Why did Europeans (and Asians) accomplish so much?

[Dustin Kesselberg]

I have noticed how vastly different the technology is between western and non-western civilizations and I was wondering what everyones opinion here is on that. Europe, Or to be more specific Eurasia including north Africa has historically had far superior technology and capability to wage war than all other parts of the world including south Africa, Australia, New Zealand and the Americas. Why is this? Why did Europeans invent language, Firearms, Advanced political systems and domesticate livestock and plants more so and before most other peoples? Why didn't the Native Americans have Livestock, steel weapons including firearms and advanced ocean going technology when the first conquistadors came? The battle of Cajamarca is a perfect example of this. In 1532 Pizarro and his ragtag bunch of Spanish conquistadors (Numbering around 180) were able to destroy a head on army of Emperor Atahualpa's personal soldiers. The battle lasted only a few hours but in the end 180 Spanish men had killed over 7,000 Incan soldiers and only about 7 Spanish soldiers died. The Spanish took Atahualpa hostage and demanded gold for his return and killed him anyway upon getting it.

Why did this happen the way it did? Why was it so easy for the Spanish to decimate the Incan soldiers in a few hours and suffer so few casualties? Why did it even occur in the first place the way it did? Why the Spanish? Why didn't Atahualpa invade Spain and defeat the Spanish and take Charles the fifth hostage? Why have Europeans historically had so much more success at waging war and inventing technology than other peoples?

[ravdin]

You might want to read Guns, Germs and Steel by Jared Diamond. He looks into most of your questions in a lot of detail (I won't rehash his thesis here).

[andyandy]

the europeans had god on their side....?

....is that the answer you want? ;)

[Ladewig]

You might want to read Guns, Germs and Steel by Jared Diamond. He looks into most of your questions in a lot of detail (I won't rehash his thesis here).

Seconded

[Taffer]

Why did Europeans invent language, Firearms, Advanced political systems and domesticate livestock and plants more so and before most other peoples? Why didn't the Native Americans have Livestock, steel weapons including firearms and advanced ocean going technology when the first conquistadors came?

Europeans did not "invent" language, nor firearms, nor advanced political systems, nor domesticated plants and animals. These were found in asia and the middle east far earlier.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Europeans did not "invent" language, nor firearms, nor advanced political systems, nor domesticated plants and animals. These were found in asia and the middle east far earlier.

Eurasians. I.E. including Asia, The fertile crescent and north Africa.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

You might want to read Guns, Germs and Steel by Jared Diamond. He looks into most of your questions in a lot of detail (I won't rehash his thesis here).

What do you think?

[Madalch]

What do you think?
Obviously Ravdin thinks that Diamond presents a very well-thought out argument, which would be tiresome to retype here, and to which very little can be added.

[DanishDynamite]

You might want to read Guns, Germs and Steel by Jared Diamond. He looks into most of your questions in a lot of detail (I won't rehash his thesis here).
Thirded.

[rocketdodger]

Probably had something to do with them working together in large groups as opposed to smaller ones.

It seems like there is a critical mass that people need to reach before they can make actual progress instead of just warring with other tribes. Something in the environment of all the great societies led to this.

One interesting observation is that if the environment is too easy or too difficult to survive in, this does not happen.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Probably had something to do with them working together in large groups as opposed to smaller ones.

It seems like there is a critical mass that people need to reach before they can make actual progress instead of just warring with other tribes. Something in the environment of all the great societies led to this.

One interesting observation is that if the environment is too easy or too difficultto survive in, this does not happen.


What do you mean large groups? Some of the Native American cities had populations in the millions. Moreover, Why wouldn't native Americans mass together into large groups like the Europeans did? (assuming they didn't)

Is The North American south east too hard to survive in? Or too Easy?

[Hokulele]

You might want to read Guns, Germs and Steel by Jared Diamond. He looks into most of your questions in a lot of detail (I won't rehash his thesis here).


Fourthed.

Collapse (also by Diamond) has some interesting bits that would be relevant as well.

[Floyt]

One interesting observation is that if the environment is too easy or too difficult to survive in, this does not happen.

Hmm... interesting. In ecology, that seems to be paralleled by observations grouped under the heading "intermediate disturbance hypothesis". Basically, for an ecological assemblage to remain healthy and resilient, a certain medium amount of stress needs to be present.
E.g., consider various species living on rocks in a streambed. If there is too much scour, everyone gets dislodged continually, and no food resources can develop. If there is too little, things either silt over, or some sessile species (probably algae) explodes and takes over the assemblage.

It would be neat if a similar mechanism was at work with civilization development :D

[Madalch]

What do you mean large groups? Some of the Native American cities had populations in the millions. Moreover, Why wouldn't native Americans mass together into large groups like the Europeans did? (assuming they didn't)
The Aztecs, Inca and Mayans did. But they didn't have many domesticated animals, so they didn't have sources of power other than human labor. The various empires didn't have any contact with each other- all their neighbors were effectively vassal states or barbarians-to-be-disregarded, so there wasn't any external trade for them (they also didn't need to seriously look for new ways of killing their neighbors, since the big-stick-with-sharp-bits-of-obsidian worked quite well on the people they were fighting). Since their domesticated animals were few, they didn't get the diseases that the Europeans did (like smallpox, influenza, plague, etc.), and their immune systems weren't geared up for the diseases that the Europeans had some resistance to. The Europeans were also constantly fighting with each other, and learning new and innovative ways of warfare as a result.

Folks like the Cree and the Blackfoot (the First Nations that I'm most familiar with) didn't have agriculture, because they didn't live in an area where there were domesticable animals or plants. So they couldn't come together in cities of millions of people, since they wouldn't have been able to hunt enough moose, bison, or deer to feed everyone. Nomadic hunter-gatherers have a hard time learning to forge steel.

Is The North American south east too hard to survive in? Or too Easy?
I'm not sure the previous poster's argument about tropical areas being too easy to survive in really holds that much water. There's too much competition.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Hmm... interesting. In ecology, that seems to be paralleled by observations grouped under the heading "intermediate disturbance hypothesis". Basically, for an ecological assemblage to remain healthy and resilient, a certain medium amount of stress needs to be present.
E.g., consider various species living on rocks in a streambed. If there is too much scour, everyone gets dislodged continually, and no food resources can develop. If there is too little, things either silt over, or some sessile species (probably algae) explodes and takes over the assemblage.

It would be neat if a similar mechanism was at work with civilization development :D

I think that the Fertile Crescent was a very easy place to live in and the Northern tips of Europe very hard, yet both paved the way as far as development of technology, civilization, etc.

[Hokulele]

And there he goes forgetting China again. Tsk.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

The Aztecs, Inca and Mayans did. But they didn't have many domesticated animals, so they didn't have sources of power other than human labor.

Why no domesticates?


The various empires didn't have any contact with each other- all their neighbors were effectively vassal states or barbarians-to-be-disregarded, so there wasn't any external trade for them (they also didn't need to seriously look for new ways of killing their neighbors, since the big-stick-with-sharp-bits-of-obsidian worked quite well on the people they were fighting).

Why no serious trade? Moreover, Why didn't various other populations from the Southeast of the North America and the Northwest organize into large kingdoms?



Folks like the Cree and the Blackfoot (the First Nations that I'm most familiar with) didn't have agriculture, because they didn't live in an area where there were domesticable animals or plants.

Why couldn't they be domesticated?


So they couldn't come together in cities of millions of people, since they wouldn't have been able to hunt enough moose, bison, or deer to feed everyone. Nomadic hunter-gatherers have a hard time learning to forge steel.

So the Incas and Aztecs had more domesticates animals than the High planes Indians?

[kittynh]

Well and let's not forget that many "Native" populations had been more advanced and then for some reason (perhaps ecological) they had collapsed. Susan Hubble in one of her books speaks of the Mound Builders and another tribe that lived in the Ozarks. They had a fairly advanced civilization that simply fell apart after generations.

I always heard the "when it's cold you have to make plans" theory growing up.

And the Black Death came along at a good time from an economic standpoint (Europe was near a tipping point with population and technology then). It allowed the poor and middle class a chance to "move up".

