct, one with the dodo bird, baby. While the people who had composed those cultures were still there, the cultures themselves had been eradicated.

(Certainly pockets lingered. But as a significant historical force, they were gone.)

Hardy a whisper of what those early American cultures were remains behind today. There is no more than the barest detectable trace in the current American cultures of any of the old Aztec/Maya/Inca and so forth cultures. (With one notable exception. More on this in a bit.) Certainly nothing in our law, religion, or societal customs can be traced back to any early American culture.

Why were these early American cultures wiped out so easily?

Yeah, disease had a lot to do with it. And also the Spanish had vastly superior technology. The early American cultures were what? About Late Stone Age? Not even metal. The Spanish were WELL beyond that. They had steel swords and armor, not to mention matchlock firearms.

Why were the Spanish so superior in technology, though?

This is actually a strange thing, that the Spanish were so superior. The more you think about it, the odder it gets.

Because the early Americans should've been about EQUAL in technology. At the very least.

They really should've. Right? They had the time. They had the time, and the resources. They surely had the time and resources to develop technology equal to--or even SUPERIOR---to the Spanish. Humans had been in the Americas since the time of the glaciers, man! They could've done it. The competitive pressures to innovate---wars, floods, plagues, etc---were EXACTLY the same as the Spanish. They had more than enough physical resources and time to develop and even surpass anything the Spanish had. Time to develop steel, time to develop guns, time even to develop the germ theory of disease that could've done so much to keep their entire culture from being erased.

There's NO physical reason the Spanish couldn't have landed and found the early native Americans driving around in Cadillacs.

And yet---it didn't happen. Their culture wasn't technologically equal to the Spanish, and so it got rubbed out. With the greatest of ease.

(Cultures, it seems, undergo Darwinian selection pressures just as much as physical organisms do.)

Why?

Now I don't think it was because the early Americans were less intelligent than the Spanish. Not for any idiotic racial reasons. They had their innovations and clever inventions. They studied and knew the stars, engineered and built massive temples and cities. They had the motions of Venus in the sky all mapped out, a thing that took centuries of precise record-keeping to do.

Without question, they could think. As well as the Spanish.

But they were like, SL-O-O-O-W to do it, man, you know?

It's as if some unknown factor---SEVERELY retarded the rate of growth of the early American cultures. Something that was NOT present in Spanish culture, European culture.

(From here on in, I'm going to refer to Spanish culture as European culture. Certainly from the standpoint of the early American cultures, they were the same.)

What might that factor be? It would have to be something that was all over the early American cultures, but NOT present in European culture, and also capable of SEVERELY slowing the growth of a culture.

Is there one single factor that meets all these criteria?

Um, well, yes, there is ONE such factor. There is one STRIKING difference between early native American culture and European culture.

Emotion drugs.

(A brief pause here to define what I mean by “emotion drug.” The definition is obvious, but must be stated for reasons of rigor.

An “emotion drug” is a chemical substance whose SOLE purpose is to induce a specific emotion in a user's brain.)

Emotion drug use was endemic in the native American cultures---but NOT in the European cultures, not to the extent it was in the Americas. Early Native American religions actively ENCOURAGED the use of emotion drugs, while the religion of the Europeans----Catholicism and all the religions that derived from it---actively DISCOURAGED the use of emotion drugs.

To put it crudely---the Pope DIDN'T smoke dope. But in the early native American cultures, the Pope-equivalents DID smoke dope. And encourage everybody else to do it, too. Plus ingest mescaline. And alcohol. And mushrooms. And marijuana. And peyote. And coca.

Man. Look at that list. That incredibly LONG list of emotion drugs they left behind is very strong evidence getting stoned was a MAJOR part of their culture. With all the emotion drugs they had available, those early native American dudes must've spent a LOT of their time ripped out of their minds, huh.

And man, tobacco. I nearly missed tobacco because it is so common and everyday. (You could make a strong case tobacco is the early native Americans' revenge for having their culture wiped out, couldn't you.)

Funny. A lot of the emotion drugs existing today---come DIRECTLY from those early native American cultures. In fact, thinking about it, emotion drugs are the one and only significant cultural thing they left behind. Other than that---nothing.

(Sure, chocolate and potatoes, the odd word or two. But these are extremely minor. They have had no effect on the bedrock of our culture.)

Could extensive emotion drug use actually HARM a culture over time?