There is no saying that Hawkins theory that an alien race can visit the Earth and simply dominate us will not come true.

Then I guess we'll be the "backward" ones.

And many Spainish invaders into the North American area did suffer great losses and were fairly unsuccessful at warfare with the locals. These "locals" were not the settled city dwellers of South America, and being more fluid were able to cause a lot of trouble.

[ravdin]

Obviously Ravdin thinks that Diamond presents a very well-thought out argument, which would be tiresome to retype here, and to which very little can be added.

Correct. But if you insist, I'll sum a few of up Diamond's arguments:

1. People living on the same latitude (in an east-west axis) are more likely to interact and trade with each other than people living in a north-south axis. People living in a similar climate will have similar needs for food production, clothing, and shelter. More people trading with each other means more innovation.

2. As an accident of geography, there are more animals in Eurasia that could be domesticated as livestock. No one in South America had seen a horse until the Spanish arrived, for example. The Incas could have easily overwhelmed the conquistadors with their superior numbers, but they had no experience with fighting men on horseback and they didn't know to stand their ground when they were attacked.

3. Another consequence of more livestock in Europe and Asia was the spread of disease. Many people in Europe used to live in close quarters with their animals, and the extremely unsanitary conditions caused diseases to be communicated between species. While disease worked in Africans' favor (preventing European colonization in the interior of the continent until the 19th century), people in the New World had no biological defenses of their own and were overwhelmed by the virulent diseases that were suddenly introduced.

Dang, I said I wouldn't sum up his thesis. Read the book and then I'm sure you'll have a lot to discuss in the forum.

[rocketdodger]

I think that the Fertile Crescent was a very easy place to live in and the Northern tips of Europe very hard, yet both paved the way as far as development of technology, civilization, etc.

Wrong, and wrong. Nothern Europe is medium and so is the fertile crescent. Too easy would be like polynesia or amazonia, too hard would be like nothern canada or himalaya.

[Madalch]

Why no domesticates?
The Incas domesticated llamas. The Mayans and Aztecs domesticated (IIRC) dogs and various fowl. But what else was around for them to domesticate? There were no horses, cattle, sheep or goats in North America- mountain goats, bighorn sheep, bison, elk, moose, and deer have proven remarkable resistant to attempts to domesticate them, even in modern times.

Why no serious trade?
With who? The other empires that they had no contact with, or the small tribes on the outskirts of their empire which were considered good for enslavement or human sacrifice?

Moreover, Why didn't various other populations from the Southeast of the North America and the Northwest organize into large kingdoms?
There were large settlements in various parts of North America, but they had the same problems- not very much to domesticate, and the other groups were either too far away to trade with, or they were groups of nomads who were considered barbarians- a threat to be slain or driven off rather than traded with.

Why couldn't they be domesticated?
There is no wild corn at this latitude, nor anything resembling a wild bean. There is a form of wild rice, but you can't build a civilization with only one crop. The grains of the fertile crescent didn't grow here until they were introduced.

So the Incas and Aztecs had more domesticates animals than the High planes Indians?

Yep- the Cree only had dogs as domesticated animals. Man's best friend, but not livestock.

[athon]

Fourthed.

Collapse (also by Diamond) has some interesting bits that would be relevant as well.

Fifthed.

Why should we do Dustin's homework for him?

Athon

[fuelair]

You might want to read Guns, Germs and Steel by Jared Diamond. He looks into most of your questions in a lot of detail (I won't rehash his thesis here).
I saw his title and GGS hit immediately, read his post and two lines in it was solid!!! And then I saw you beat me too it. I am only curious how anyone on the planet with any interest in this has not already read the book - it's not like it's new - or seen the shows!!!?:):):)

[fuelair]

Why no domesticates?




Why no serious trade? Moreover, Why didn't various other populations from the Southeast of the North America and the Northwest organize into large kingdoms?




Why couldn't they be domesticated?




So the Incas and Aztecs had more domesticates animals than the High planes Indians?
Read the flipping book and/or rent the DVD's. Get some testes and do your own research - we gave you THE basic tool!!!:jaw-dropp

[Madalch]

And then I saw you beat me too it. I am only curious how anyone on the planet with any interest in this has not already read the book - it's not like it's new - or seen the shows!!!?
I can't watch the shows- his accent weirds me out.

Where the heck is he from, anyway?

[Roboramma]

You might want to read Guns, Germs and Steel by Jared Diamond. He looks into most of your questions in a lot of detail (I won't rehash his thesis here).

You guys realise that he has read it, right? Or at least the first couple of chapters?

Look at his first post! Every question is lifted directly out of Guns, Germs and Steel. Every fact as well.

For instance Why did Europeans invent language, Firearms, Advanced political systems and domesticate livestock and plants more so and before most other peoples? Are things that Diamond specifically talks about in GG&S. I'd find it a little surprising that Dustin happened to find the same technologies important.
Why didn't the Native Americans have Livestock, steel weapons including firearms and advanced ocean going technology when the first conquistadors came? Diamond frames this same question in exactly this same way.
The battle of Cajamarca is a perfect example of this. In 1532 Pizarro and his ragtag bunch of Spanish conquistadors (Numbering around 180) were able to destroy a head on army of Emperor Atahualpa's personal soldiers. The battle lasted only a few hours but in the end 180 Spanish men had killed over 7,000 Incan soldiers and only about 7 Spanish soldiers died. The Spanish took Atahualpa hostage and demanded gold for his return and killed him anyway upon getting it. I wonder where Dustin heard about this? Could it be that this "perfect example" is one that he lifted GG&S?
There's a whole chapter about it!

Why didn't Atahualpa invade Spain and defeat the Spanish and take Charles the fifth hostage? This one's a real kicker - unless I'm remembering wrong Diamond asks this exact question.

So, Dustin, if you've read the book, or are currently reading it, why didn't you just say you were interested in discussing it?
I liked it too, and I think so did many other posters here. Give us your opinions about it and we'll be happy to discuss it with you.

[UnrepentantSinner]

Note to those of you who have suggested GGS, I've got a sneaking feeling DK's either read it, or read a review of it recently and is trolling. "Why didn't Atahualpa invade Spain and defeat the Spanish and take Charles the fifth hostage?" - is directly from Diamond's list of questions.

[Alice Shortcake]

Sixthed. :)

[Ladewig]

There is evidence that you have looked at the book.

So what's the deal, Mr. K.?

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Well and let's not forget that many "Native" populations had been more advanced and then for some reason (perhaps ecological) they had collapsed. Susan Hubble in one of her books speaks of the Mound Builders and another tribe that lived in the Ozarks. They had a fairly advanced civilization that simply fell apart after generations.

I always heard the "when it's cold you have to make plans" theory growing up.

And the Black Death came along at a good time from an economic standpoint (Europe was near a tipping point with population and technology then). It allowed the poor and middle class a chance to "move up".

There is no saying that Hawkins theory that an alien race can visit the Earth and simply dominate us will not come true.

Then I guess we'll be the "backward" ones.

And many Spainish invaders into the North American area did suffer great losses and were fairly unsuccessful at warfare with the locals. These "locals" were not the settled city dwellers of South America, and being more fluid were able to cause a lot of trouble.

Well obviously none of the native Americans were as advanced as the Spanish when they first arrived.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Wrong, and wrong. Nothern Europe is medium and so is the fertile crescent. Too easy would be like polynesia or amazonia, too hard would be like nothern canada or himalaya.

How are you defining "hard" and "easy" anyway? Polynesia and Amazonia has a sufficiently high amount of violent animals, disease and bad weather.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

The Incas domesticated llamas. The Mayans and Aztecs domesticated (IIRC) dogs and various fowl. But what else was around for them to domesticate? There were no horses, cattle, sheep or goats in North America- mountain goats, bighorn sheep, bison, elk, moose, and deer have proven remarkable resistant to attempts to domesticate them, even in modern times.

Why can't they be domesticated? Also, What about currently extinct animals? Why couldn't some of them be domesticated before they went extinct by the natives? There actually USED to be horses in North America.


With who? The other empires that they had no contact with, or the small tribes on the outskirts of their empire which were considered good for enslavement or human sacrifice?

Why didn't they have contact with them?


There were large settlements in various parts of North America, but they had the same problems- not very much to domesticate, and the other groups were either too far away to trade with, or they were groups of nomads who were considered barbarians- a threat to be slain or driven off rather than traded with.

So domesticating animals is the only way to build up to the level of a State?


There is no wild corn at this latitude, nor anything resembling a wild bean. There is a form of wild rice, but you can't build a civilization with only one crop. The grains of the fertile crescent didn't grow here until they were introduced.

Why couldn't crops from the south such as Mexico have been introduced to the northern latitudes?



Yep- the Cree only had dogs as domesticated animals. Man's best friend, but not livestock.

Couldn't the Llama and fowl have been moved north?

[H3LL]

Seventhededed...

Summary here:

Guns,Germs & Steel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guns,_Germs,_and_Steel)

.

[Diagoras]

How are you defining "hard" and "easy" anyway? Polynesia and Amazonia has a sufficiently high amount of violent animals, disease and bad weather.
Polynesia actually doesn't have many violent animals; large animals can only really get from island to island when humans deliberately take them, and the islands' ecosystems are generally too small to support populations of large carnivores. And the weather in Polynesia is so great that it draws in tourists from all around the world. I also don't see any reason to believe Polynesia and Amazonia have any more diseases than anywhere else in the world. It seems that at least in the scattered islands of Polynesia diseases would have a hard time spreading.

The point rocketdodger was trying to make, I think, is that these are regions where the food is plenty, the temperature is always warm, and the climate undergoes little variation, so it's relatively easy for a simple hunter-gatherer tribe to sustain itself for long periods of time, removing the incentive to find innovative technological solutions to problems like food and shelter.

[Roboramma]

So, Dustin, if you've read the book, or are currently reading it, why didn't you just say you were interested in discussing it?
I liked it too, and I think so did many other posters here. Give us your opinions about it and we'll be happy to discuss it with you.

Dustin?

[Roboramma]

The point rocketdodger was trying to make, I think, is that these are regions where the food is plenty, the temperature is always warm, and the climate undergoes little variation, so it's relatively easy for a simple hunter-gatherer tribe to sustain itself for long periods of time, removing the incentive to find innovative technological solutions to problems like food and shelter.
There's at least one important incentive that you're missing, though - competition with other humans.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Polynesia actually doesn't have many violent animals; large animals can only really get from island to island when humans deliberately take them, and the islands' ecosystems are generally too small to support populations of large carnivores. And the weather in Polynesia is so great that it draws in tourists from all around the world. I also don't see any reason to believe Polynesia and Amazonia have any more diseases than anywhere else in the world. It seems that at least in the scattered islands of Polynesia diseases would have a hard time spreading.

The point rocketdodger was trying to make, I think, is that these are regions where the food is plenty, the temperature is always warm, and the climate undergoes little variation, so it's relatively easy for a simple hunter-gatherer tribe to sustain itself for long periods of time, removing the incentive to find innovative technological solutions to problems like food and shelter.


The problem is that inventions don't come about due to "incentive", but are rather invented before a purpose even is known for them. This is true of most well known inventions.

Dustin?

Yes. I've read it.

[Loss Leader]

I have noticed how vastly different the technology is between western and non-western civilizations and I was wondering what everyones opinion here is on that. Europe, Or to be more specific Eurasia including north Africa has historically had far superior technology and capability to wage war than all other parts of the world including south Africa, Australia, New Zealand and the Americas.



Your understanding of world history appears to be so poor that I cannot adequately answer your question. At the same time, your ethnocentrism appears to be so great that you could not adequately understand my answer.

[UnrepentantSinner]

Note to those of you who have suggested GGS, I've got a sneaking feeling DK's either read it, or read a review of it recently and is trolling. "Why didn't Atahualpa invade Spain and defeat the Spanish and take Charles the fifth hostage?" - is directly from Diamond's list of questions.

Yes. I've read it.

Troll, troll, troll your boat...

Folks, this thread is dead. Don't give him any more ammunition to bump this abortion over other more worthy threads.

[Ladewig]

The problem is that inventions don't come about due to "incentive", but are rather invented before a purpose even is known for them. This is true of most well known inventions.

No, it isn't.

[ravdin]

Troll, troll, troll your boat...

Folks, this thread is dead. Don't give him any more ammunition to bump this abortion over other more worthy threads.

My bad! Rule #1 of online forums: don't feed the trolls.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Your understanding of world history appears to be so poor that I cannot adequately answer your question. At the same time, your ethnocentrism appears to be so great that you could not adequately understand my answer.

What am I mistaken about? Be specific.


No, it isn't.

Sure it is. Inventions are generally made without an actual idea of what they will be used for and often inventions are used for things that they weren't actually intended for if there was an intention. Moreover, Often times inventions are made where society doesn't adopt them for one reason or another, even if they would benefit from them.

[Roboramma]

Yes. I've read it. Cool. What did you think of it?

[Roboramma]

Sure it is. Inventions are generally made without an actual idea of what they will be used for and often inventions are used for things that they weren't actually intended for if there was an intention. Moreover, Often times inventions are made where society doesn't adopt them for one reason or another, even if they would benefit from them.
Can you give a specific example of this?

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Can you give a specific example of this?


Did YOU read the book? It's discussed there. Examples are also given.

[ben m]

I have noticed how vastly different the technology is between western and non-western civilizations and I was wondering what everyones opinion here is on that.

100,000 years ago, everyone was a hunter-gatherer nomad. The nomads that stayed in the Fertile Crescent invented agriculture about 10,000 years ago along the Nile, Tigris, and Euphrates. The nomads that wandered over to China re-invented agriculture around the same time. The nomads that wandered over to North America invented agriculture around 5000-7000 years ago. Ditto for metals; the Anatolians invented bronze around 5000 BC, the Maya invented it independently around 500 AD. That's a blink of an eye compared to the vast millenia where no one invented anything. If you gave two people a crossword puzzle 100,000 seconds ago, one of them finished it 10,000 seconds ago and one of them finished 5000 seconds ago, you wouldn't pick out one of them as extraordinarily more advanced.

Once you've invented one thing, the next one comes quickly; it's like Moore's Law. Let's imagine two identical civilization---say, start the clock at 1600. In one of them, Allessandro Volta discovers the battery in 1800, and Watt the steam engine in 1865; in the other, Vallesandro Olta was delayed until 1830 and Wames Jatt was delayed until 1895. Allow things to move forward to the present day, and imagine that in 1935 these two civilizations discovered one another and went to war. The 30-year-delayed group had horses, bayonets, and repeating rifles---think Spanish-American War. The faster group had machine guns, tanks, aircraft and aircraft carriers, modern diesel submarines, early fire-control computers---think World War II. Or imagine, instead, that they went to war in 1960 --- pitting long-range bombers and jets, atom bombs, and digital computers, against prop planes and machine guns.

The "faster" civilization would completely stomp the "slower" one, but you wouldn't be looking for fundamental differences in culture and climate. We'd be looking at a tiny blip of time separating the starting pistol from which technology development feeds on itself.

So, so what if the Maya took 7000 years "longer" to stumble across bronze? It's not like everyone started looking for it 20,000 years ago, and Anatolians got there first thanks to their cleverness and some geography-based predestination---not at all. No, everyone was going about their survival-y business, and some Anatolian stumbled across the right rock smelting itself under the right bonfire. It took them 4000 years to get from bronze to iron, and then things accelerated. How long did it take the Mayans to get from Bronze to Iron? How long to get from iron to firearms? How long to get from firearms to semiconductors? We don't know, Columbus interrupted 1000 years into the bronze age.

There's also the issue: it's easy to compare "European civilization" with "Mesoamerican civilization" and "African civilization" as though "the Europeans" invented iron, steel, firearms, etc. There were hundreds of hunter-gatherer tribes---the ones that didn't invent agriculture---that presumably got bumped aside or assimilated by (or learned from) the early farmers; the farmers that didn't invent walled cities and bronze swords got invaded by the ones that did. We have no idea whether the now-lost nomads "would have" invented agriculture given the chance; we have no idea whether the forgotten farmers were on the verge of discovering bronze. All we know is who got there first---they invaded/assimilated/traded with everyone else and erased the rest of the experiment.