Well, if somebody's stoned out of his mind on whatever---he, or she, is NOT, like, you know, THINKING. Right? So, if you compared the two cultures in the pre-invasion centuries, what you would see in the early American cultures is a great number of people NOT thinking, as opposed to the Europeans, where you would see a great number of people with their index fingers earnestly pressed against their temples like the Tin Man in the Wizard of Oz, staring off into space, and THINKING.

Thinking about ways to make their lives better, to get what they want. Like, well, how to make steel, and ways to forge that steel into swords, armor, and guns.

Thinking, fundamentally, about ways to make their lives HAPPIER.

Would a significant fraction of a culture's populace always being stoned at any one time, NOT THINKING, have a severely retarding effect on a culture's progress over centuries?

Waddya---THINK?

Ahem.

There is another somewhat more subtle retarding effect.

People do what they do to be happy. You can describe all human action as an effort to achieve happiness.

Emotion drugs---MAKE you feel happy.

And you don't have to do ANY work for it. Or, more accurately, not as much work as you would have to do otherwise.

And this airy-fairy stuff means what, in practical terms?

In an emotion-drug culture, happiness is only a snort, a swallow, or a toke away.

And so it is very, very easy to get away from reality in an emotion-drug culture, from anything that makes you unhappy. Like being tired from carrying rocks on your back to build temples with all day. Or your entire family dying from some weird disease. Or having a permanent headache from the boss bopping you on the head all the time as you carry him around in his palanquin. Things like that.

Instead of sitting down and dreaming up inventions like the wheel to make your life easier (which the Maya NEVER did), or creating an antibiotic to cure that weird disease, or planning a revolution to kick that head-bopping boss out, you could just sit down and get stoned to make all the pain and bad feelings go away.

Emotion-drug cultures have a definite built-in tendency to remain STATIC, don't they? Nothing's going to change very fast in an emotion-drug culture.

This is NOT true in a culture where emotion drugs are illegal. You can't easily escape from something that makes you unhappy.

You can only---deal with it directly. By changing something about yourself or your environment. You just CAN'T get away.

In an non-emotion-drug culture---you are FORCED to deal with the real world, FORCED to think. If you want to be happy.

You think this would have an accelerating effect on a culture's progress?

There are effects on moral progress, too. So much moral advancement has taken place because of empathy, the ability to feel what the victim is feeling. Emotion drugs severely hamper the feeling of empathy. The more intense the emotion drug, the more diminished your ability to feel empathy. The more emotionally cut off you are from other human beings.

If you're on emotion drugs, you feel happy---NO MATTER WHAT YOU'RE DOING. You can do anything you want to people, and it's not going to affect your own emotions the least little bit.

Like bending people backward over onto stone altars and cutting their beating hearts out of their chests, for example. Not just every once in a while, but ALL the time.

Think that's evidence of retarded moral progress? The Spanish were certainly no moral paragons, but at least they didn't routinely bend people backward over stone altars and rip their hearts out!

(The possibility of having your heart ripped out one day isn't going to generate a whole lot of like, you know, LOYALTY to a culture, either. You can only imagine the conversation.

"Wait a second. You evil invading imperialistic capitalist Spanish DON'T rip peoples' hearts out?"

"No. We don't do that."

"Never ever?"

"No, never ever."

"Oh, I have seen the light! Bless me, Father, for I have sinned!")

One more subtle effect. The most subtle effect of all, but perhaps the most significant, powerful, dangerous, lethal effect of them all.

How many geniuses are there in a culture, at any given time? Not many, right?

What if even ONE of those geniuses spent all of his time STONED? Would that have a retarding effect on a culture's progress?

So much progress is not due to mass action, but rather to the solitary effort of a single individual. What if that single individual decided he liked emotion drugs better than thinking?

What if Newton had spent all of his time stoned? Maxwell? Pasteur? Galileo? Einstein? Gibbs? Curie? Fleming? Salk? The list goes on and on.

Except, whoops, they couldn't do that, because emotion drugs were FROWNED ON in the cultures they lived in. There weren't even that many emotion drugs to use in the first place. Certainly not compared to what the early native American cultures had.

What about the early native American scientific geniuses?

Oops. Pardon me. There aren't ANY known early native American scientific geniuses, are there? NOT ONE. No Aztec Newtons, no Maya Maxwells, no Inca Pasteurs. NOBODY, MAN!

(Oh, they had their potential scientific geniuses, right enough. But they were either stoned, or trapped in a retarded culture that had developed no place for their genius to flower.