[Roboramma]

Did YOU read the book? It's discussed there. Examples are also given. Yeah, but I read it about two years about and I don't have my copy because I gave it to a friend about six months ago.

Why did you start this thread if you're not willing to answer simple questions? You could have responded to Ladewig by saying "Did YOU read the book?" but you choose to explain to him your understanding of what you learned by reading it. In fact, that seems to be the whole point of this thread. So, keep on going - answer my question. It was asked in good faith.

Unless you're not actually interested in discussing this, in which case I really don't understand this thread at all.

[Hokulele]

Just to clarify on Polynesia, prior to the arrival of people, the largest land mammal was a fruit bat. Terrifying, I know. Also, human diseases were pretty much confined to the archipelagoes near the Phillipines and Indonesia. Many of the Polynesian islands didn't have the vectors required for disease transmittal. There were no mosquitos until the arrival of the Europeans, and little or no standing fresh water. Catchment and extraction from plant material were the most common methods of collecting drinking water.

It is far more likely that the lack of natural resources, particularly metals, was far more influential on the development of the Polynesian peoples than the difficulty or ease of their lifestyle.

Anyone want to discuss Polynesian voyaging and the explorations of South America?

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Yeah, but I read it about two years about and I don't have my copy because I gave it to a friend about six months ago.

Why did you start this thread if you're not willing to answer simple questions? You could have responded to Ladewig by saying "Did YOU read the book?" but you choose to explain to him your understanding of what you learned by reading it. In fact, that seems to be the whole point of this thread. So, keep on going - answer my question. It was asked in good faith.

Unless you're not actually interested in discussing this, in which case I really don't understand this thread at all.


I started the thread to see peoples opinions who haven't read the book.

[Roboramma]

I started the thread to see peoples opinions who haven't read the book.
That's interesting. Anyway, can you give a specific example of an invention as you described?

[Ladewig]

I started the thread to see people's opinions who haven't read the book.

Then wouldn't it have been simpler and more useful to state that at the beginning?

[Dustin Kesselberg]

That's interesting. Anyway, can you give a specific example of an invention as you described?


I can't remember his examples.


Then wouldn't it have been simpler and more useful to state that at the beginning?

No. I didn't know so many had read that book.

[Jimbo07]

I started the thread to see peoples opinions who haven't read the book.

I haven't.

Although I've recommended (for an interesting take on the history of technology), Pacey, Technology in World Civilization.

I'm with Loss Leader on this. What you don't know about the history of technology could fill volumes. The reason, I suspect that others and definitely myself, are reluctant to share personal opinions is that other writers have done more comprehensive, better-informed jobs. It is better to read and learn, than comment on an issue in which one is starting to learn of one's own ignorance.

[Loss Leader]

Inventions are generally made without an actual idea of what they will be used for and often inventions are used for things that they weren't actually intended for if there was an intention. Moreover, Often times inventions are made where society doesn't adopt them for one reason or another, even if they would benefit from them.



That's absolutely true. That's why Alexander Graham Bell's second words into the telephone were, "What the hell do you mean you can hear me?"

[madurobob]

That's absolutely true. That's why Alexander Graham Bell's second words into the telephone were, "What the hell do you mean you can hear me?"

I'm no historian and I have yet to read the book, but I would guess that for every "accidental" invention there are at least a dozen intentional ones; probably more.

ETA - I even suspect the Reese's cup was not accidental!

[Jimbo07]

ETA - I even suspect the Reese's cup was not accidental!

WHAT?!? Am I the only one who noticed this.

:mad:

It's clear, you got chocolate in my peanut butter...

:D

[rocketdodger]

Sure it is. Inventions are generally made without an actual idea of what they will be used for and often inventions are used for things that they weren't actually intended for if there was an intention. Moreover, Often times inventions are made where society doesn't adopt them for one reason or another, even if they would benefit from them.

wtf???

The facts that 1) you can't come up with any examples on your own and 2) you forgot all the examples from the book speaks volumes.

BTW, such things do exist, and a good source for examples is the book "Serendipity: Accidental Discoveries in Science." I don't think anyone that knows what they are talking about would suggest that the [i]majority[i] of advances have been made by accident, though.

And anyway, my argument about hard and easy environments isn't directly related to invention, its about the tendancies for people to cooperate in larger numbers. When people cooperate well, they advance. When they stay in warring tribes, they don't.

[Loss Leader]

And anyway, my argument about hard and easy environments isn't directly related to invention, its about the tendancies for people to cooperate in larger numbers. When people cooperate well, they advance. When they stay in warring tribes, they don't.


My main arguments would have to do with easy access to starch, serendipity and the black plague which, I believe, are all in GG&S.

[rocketdodger]

My main arguments would have to do with easy access to starch, serendipity and the black plague which, I believe, are all in GG&S.

I am not disputing any of that.

I was talking about my argument that people of medium environments seem to have cooperated on a larger scale than those in easy or hard environments. But that falls very short of explaining why, for instance, large societies in the Americas didn't progress like those in Europe. I will leave those arguments up to you and GG&S because I don't know much about them.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

I just read Jared Diamonds examples. His first example is the phonograph made by Edison. Edison initially published 10 perceived uses for the phonograph and none of them included the recording and replaying of music, which would become it's most popular use. Edison actually opposed the use of his phonograph for music. One of his perceived purposes was for recording the last words of dying people.

Another example was the engine produced by Nicolaus Otto which when produced served no important purpose and didn't for about 50 years. His initial engine was far too large and weak to replace horses or steam engines though today nearly all automobile engines use the same principle that his fist 4 stroke cycle engine did.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

And anyway, my argument about hard and easy environments isn't directly related to invention, its about the tendancies for people to cooperate in larger numbers. When people cooperate well, they advance. When they stay in warring tribes, they don't.

So why is it that when people move to various other environments, such as northern Canada, they still retain their ability to cooperate to hold society?

[CapelDodger]

Fourthed.

And the next ordinal from me. It's so all in there.

[rocketdodger]

So why is it that when people move to various other environments, such as northern Canada, they still retain their ability to cooperate to hold society?

Because their mindset has changed -- they are used to the benefits of cooperative society.

[CapelDodger]

And there he goes forgetting China again. Tsk.

Aren't we forgetting India :)? Even though it's not a Pacific presence it still counts.

[Loss Leader]

But that falls very short of explaining why, for instance, large societies in the Americas didn't progress like those in Europe.


Ironically, it was the death of one-third of the population of Europe that finally pulled it out of the dark ages and shifted the balance of power from Muslim Africa (and east through Turkey) to Western Europe.


Edison initially published 10 perceived uses for the phonograph and none of them included the recording and replaying of music, which would become it's most popular use. Edison actually opposed the use of his phonograph for music. One of his perceived purposes was for recording the last words of dying people.


Well, I'm glad you're not maintaining that Edison invented the phonograph by accident or that he had no idea what it was for when he made it. Although I was always taught thaty Edison's first words into the phonograph were, "What the hell do you mean it's recording me?"


So why is it that when people move to various other environments, such as northern Canada, they still retain their ability to cooperate to hold society?


Clearly, you have never met a Canadian.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Because their mindset has changed -- they are used to the benefits of cooperative society.

So you're saying that their "medium difficulty" living caused them to resolve problems and develop society better and they took these mentalities with them to where they went?

[CapelDodger]

100,000 years ago, everyone was a hunter-gatherer nomad. The nomads that stayed in the Fertile Crescent invented agriculture about 10,000 years ago along the Nile, Tigris, and Euphrates.

Not quite. Agriculture emerged outside the great river valleys, and only later colonised them.

The nomads that wandered over to China re-invented agriculture around the same time.

Agriculture emerged indigenously in China and South-East Asia, and again not in the river-valleys.

The "faster" civilization would completely stomp the "slower" one, but you wouldn't be looking for fundamental differences in culture and climate. We'd be looking at a tiny blip of time separating the starting pistol from which technology development feeds on itself.