"Hey, Jaguar Paw! Let's go invent the germ theory and keep thousands and thousands of our people from dying when the Spanish arrive!"

"Naah. I'm gonna kick back here at the temple and do some spirit-travelin'." (D-e-e-p drag on joint) "Oh, man, this is some really GOOD spirit-travelin'!")

So when you add all these effects up, what does it mean?

It means one day Spanish sailing ships arrive at your beaches, instead of YOUR sailing ships arriving at THEIRS. It means the Spanish come rowing ashore carrying steel swords, armor, and guns, and you, well, you AIN'T driving Cadillacs. You're still stuck in the Stone Age. With rocks, clubs, throwing sticks, and spears.

It means when the Europeans arrive, your culture gets STOMPED, and it's not even close.

Are there any historical lessons we should take from this? Something that applies to societal conflicts the world's societies are currently having?

Given all the preceding----would you, the gentle reader, make emotion drugs LEGAL in YOUR society TODAY?

The world's stable societies are currently engaged in an epic battle to stop people from using emotion drugs.

And they're LOSING. Big-time. Emotion drugs are far more common than they were fifty years ago. When you look at this struggle on a historical time scale, it is quite clear they are losing this battle.

It is also quite clear WHY they are losing this battle.

They don't understand the enemy. Don't have the slightest clue. You can tell that by what they're calling this war.

The “War On Drugs.”

What? We're fighting penicillin, sulfonamides, aspirin, quinine? That doesn't make any sense, man!

And it doesn't, either.

It's not the “War on Drugs.”

It's the “War on EMOTION Drugs.”

They're fighting it entirely the wrong way, too. The world's stable societies are trying to fight this battle by citing what are, essentially, unimportant side-effects. Tobacco is loaded with carcinogens and give you cancer. Marijuana is also loaded with carcinogens and can give you cancer. Alcohol can cause cirrhosis of the liver and a host of other problems that will kill you also. Psychedelics can cause permanent brain damage. Just a pinch too much of other emotion drugs will kill you in a heartbeat.

But that's not the most lethal effect of these things, is it? Not by a country mile. The most lethal effect of these things is what they fundamentally do, make people feel happy.

You cut these things loose in your culture----AND ONE FINE DAY, YOUR CULTURE JUST WON'T BE THERE ANYMORE. It will have been out-competed and rolled over by some non-emotion-drug culture. Just like what happened to the early native American cultures.

Right?

Y'all have a good one.


END

Consider the following as a statement of logic, and rank it as "True" or "False."

UserGoogol
9th October 2007, 08:58 PM
Your theory seems rather dubious. As far as my vague knowledge of anthropology goes, Sub-Saharan Africans weren't terribly developed either when Europeans ran into them, but they didn't have drugs. Furthermore, Europe had one emotion drug America didn't have: booze, which has a fairly long and "proud" history on that side of the Atlantic. Furthermore, I very strongly suspect your description of the impact of emotions drugs in Native American societies is hugely overstated. Personally, I think the "Guns Germs and Steel" theory that America just didn't have right sort of natural resources to set up big agricultural societies to the same degree sounds more plausible.

But also, I think that even if you're right I don't care that much. Societies are just aggregates of people, and the good of a society is the good of its people. Thus, if the people are content and live prosperous lives (you don't seem to be implying that Native American society was some sort of drug fueled haze 24-7, merely that they weren't as productive as they would've been sober), who cares if their society is ultimately replaced? Of course we don't want our descendants to die of diseases or genocide or whatever, but if our society is simply absorbed by some other society, then who cares? And frankly, with society being as global as it is, I don't think we have to worry about Spaniards coming over to try to take our gold and convert our women.

TX50
9th October 2007, 09:26 PM
... in the early native American cultures, the Pope-equivalents DID smoke dope. And encourage everybody else to do it, too. Plus ingest mescaline. And alcohol. And mushrooms. And marijuana. And peyote. And coca.




What evidence is there for everyone being encouraged to take these? In
Aztec culture, for one, consumption of hallucinogens (and intoxicating drink
and consumption of human flesh) was restricted to the elite and only in
particular contexts.

pipelineaudio
9th October 2007, 09:31 PM
Interesting theory!