A change in technology can cause a rapid shift in culture. It only takes a generation or two if it's a significant change - such as mass-produced iron in a Bronze Age. That can convert a plough-oriented culure to a sword-oriented one pretty damn' quick.

[CapelDodger]

Because their mindset has changed -- they are used to the benefits of cooperative society.

And lawyers. Let's not forget the lawyers, bless 'em.

[Loss Leader]

And lawyers. Let's not forget the lawyers, bless 'em.


And bless you for remembering us.

[CapelDodger]

I was talking about my argument that people of medium environments seem to have cooperated on a larger scale than those in easy or hard environments.

A truly easy environment will soon lose its ease to population pressure. A truly hard environment leaves no play for large-scale cooperation. People of the medium environment have been ruled on an increasing scale. An imposed cooperation.

But that falls very short of explaining why, for instance, large societies in the Americas didn't progress like those in Europe.

Cross-fertilisation explains it. The Americas have been short of it, while Eurasia has been full of it. So to speak :).

Europe was peripheral until it stumbled across a couple of continents that were even less developed than the Europeans were. Yes we're losing ground to the Turk, but we're really putting it to these guys with jade axes.

The Industrial Revolution came along much later, and has not yet played out.

[CapelDodger]

And bless you for remembering us.

Lawyers are like algae - the toxic varieties don't outweigh the beneficial ones.

[CapelDodger]

Ironically, it was the death of one-third of the population of Europe that finally pulled it out of the dark ages and shifted the balance of power from Muslim Africa (and east through Turkey) to Western Europe.

The Black Death cut a swathe across the entire Old World. Its effect in Europe and the Mediterranean was to extend the infuence of the Eurasian heartland into the European periphery, and the sweeping away of the Crusader intrusion. Europe's fifteen minutes of fame date from centuries later.

[technoextreme]

I just read Jared Diamonds examples. His first example is the phonograph made by Edison. Edison initially published 10 perceived uses for the phonograph and none of them included the recording and replaying of music, which would become it's most popular use. Edison actually opposed the use of his phonograph for music. One of his perceived purposes was for recording the last words of dying people.
It's a lie. http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/edhtml/edcyldr.html Edison suggested music be one of the uses for the phonograph.

[Loss Leader]

The Black Death cut a swathe across the entire Old World. Its effect in Europe and the Mediterranean was to extend the infuence of the Eurasian heartland into the European periphery, and the sweeping away of the Crusader intrusion. Europe's fifteen minutes of fame date from centuries later.


Well, I agree with you in part. To the extent that the Plague brought the Muslim world closer to Europe, it allowed the Europeans to reabsorb and relearn the ancient Greek scientific and philosophical knowledge that the Muslims had been so kind as to keep hold of. It also introduced arabic math concepts that made all of commerce and banking easier.

However, an important effect of the Plague was to remove a large portion of the agricultural workforce and make it hard to farm land. This caused French nobility, for example, to kick the peasants off the land and just raise sheep instead. The displaced workforce gravitated to cities and became the pool of workers available for factories and industry. Once massive numbers of people were available for industrial labor, standardization of tools and methods became logical and the whole thing just took off from there in ways that, even today, are on display in that company that makes nothing but moonpies.

[Gregoire]

I have noticed how vastly different the technology is between western and non-western civilizations and I was wondering what everyones opinion here is on that. Europe, Or to be more specific Eurasia including north Africa has historically had far superior technology and capability to wage war than all other parts of the world including south Africa, Australia, New Zealand and the Americas. Why is this? Why did Europeans invent language, Firearms, Advanced political systems and domesticate livestock and plants more so and before most other peoples? Why didn't the Native Americans have Livestock, steel weapons including firearms and advanced ocean going technology when the first conquistadors came? The battle of Cajamarca is a perfect example of this. In 1532 Pizarro and his ragtag bunch of Spanish conquistadors (Numbering around 180) were able to destroy a head on army of Emperor Atahualpa's personal soldiers. The battle lasted only a few hours but in the end 180 Spanish men had killed over 7,000 Incan soldiers and only about 7 Spanish soldiers died. The Spanish took Atahualpa hostage and demanded gold for his return and killed him anyway upon getting it.

Why did this happen the way it did? Why was it so easy for the Spanish to decimate the Incan soldiers in a few hours and suffer so few casualties? Why did it even occur in the first place the way it did? Why the Spanish? Why didn't Atahualpa invade Spain and defeat the Spanish and take Charles the fifth hostage? Why have Europeans historically had so much more success at waging war and inventing technology than other peoples?



I have been interested in this topic ever since I read The Rise and Fall of Great Powers by Paul Kennedy back in 1989 who discussed this issue in the first chapter. Since then, I have read Conquest and Cultures:An International History as well as Migrations and Cultures by Thomas Sowell which I also recommend. Jared's Diamond's latest two books are the most recent which shed even more light on this question. (His book The Third Chimpanzee was also one of my favorites.)

The major point in these books is that geography had much more to do with events in history than the usual tired arguments that attribute innate racial differences or exploitation to what happened.

[Taffer]

Eurasians. I.E. including Asia, The fertile crescent and north Africa.

Then why didn't you say Eurasians?

Secondly, who else is there, in that case? Africans? Pacific Islanders?

I'm confused as to what criteria you are using to describe 'accomplisment'. Did europeans ever travel thousands of kilometers in the most simple of watercraft? Surely that is a great accomplishment?

[Ladewig]

The problem is that inventions don't come about due to "incentive", but are rather invented before a purpose even is known for them. This is true of most well known inventions.

I just read Jared Diamonds examples. His first example is the phonograph made by Edison. Edison initially published 10 perceived uses for the phonograph and none of them included the recording and replaying of music, which would become it's most popular use. Edison actually opposed the use of his phonograph for music. One of his perceived purposes was for recording the last words of dying people.

Another example was the engine produced by Nicolaus Otto which when produced served no important purpose and didn't for about 50 years. His initial engine was far too large and weak to replace horses or steam engines though today nearly all automobile engines use the same principle that his fist 4 stroke cycle engine did.

I wasn't claiming that it never happened. In fact in the last 100 years it has been happening with more and more frequency. However, I still maintain that at no point in time did that condition apply to "most well-known inventions." If we stick with the topic of the opening post, then stirrups, iron plows with moldboards, firearms, compostite bows, steel swords, horse collars, warships, cannons, and the vast majority of other society-changing inventions came into being because of a clearly-perceived need (or as it was described earlier in the thread: incentives).


. . . . . . . . . . . . .
ETA: Just a clarification. If you meant that most inventions end up being used in ways that the inventor did not foresee, then I will agree with you. I love watching Burke's "Connections." Those unexpected uses do not mean that the original invention did not have a clearly-defined practical purpose.

[rocketdodger]

So you're saying that their "medium difficulty" living caused them to resolve problems and develop society better and they took these mentalities with them to where they went?

The second half of that statement, yes.

However I am not sure the medium difficulty conditions catalyzed progress primarily because of resolving problems per se. All I know is that they catalyze people grouping together on a larger scale than in easy or hard conditions.

It could be that in medium conditions there is much more danger from other humans (or other tribes). In easy conditions, there are plenty of resources, so inter-tribal violence is probably limited to things like territory disputes. In hard conditions, life might be so difficult that living by the sword isn't a viable option -- if you steal the food from your enemy, they die, and you have nobody else to steal from, so you die as well.

In medium conditions, however, it might pay to survive by force. If that is the case, then the tribes in medium conditions would have incentive to group together for security, which would lead to nations that war with each other as opposed to tribes that war with each other. There is safety in numbers, even if your enemy has numbers as well.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

It's a lie. http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/edhtml/edcyldr.html Edison suggested music be one of the uses for the phonograph.

That's odd. Though I don't think Jared Diamond intentionally made that claim knowing it to be false.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Then why didn't you say Eurasians?

Secondly, who else is there, in that case? Africans? Pacific Islanders?

I'm confused as to what criteria you are using to describe 'accomplisment'. Did europeans ever travel thousands of kilometers in the most simple of watercraft? Surely that is a great accomplishment?

Eurasians include North Africans, not pacific islanders.