My own personal anectdotes in life among creators and innovators says it makes a lot of sense, but thats not really very good evidence

pipelineaudio
9th October 2007, 09:32 PM
What evidence is there for everyone being encouraged to take these? In
Aztec culture, for one, consumption of hallucinogens (and intoxicating drink
and consumption of human flesh) was restricted to the elite and only in
particular contexts.

But if you WERENT one of the elite would you have the time/be allowed to invent?

Then again wouldnt one sect decide that drugs made you weak and then innovate and dominate all the others?

Gurdur
10th October 2007, 05:50 AM
....Because the early Americans should've been about EQUAL in technology. At the very least.
.....There's NO physical reason the Spanish couldn't have landed and found the early native Americans driving around in Cadillacs.

This is all completely false. Instead of wanking on about drugs, something kept to the elite, and something the invading Spanish also used (alcohol, remember? D'oh), take a look at the geology of South America, especially the regions most relevant.

Now think: Lack of easily-won and -worked iron ore and coal. Now think about that.

Jeff Corkern
10th October 2007, 06:15 PM
What evidence is there for everyone being encouraged to take these? In
Aztec culture, for one, consumption of hallucinogens (and intoxicating drink
and consumption of human flesh) was restricted to the elite and only in
particular contexts.

In the number of emotion drugs available. The sheer number of emotion drugs the early native American had available is VERY strong evidence that getting ripped was a MAJOR part of the culture.

It isn't necessary for emotion drugs to be available to everybody for them to cause MASSIVE harm. Just available to the "elite" is MORE than enough.

Because it's the "elite" who are the ones who have the time to sit down and think. They are the ones that inventions and new thoughts come from. NOT the peasantry. Peasants have to spend all their time just surviving.

And as for "restricted to the elite," surely you're joking, man. I mean, marijuana, cocaine, peyote, LSD, Ecstasy, etc, are ALL "restricted' in the United States---to say the least---and how well is THAT working?

Consider the following as a statement of logic, and rank it as "True" or "False."

fishbob
10th October 2007, 06:29 PM
It's as if some unknown factor---SEVERELY retarded the rate of growth of the early American cultures. Something that was NOT present in Spanish culture, European culture.

What might that factor be? It would have to be something that was all over the early American cultures, but NOT present in European culture, and also capable of SEVERELY slowing the growth of a culture.

Is there one single factor that meets all these criteria?

Um, well, yes, there is ONE such factor. There is one STRIKING difference between early native American culture and European culture.


Accidents of Geography - Lesson 1:

"If I have seen further it is by standing on ye shoulders of Giants." --Isaac Newton

Where were these 'giants'? Europe.
What is between Europe and the Americas? A big honkin' ocean.

Jeff Corkern
10th October 2007, 06:31 PM
Interesting theory!

My own personal anectdotes in life among creators and innovators says it makes a lot of sense, but thats not really very good evidence


Thank you.

Actually, it IS pretty good evidence.:)

I must say my main point with this is NOT to convince people the destruction of the early native American cultures was due in large part to their use of emotion drugs. Although that's certainly what I suspect.

My main point is for the reader to wonder that, you know, maybe legalizing emotion drugs is NOT such a good idea.

Jeff Corkern
10th October 2007, 06:46 PM
This is all completely false. Instead of wanking on about drugs, something kept to the elite, and something the invading Spanish also used (alcohol, remember? D'oh), take a look at the geology of South America, especially the regions most relevant.

Now think: Lack of easily-won and -worked iron ore and coal. Now think about that.

Sure, the Spanish had alcohol---but that was it. And alcohol, perhaps by sheer accident, is a VERY bad emotion drug. The thrill is not much compared to other drugs, and overuse makes you very sick very quickly. It is self-inhibiting.

But that's not the critical point. Gettting stoned was DISCOURAGED by the Church, but ENCOURAGED by the native American religions. That, I think, is the critical point here.

They didn't have coal and iron ore? Sure, maybe.

But it's more than just metal. A LOT more. They just didn't innovate that fast, and you gotta wonder why, because they did leave a lot of stuff behind that proves they could think when they wanted to.

So much they could've done with what they had, and DIDN'T.

They had sand, and fire, for example. They could've forged lenses, magnified a drop of water, discovered bacteria and eventually the germ theory of disease.

But they just FLAT didn't do it. As I point out, there are NO known native American scientific geniuses.

Consider the following as a statement of logic, and rank it as "True" or "False."

slingblade
10th October 2007, 06:57 PM
But that's not the critical point. Gettting stoned was DISCOURAGED by the Church, but ENCOURAGED by the native American religions. That, I think, is the critical point here.