An accomplishment, but not compared to the accomplishments of Eurasians who invented the technology to circumnavigate the entire planet.

[Loss Leader]

An accomplishment, but not compared to the accomplishments of Eurasians who invented the technology to circumnavigate the entire planet.


Is sailing west and hoping really a "technology"?

[Ladewig]

Eurasians include North Africans, not pacific islanders.


I have never heard that definition before. Would you elaborate?

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Is sailing west and hoping really a "technology"?

It could have never been done on the boats used by early Polynesians occupying those islands thousands of years ago.


Note also, I re-read Jared Diamonds mention of Edison and he said that music was not high on Edison's list of uses for the phonograph, it thought he said it wasn't on the list.

[Hokulele]

It could have never been done on the boats used by early Polynesians occupying those islands thousands of years ago.


What? It certainly could have been done. I suggest you read the book On the Road of the Winds (http://www.amazon.com/Road-Winds-Archaeological-History-European/dp/0520234618/ref=sr_1_1/102-7573913-6500138?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1194551019&sr=1-1) by Patrick Kirch. Although it focuses more on the archeology, there are a few good sections on Polynesian navigation and voyaging, as well as an excellent bibliography for futher reading.

[Loss Leader]

It could have never been done on the boats used by early Polynesians occupying those islands thousands of years ago.


It couldn't have been done on the boats used by Europeans occupying Europe thousands of years ago, either.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

What? It certainly could have been done. I suggest you read the book On the Road of the Winds (http://www.amazon.com/Road-Winds-Archaeological-History-European/dp/0520234618/ref=sr_1_1/102-7573913-6500138?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1194551019&sr=1-1) by Patrick Kirch. Although it focuses more on the archeology, there are a few good sections on Polynesian navigation and voyaging, as well as an excellent bibliography for futher reading.

You really think that this:


http://www.dkimages.com/discover/previews/741/106917.JPG


could have circumnavigated the globe?

[Dustin Kesselberg]

It couldn't have been done on the boats used by Europeans occupying Europe thousands of years ago, either.


The point is that Polynesians couldn't have done it even at the time Europeans occupied Polynesia or even first discovered it.

[Hokulele]

You really think that this:

<image snipped>

could have circumnavigated the globe?


You really think a long-distance voyaging canoe looks like that?

Try this site.

http://pvs.kcc.hawaii.edu/

[Dustin Kesselberg]

You really think a long-distance voyaging canoe looks like that?

Try this site.

http://pvs.kcc.hawaii.edu/


Those look like contemporary designs.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Scratch that, I don't think the picture I'm looking at is even a boat.

[Hokulele]

Meh. Read the entire site, particulary the links to Dr. Ben Finney's work. Read the book I mentioned earlier. Then we can have a discussion rather than one giant argument from incredulity.

ETA: If you want a good starting point, try this page (http://pvs.kcc.hawaii.edu/designing.html).

[tofu]

If you gave two people a crossword puzzle 100,000 seconds ago, one of them finished it 10,000 seconds ago and one of them finished 5000 seconds ago, you wouldn't pick out one of them as extraordinarily more advanced.

I really don't think your comparison of seconds to years is valid.

There definitely seems to be a difference between cultures and it can't be dismissed so easily. The aboriginal people of Australia lived in isolation for tens of thousands of years and they didn't have numbers, writing, or any kind of calendar. I see no reason to believe that if they only had another 30 thousand years, things would have changed.

The "faster" civilization

I just think it's ridiculously dismissive of you to put faster in quotes, as if it's some imagined, non-existent effect. It very clearly is real. The whole world was roughly equal in terms of technology when the first Australians set foot on the continent. For one group, technology continued to progress. For the other group, it did not.

[CapelDodger]

Well, I agree with you in part. To the extent that the Plague brought the Muslim world closer to Europe, it allowed the Europeans to reabsorb and relearn the ancient Greek scientific and philosophical knowledge that the Muslims had been so kind as to keep hold of. It also introduced arabic math concepts that made all of commerce and banking easier.

And the Turks introduced themselves - on the back of their advanced technol0gy. It was only in the 17thCE that Europe started to edge ahead in certain technologies, particularly military and naval technologies. (In such matters as sanitation and medicine Europe still lagged.) That's a long time after the Black Death.

The invention of double-entry book-keeping is not given nearly the prominence it deserves. It probably arose in India and was taken up by Italian merchants. Bless 'em.

However, an important effect of the Plague was to remove a large portion of the agricultural workforce and make it hard to farm land. This caused French nobility, for example, to kick the peasants off the land and just raise sheep instead. The displaced workforce gravitated to cities and became the pool of workers available for factories and industry. Once massive numbers of people were available for industrial labor, standardization of tools and methods became logical and the whole thing just took off from there in ways that, even today, are on display in that company that makes nothing but moonpies.

Industrialisation came long after the Black Death. If anything the Black Death was a hindrance, since cities were worse affected than the countryside. At least in the country you have a shorter supply-chain to worry about. Industrialisation requires a dependable agricultural surplus and an ordered society, not one in chaos.

Far from evicting tenants, after the Black Death the aristocracy tried to enforce serfdom. They needed the labour. Serfdom is a crippling brake on progress - just consider Russia. By all measures it should have become a superpower by the late 18thCE, but serfdom for the masses held them back.

The Black Death did break the back of serfdom in Western Europe, which had long-term beneficial consequences. It took centuries for them to show up clearly, though.

[CapelDodger]

However I am not sure the medium difficulty conditions catalyzed progress primarily because of resolving problems per se. All I know is that they catalyze people grouping together on a larger scale than in easy or hard conditions.

Indeed they do. From those large groupings emerge new difficulties. Warfare, for instance. Lawyers. Aristocrats. Hucksters. Cholera. The whole rich tapestry of modern life ...

[CapelDodger]

Is sailing west and hoping really a "technology"?

Concerning the technology, and off the top of my head : magnetic compass and centre-post rudder from China, lateen sails from the Indian Ocean, the world as a sphere from Mesopotamia (at least) along with a much better estimate of its size than Columbus seems to have been working from, salted meat and hard-tack are heritage technologies.

Dustin Kesselberg's theory that Europeans invented the technology doesn't hold water.

[Loss Leader]

There definitely seems to be a difference between cultures and it can't be dismissed so easily. The aboriginal people of Australia lived in isolation for tens of thousands of years and they didn't have numbers, writing, or any kind of calendar. I see no reason to believe that if they only had another 30 thousand years, things would have changed.


According to at least one theory of history, the aboriginal people of Australia stalled because of a lack of the easy to produce energy delivery system we know as wheat.

Wheat cut down the time and physical energy it took to produce food energy and that surplus appears to have allowed the real advancements that kept the aboriginals in, basically, the stone age.

[CapelDodger]

According to at least one theory of history, the aboriginal people of Australia stalled because of a lack of the easy to produce energy delivery system we know as wheat.

Grasslands are the thing, and Australia isn't famous for them. There is a Great Australian Desert, though, and it's seriously great. It even has camels.

[Jeff Corey]

Grasslands are the thing, and Australia isn't famous for them. There is a Great Australian Desert, though, and it's seriously great. It even has camels.
I don't think they swam there, along with the rabbits and mongeeses and Irish.

[tofu]

According to at least one theory of history, the aboriginal people of Australia stalled because of a lack of the easy to produce energy delivery system we know as wheat.

Yep. That makes a lot of sense to me, and is why I find this topic so fascinating. So many things have to happen for a modern civilization to develop. It's amazing that it happened at all!

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Meh. Read the entire site, particulary the links to Dr. Ben Finney's work. Read the book I mentioned earlier. Then we can have a discussion rather than one giant argument from incredulity.

ETA: If you want a good starting point, try this page (http://pvs.kcc.hawaii.edu/designing.html).


Are you claiming though, that those canoes could have circumnavigated the entire planet? Not to mention without the aid of navigational compasses and maps?

[CapelDodger]

I don't think they swam there, along with the rabbits and mongeeses and Irish.

Like wheat and irrigation, camels were deliberately introduced by Eurasians with a plan. As was the cane toad, IIRC.

[Loss Leader]

Yep. That makes a lot of sense to me, and is why I find this topic so fascinating. So many things have to happen for a modern civilization to develop. It's amazing that it happened at all!


The question I have is whether the advancement of one civilization must be accompanied by the stagnation (or death) of another.

[Loss Leader]

Like wheat and irrigation, camels were deliberately introduced by Eurasians with a plan. As was the cane toad, IIRC.


And that plan was to finally succeed at cross-breeding camels with a cane toad.

[Hokulele]

Are you claiming though, that those canoes could have circumnavigated the entire planet? Not to mention without the aid of navigational compasses and maps?


What did I just tell you about an argument from incredulity?

But anyway, yes. Celestial navigation and current/island mapping were both practiced by the Polynesians. Magnetic compasses are not necessary for circumnavigation, so their technology would have been quite capable. If you do not believe me, read those sources I provided and read the latest information about the chicken bones found in South America, and the spread of South American the sweet potato among the various Polyniesian, Melanesian, and Micronesian archipelagos.

Now, if you would rather discuss why they didn't circumnavigate the globe, that is a completely different topic. Hint, it didn't have anything to do with their boats or navigational skills.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

What did I just tell you about an argument from incredulity?

But anyway, yes. Celestial navigation and current/island mapping were both practiced by the Polynesians. Magnetic compasses are not necessary for circumnavigation, so their technology would have been quite capable. If you do not believe me, read those sources I provided and read the latest information about the chicken bones found in South America, and the spread of South American the sweet potato among the various Polyniesian, Melanesian, and Micronesian archipelagos.

Now, if you would rather discuss why they didn't circumnavigate the globe, that is a completely different topic. Hint, it didn't have anything to do with their boats or navigational skills.


How many people have circumnavigated the earth with those boats and without maps or magnetic compasses?

Moreover, How many ancient Polynesians have? What evidence do we have suggesting they did? If they didn't, why didn't they?

[CapelDodger]

Yep. That makes a lot of sense to me, and is why I find this topic so fascinating. So many things have to happen for a modern civilization to develop. It's amazing that it happened at all!

Australia is an extreme example of an environment where civilisation does not flourish. It's right out on the fringe, not on the way to anywhere. It doesn't produce anything remarkable. The opportunities to generate a food-surplus are minimal. It's the null-hypothesis of civilisation.

That's not to say it can't develop a culture, of course, since culture is cheap. Just not civilisation in the full sense - city-based culture.

Modern civilisation does depend on many things happening, but because of the communications in Eurasia they don't all have to happen in one place. A useful idea arrived at in one place will soon be taken up elsewhere. Societies that reject new ideas (however good) are overwhelmed by more pragmatic societies. This is a perfect recipe for rapid development.

[Hokulele]

How many people have circumnavigated the earth with those boats and without maps or magnetic compasses?


See my previous comments as to the technology available. See also the books and websites previously pointed out to you. Sorry to disturb your precious euro-centric superiority complex.

Moreover, How many ancient Polynesians have? What evidence do we have suggesting they did? If they didn't, why didn't they?


Please rephrase using grammar. Or coherence. Your choice.

[CapelDodger]

Moreover, How many ancient Polynesians have? What evidence do we have suggesting they did? If they didn't, why didn't they?

Why would they? What would be their motivation?

(I suspect that's what Hokulele was hinting at.)

Why did Europeans circumnavigate the globe? What was the point?

[CapelDodger]

See my previous comments as to the technology available. See also the books and websites previously pointed out to you.

I don't doubt that Polynesians could have cicumnavigated the world had they taken it into their heads to do so. And they'd surely have done it at far less cost in human life and health.

Sorry to disturb your precious euro-centric superiority complex.

A valid response to "we do these things not because they are easy but because they are hard!" is "Well, more fool you then".

[Hokulele]

It is interesting to look at the timeline of Polynesian expansion and try to guess how far they would have made it given time. The settlements in Hawaii and Ateoroa (New Zealand) are pretty recent by historical standards. In addition, when you compare the canoe designs from different island groups, it is pretty obvious that the Polynesians were very interested in developing newer technologies, rather than simply repeating the same process.

However, those Marquesans were pretty bloodthirsty bastards (one theory about the settlement of the Hawaiian Islands hinges on an escape from there), so I doubt that the Polynesians would have been any kinder to foreign people than the Europeans were. :( Although to their credit, they would not have brought the various diseases the Europeans did, which takes us back to the premise of Guns, Germs, & Steel. :)

[CapelDodger]

And that plan was to finally succeed at cross-breeding camels with a cane toad.

The latest plan is for GM camels that eat cane-toads and breed at the same rate. There's never any shortage of Eurasian plans. It's in the nature of the beast.

[Madalch]

And that plan was to finally succeed at cross-breeding camels with a cane toad.
I've heard that there is a large number of websites filled with photographs of camel toads. Usually found near swimming pools, or on beaches.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

See my previous comments as to the technology available. See also the books and websites previously pointed out to you. Sorry to disturb your precious euro-centric superiority complex.




Please rephrase using grammar. Or coherence. Your choice.


You didn't answer either of my questions. Without referring me to websites or books...



How many people have circumnavigated the earth with those boats and without maps or magnetic compasses?

How many ancient Polynesians circumnavigated the earth?

What evidence do we have suggesting ancient Polynesians circumnavigated the earth?

If ancient Polynesians did not circumnavigated the earth, why did they not?

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Why would they? What would be their motivation?

(I suspect that's what Hokulele was hinting at.)

Why did Europeans circumnavigate the globe? What was the point?


I don't know why they would have. Possibly finding new trade routes or potential civilizations to trade with or conquer, etc.

[Loss Leader]

[quote=Dustin Kesselberg;3142810] Without referring me to websites or books....[quote]


Guess the exact moment I decided there's no point talking to Dustin.

[CapelDodger]

I don't know why they would have.

Why not, if you think it's a big enough issue to bring up?

Possibly finding new trade routes or potential civilizations to trade with or conquer, etc.

No obvious motivation that was likely to be shared by the Polynesians. The ability to do something does not lead inexorably to the doing of it, so not doing something is not evidence of inadequacy.

[CapelDodger]

I've heard that there is a large number of websites filled with photographs of camel toads. Usually found near swimming pools, or on beaches.

Is that the sort of website that has crocoducks and stuff? They're cool. A far more interesting take on biology than we get from (yawn) mainstream science.

[Madalch]

Is that the sort of website that has crocoducks and stuff? They're cool.
Um, no. A completely different sort of website.

The crocoduck website is at least safe for work.

[Hokulele]

You didn't answer either of my questions. Without referring me to websites or books...


Tell me Dustin, how do you normally learn things?'

But since there may be some people who are actually interested in this topic, here we go for the lurkers:

How many people have circumnavigated the earth with those boats and without maps or magnetic compasses?


None. it is believed the Pacific Islanders originated in South East Asia, eventually spreading to Ateoroa (New Zealand), Rapa Nui (Easter Island), and Hawaii for permanent settlements, and as far as South America in terms of exploration. Just to give you some perspective, one theory holds that the Hawaiian island were settled around 500 AD, with continuous trade and travel between Hawaii and other island groups, particularly Tahiti. When you look at a map of the Pacific, the amount of open ocean covered by these voyages is impressive (hard to do without using a book or website, but that is your problem, not mine).

At the Polynesian Voyaging website you refuse to look at, the latest voyage took the Hokule'a from Honolulu to Micronesia to Japan, all without maps or compasses. Again, celestial navigation is sufficient for open ocean travel.

How many ancient Polynesians circumnavigated the earth?


Non sequitor. How many ancient Europeans circumnavigated the earth? What is their longest open ocean voyage compared to the Polynesians? Why were they such cowards as to hug the shoreline in almost all of their travels? How many years did such a voyage take and what was the inspiration?

What evidence do we have suggesting ancient Polynesians circumnavigated the earth?


See above.

If ancient Polynesians did not circumnavigated the earth, why did they not?


Finally, a relevant and interesting question.