There are over 500 different Nations extant in the U.S. alone.

Each has a different cultural heritage, and it's quite misleading to speak of all of them as if they formed a homogeneous entity.

They don't.

A few nations did ceremonially use peyote. A few.

You need to prove, somehow, that the majority of the 500 Nations encourage(d) some sort of drug use of the type you've mentioned, in order for your theory to hold any water.

Jeff Corkern
10th October 2007, 07:01 PM
Your theory seems rather dubious. As far as my vague knowledge of anthropology goes, Sub-Saharan Africans weren't terribly developed either when Europeans ran into them, but they didn't have drugs. Furthermore, Europe had one emotion drug America didn't have: booze, which has a fairly long and "proud" history on that side of the Atlantic. Furthermore, I very strongly suspect your description of the impact of emotions drugs in Native American societies is hugely overstated. .

I've never seen any scholaly work on the subject.

Somebody ought to.

Personally, I think the "Guns Germs and Steel" theory that America just didn't have right sort of natural resources to set up big agricultural societies to the same degree sounds more plausible..

If the early native Americans had developed the germ theory of disease---they would not have had the "Germs" problem.

My point is I don't think it's the presence or absence of natural resources that's the limiting factor.

But the presence or absence of MINDS. If you inhibit the ability of your people to think, even by accident, your culture is NOT going to survive, not when there are cultures out there that don't do this.


(you don't seem to be implying that Native American society was some sort of drug fueled haze 24-7, merely that they weren't as productive as they would've been sober).

Precisely correct. It might not have been much, but over centuries it added up to them still being stuck in the Stone Age when the rest of the word was exploring the globe and doing scientific experiments.


(who cares if their society is ultimately replaced?

Oh, a LOT of people would care, you bet. They wouldn't like the idea the least little bit.

Now, I'm sorta with you on the absorption part. In a certain sense. As long as they weren't bad guys, it doesn't matter. I can learn to sing "Guantanamera" if I have to.

Thank you all for your comments.

Consider the following as a statement of logic, and rank it as "True" or "False."

LostAngeles
10th October 2007, 07:06 PM
I should, like UserGoogl, refer you to, Guns, Germs, and Steel.

Jared Diamond, professor of Geography at UCLA, asks the same question. Why wasn't it the Aztecs and the Mayan who rode into Spain as conquerors? Why did Europeans have the technological advantage?

His answer?

The agriculture and lack of big, dumb, domesticable animals.

If you're interested in this topic, it's really worth the read.

Unalienable
10th October 2007, 07:29 PM
If this thesis is to hold water, then what should we expect would happen when emotion changing drugs became commonplace in Western culture? It seems to me, that would mark the beginning of a decline.

In the late 19th century heroin was legal and gaining widespread acceptance. Sears Roebuck was making a fortune selling tiny wallet-sized heroin kits that would contain the drug, a syringe, and a compartment of fresh needles. Needless to say, the also made a killing on the refills.

Then cocaine was popularized, and drinks like Coca Cola became popular. Some of Coca Cola's competitors were sold as "tonics" with as much as a gram of cocaine per bottle.

And yet, Western progress did not suddenly come to a standstill. In fact, we witnessed the most amazing period of technological progress in history.

I think what it comes down to is two things:

(1) Even in a culture laden with drugs, not everybody will do them. If Albert Einstein was a junky, maybe relativity theory would never have been discovered. But he wasn't, and it was.

(2) Not everybody who partakes in drugs becomes non productive. Our beloved late Carl Sagan was a pothead. Does that make him less of a great thinker? I believe not.

slingblade
11th October 2007, 10:24 AM
I've never seen any scholaly work on the subject.

Somebody ought to.


So you wrote your "paper" based on what? Your self-admitted non-existant research? I mean, you've formed quite an extensive opinion, based on....?


Do yourself a favor now, and stop thinking about "Native Americans" as a unit. You are doing yourself and them a disservice by thinking of them that way. It's the same as if you'd read a little bit about Ireland, and from that, deduced what life in Germany must be like.

There are many comparative factors you haven't even considered in your "essay." Focusing on a single and dubious factor is poor scholarship at best.

Madalch
11th October 2007, 01:27 PM
Others have already pointed out the holes in your hypothesis, but I'll add one more.

The Spaniards, at the time of the conquest, did not have germ theory. They had germs- smallpox, for example. They didn't know what caused it, they didn't know how it worked, they just had the disease, and most of them had been exposed to it (or its variants) enough to have some modicum of resistance to it. The Aztecs, Mayans, etc. didn't. Not because they were stoned, and not because they had never seen a germ through a magnifying glass.

dudalb
11th October 2007, 01:34 PM
I have a Bachelor's in History,and I can tell you that any History Professor would give you a D at best for you thesis,and more likely an F.
The lumping together of Native Americans as a single culture,when there was a very wide diversity would lose you a lot points right off the bat.
This is a prime example of the "Single Factor" fallacy,quite common in crackpot History.
THat is, radically overestimating the impact a single factor has in history. A prime example is the thesis that lead poisoning was the major reason for the Fall of The Roman Empire.

sinclairmcevoy
11th October 2007, 03:31 PM
Why would they have to be at the same level of technology as the Europeans? What they had worked fine for them, til the Spanish showed up. How many European pyramids have you seen? Some of the S. American building techniques were WAYYYYYYY ahead of Europe's. Europe had just as much time to get to that level, but didn't. Why? What the hell were they taking?

LostAngeles
11th October 2007, 03:49 PM
Why would they have to be at the same level of technology as the Europeans? What they had worked fine for them, til the Spanish showed up. How many European pyramids have you seen? Some of the S. American building techniques were WAYYYYYYY ahead of Europe's. Europe had just as much time to get to that level, but didn't. Why? What the hell were they taking?

Europe was too busy making pictures of The Annunciation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annunciation#Annunciation_in_art).

Gurdur
11th October 2007, 04:01 PM
Europe was too busy making pictures of The Annunciation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annunciation#Annunciation_in_art).

And getting drunk.

slingblade
12th October 2007, 09:51 AM
All done there, Jeff? Nothing left to say?

Darth Rotor
12th October 2007, 03:39 PM
In the number of emotion drugs available. The sheer number of emotion drugs the early native American had available is VERY strong evidence that getting ripped was a MAJOR part of the culture.
Nope.

A single case in point, modern Italy.

There is wine everywhere. They live on the stuff. One thing I noticed when I was there was that Italians don't get ripped, as a cultural habit, in the same way that some Americans do that "let's get drunk" thing. It's a different approach, even though the means, good cheap wine, is plentiful.
It isn't necessary for emotion drugs to be available to everybody for them to cause MASSIVE harm. Just available to the "elite" is MORE than enough.
Or, someone else gets to be the elite when the elite O.D.
Because it's the "elite" who are the ones who have the time to sit down and think. They are the ones that inventions and new thoughts come from. NOT the peasantry. Peasants have to spend all their time just surviving.
Well, someone earlier noted Jared Diamond's "Guns Germs and Steel" and I find his points worth considering. Gurdur pointed out one thing, but I'll point out another. America is oriented North South, and Eurasia is oriented East West. Iron and Steel making seems to have migrated out of the mountains of Central Eurasia, east west, via the commercial routes that went east west.

Note the North to South America in comparison from East Eurasia to West Eurasia. Then consider population density.

Also, if you look at those temples that lasted for centuries, someone had to work awfully hard to make those, and think awfully clearly to design and supervise their construction.

Your thesis, that Amerinds were felled by a cultural self inflicted wound in the form of recreational drugs is, shall we say, on very thin ice.

DR

Darth Rotor
12th October 2007, 03:44 PM
All done there, Jeff? Nothing left to say?
Don't you think he's said enough?

DR

Gurdur
12th October 2007, 10:19 PM
I need some strong emotion drugs right now to deal with re-reading the OP crap.

slingblade
13th October 2007, 01:28 PM
Don't you think he's said enough?

DR

Yeah, but I'm out of ammo. :(

Gurdur
13th October 2007, 06:28 PM
Yeah, but I'm out of ammo. :(

Not me. I got PLENTY more I could say here, but I don't think he wants to listen.

Jeff Corkern
13th October 2007, 07:44 PM
If this thesis is to hold water, then what should we expect would happen when emotion changing drugs became commonplace in Western culture? It seems to me, that would mark the beginning of a decline.

No, that isn't what I said. I didn't say those cultures declined.

I said their RATE OF GROWTH was SLOWER. They advanced, just MUCH slower than the rest of the world.

In the late 19th century heroin was legal and gaining widespread acceptance. Sears Roebuck was making a fortune selling tiny wallet-sized heroin kits that would contain the drug, a syringe, and a compartment of fresh needles. Needless to say, the also made a killing on the refills.

Then cocaine was popularized, and drinks like Coca Cola became popular. Some of Coca Cola's competitors were sold as "tonics" with as much as a gram of cocaine per bottle.

And yet, Western progress did not suddenly come to a standstill. In fact, we witnessed the most amazing period of technological progress in history.

How much faster would it have been if heroin had NOT been legal?

How do we know if some potential scientific genius either spent all of his time stoned or killed himself with a heroin overdose?

Answer: WE DON'T KNOW. This danger is a subtle one. It only becomes apparent in comparison with non-emotion-drug cultures.

I think what it comes down to is two things:

(1) Even in a culture laden with drugs, not everybody will do them. If Albert Einstein was a junky, maybe relativity theory would never have been discovered. But he wasn't, and it was.

(2) Not everybody who partakes in drugs becomes non productive. Our beloved late Carl Sagan was a pothead. Does that make him less of a great thinker? I believe not.

Good thing Einstein didn't, huh. There would've been no atom bomb, and millions would've been killed in the invasion of Japan.

That would certainly have had a retarding effect on world progress.

I didn't know Carl smoked dope. Reasonable enough, given his beliefs, though.
But again, the danger is a subtle one. It slo-o-o-ws people down. How much more could he have done with the time he spent stoned?

Unalienable
16th October 2007, 01:42 AM
I didn't know Carl smoked dope. Reasonable enough, given his beliefs, though.
But again, the danger is a subtle one. It slo-o-o-ws people down. How much more could he have done with the time he spent stoned?
We'll never know, will we? No doubt about it, the past was different, the present would be different.

By the way I've been reading some works of Terance McKenna who proposed a thesis in the same neighborhood of what you're talking about, but he has a different interpretation. I hestitate to call it a serious scientific theory, but in a nutshell, McKenna believed that our primate ancestors partook of magic mushrooms on the African grasslands (he sites some obscure study that shows that low doses of mushrooms improves visual accuity) and this had some profound impact on our society, creating an orgiastic tribal society where the ego was suppressed by chemicals, and this was good. But later mushrooms were removed from society (well, most of them) which created the technological revolution, which McKenna believed was not necessarily such a great thing.

See "A Psychedelic Trip up the Ladder of Evolution"
http://www.erowid.org/culture/characters/mckenna_terence/mckenna_terence_review1.shtml (book review)

drkitten
16th October 2007, 07:19 AM
No, that isn't what I said. I didn't say those cultures declined.

I said their RATE OF GROWTH was SLOWER. They advanced, just MUCH slower than the rest of the world.

Yeah, but the problem is, it wasn't.. History doesn't bear you out. Bear in mind that distillation --- the process of producing high potency beverages such as gin, whisky, and brandy -- was not discovered until the Middle Ages and did not become popular/widespread (it was an alchemists' secret) in Europe until the 16th century -- by which point the Rennaissance was in full flower and was about to spring into the industrial revolution. From the 16h century to the present day, Europe experienced its greatest rate of advance just when alcohol had becomes widely available.

Similarly, the actual availability of the various drugs such as cocaine, opium, heroin, and so forth peaked in the 19th century, the time when the industrial revolution was hitting its peak.

Your theory predicts -- and you even stated it -- that "when emotion-drugs became commonplace in Western Europe," the rate of progress would slow down. Slow not only relative to historical norms, but also in relation to the rest of the world. Unfortunately, when emotion-drugs became commonplace in Western Europe, the actual history shows that progress achieved an all-time high, both historically and geographically.


How much faster would it have been if heroin had NOT been legal?

If you compare against the historical baseline -- it would have been substantially slower.


Answer: WE DON'T KNOW. This danger is a subtle one. It only becomes apparent in comparison with non-emotion-drug cultures.

Except when you do the comparison, it looks the Western European emotion-drug using culture swept all other competitors from the floor.

Your theory is not historically supported.

billydkid
16th October 2007, 07:35 AM
This strikes me as an example of having an opinion and then formulating a concept of history to fit that opinion.

Curdog
16th October 2007, 08:56 AM
I know this is rude, but you have no idea what you are talking about. Do some research and get back to us. Marijuana is an Old World crop, as is opium, datura and a large variety of mushrooms. There are mood altering drug plants all over the world, and they were used in MANY AREAS.