For one, the Polynesians were still expanding their exploration routes when they first encountered Europeans. Naturally, this stalled their expansion. Relative to other parts of the earth, Polynesia was a newly settled area, and most of their attention was turned to holding on to what they had, as well as resolving internal strife. Outward expansion wasn't a primary concern.

Secondly, the Pacific Islands are poor in natural resources, as can be seen by the industries practiced. What they had, they used very well, but they didn't have much. If you would like to talk about Pacific Island industries, practices, and trade, I will direct you back to the book I mentioned earlier (yeah, I know, whatever).

Thirdly, there was no such thing as a centralized governmental system that could be used to fund and organize such an endeavor. Even today, many individual Pacific Islands are still considered independent "kingdoms", even though they may technically belong to one country. Inheritance issues among Micronesian families can give insight in to how things may have worked in pre-contact days. On larger islands, the land would have been divided among many "chiefs" with little or no coordination between them. Inter-archipelago warfare was almost unheard of, most communication between island groups was peaceful and trade-based.

I could go on, but this gives you an idea. Again, it was not a technology issue, but social and resource issues that kept the Pacific Islanders within the Pacific Islands. If you want to argue technology again, I will once again request that you review the literature first, as argument from ignorance is not a discussion.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Guess the exact moment I decided there's no point talking to Dustin.


Because I prefer my answers to be answered opposed to copped out? Referring someone to read an entire book instead of answering a basic question is a "cop out". I read plenty of books and I damn sure don't have time to read a book just to get an answer to a single basic question asked of someone on an internet forum.


Why not, if you think it's a big enough issue to bring up?

No obvious motivation that was likely to be shared by the Polynesians. The ability to do something does not lead inexorably to the doing of it, so not doing something is not evidence of inadequacy.


Early Polynesians trade with other peoples.



Tell me Dustin, how do you normally learn things?'

Study them.

None. it is believed the Pacific Islanders originated in South East Asia, eventually spreading to Ateoroa (New Zealand), Rapa Nui (Easter Island), and Hawaii for permanent settlements, and as far as South America in terms of exploration. Just to give you some perspective, one theory holds that the Hawaiian island were settled around 500 AD, with continuous trade and travel between Hawaii and other island groups, particularly Tahiti. When you look at a map of the Pacific, the amount of open ocean covered by these voyages is impressive (hard to do without using a book or website, but that is your problem, not mine).

So you admit that no one, even in modern times, has circumnavigated the world with the technology available to Polynesians using traditional technology at the time Europeans circumnavigated the earth?


At the Polynesian Voyaging website you refuse to look at, the latest voyage took the Hokule'a from Honolulu to Micronesia to Japan, all without maps or compasses. Again, celestial navigation is sufficient for open ocean travel.

Yet not around the world...




Non sequitor. How many ancient Europeans circumnavigated the earth? What is their longest open ocean voyage compared to the Polynesians? Why were they such cowards as to hug the shoreline in almost all of their travels? How many years did such a voyage take and what was the inspiration?

When I say "Ancient", I mean contemporaries with Europeans who did circumnavigate the earth. "Ancient" might not be the best word to use.




See above.

It's zero.




For one, the Polynesians were still expanding their exploration routes when they first encountered Europeans. Naturally, this stalled their expansion. Relative to other parts of the earth, Polynesia was a newly settled area, and most of their attention was turned to holding on to what they had, as well as resolving internal strife. Outward expansion wasn't a primary concern.

Then there are motivations for exploratory purposes.


Secondly, the Pacific Islands are poor in natural resources, as can be seen by the industries practiced. What they had, they used very well, but they didn't have much. If you would like to talk about Pacific Island industries, practices, and trade, I will direct you back to the book I mentioned earlier (yeah, I know, whatever).

How is this relevant to our discussion?


Thirdly, there was no such thing as a centralized governmental system that could be used to fund and organize such an endeavor. Even today, many individual Pacific Islands are still considered independent "kingdoms", even though they may technically belong to one country. Inheritance issues among Micronesian families can give insight in to how things may have worked in pre-contact days. On larger islands, the land would have been divided among many "chiefs" with little or no coordination between them. Inter-archipelago warfare was almost unheard of, most communication between island groups was peaceful and trade-based.

I could go on, but this gives you an idea. Again, it was not a technology issue, but social and resource issues that kept the Pacific Islanders within the Pacific Islands. If you want to argue technology again, I will once again request that you review the literature first, as argument from ignorance is not a discussion.


If it was not a technological issue, Then why haven't modern people using those same boats and technology available to Polynesians contemporary to European circumnavigators circumnavigated the world? If it's not an issue of technology, why haven't they?

[Radrook]

I have noticed how vastly different the technology is between western and non-western civilizations and I was wondering what everyones opinion here is on that. Europe, Or to be more specific Eurasia including north Africa has historically had far superior technology and capability to wage war than all other parts of the world including south Africa, Australia, New Zealand and the Americas. Why is this? Why did Europeans invent language, Firearms, Advanced political systems and domesticate livestock and plants more so and before most other peoples? Why didn't the Native Americans have Livestock, steel weapons including firearms and advanced ocean going technology when the first conquistadors came? The battle of Cajamarca is a perfect example of this. In 1532 Pizarro and his ragtag bunch of Spanish conquistadors (Numbering around 180) were able to destroy a head on army of Emperor Atahualpa's personal soldiers. The battle lasted only a few hours but in the end 180 Spanish men had killed over 7,000 Incan soldiers and only about 7 Spanish soldiers died. The Spanish took Atahualpa hostage and demanded gold for his return and killed him anyway upon getting it.

Why did this happen the way it did? Why was it so easy for the Spanish to decimate the Incan soldiers in a few hours and suffer so few casualties? Why did it even occur in the first place the way it did? Why the Spanish? Why didn't Atahualpa invade Spain and defeat the Spanish and take Charles the fifth hostage? Why have Europeans historically had so much more success at waging war and inventing technology than other peoples?


Here are some other questions that might be asked. Why did northern Europeans lag so far behind other the southern and Eastern parts of Europe for so long?

Why did Europe have to wait so long before catching up to China and surging ahead only after finding it necessary to steal or copy Asiatic inventions, such as gunpowder, canons, stirrup, compass, printing press, the rocket, paper and other such things which had been used in China for centuries?

If indeed the question concerning the Americas and Southern Africa and the Pacific Islands in comparison to Asia and Northern Africa is baffling, then the same can be said concerning about the primitive state of northern Europe as opposed to Asia and Eastern and Southern Europe. No? A condition that lasted for centuries. In fact, even after 800 years of Greek, Carthaginian and Roman influence they were stil seriously lagging behind. Have any explanation? why did it have to happen that way. Why didn't the northern Europeans take the lead in education and civilization and Verciginorex and his Gauls prevail over Ceasar's legions and easily decimate the Romans instead of the Romans easily decimating them by the hundreds of thousands?

BTW

It wasn't merely superiority of European weapons which made conquering the Aztecs relatively easy. The Spanish had the help of other tribes which were enemies of the Aztecs as allies. Cortez entered Tenochitlan, for example, with 20,000 Indian warriors in addition to his regular troops. When he fled the city during La Noche Triste, he and his men took refuge in ally territory after the Aztecs failed to folllow up their victory imediately.

Also, Moctezuma's failure to take action immediately while the Spaniards were still vulnerable on the coast and his misguided trust in their hypocritical promises of good-will contributed to his empire's swift demise.

Furthermore, the devastating effects of the viral plagues against which the Indians had very little immunological resistance. The native Americans began to interpret the plagues as the wrath of their gods which had abandoned them. That too had a demoralizing effect.

Adding significantly to all this was the Aztec way of waging war. They tried to get prisoners for sacrifice-not kill them. So while the Spaniards were going for the kill the Aztecs were going for captives. The disadvantage should be obvious.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Here are some other questions that might be asked. Why did northern Europeans lag so far behind other the southern and Eastern parts of Europe for so long?

Why did Europe have to wait so long before catching up to China and surging ahead only after finding it necessary to steal or copy Asiatic inventions, such as gunpowder, canons, stirrup, compass, printing press, the rocket, paper and other such things which had been used in China for centuries?

If indeed the question concerning the Americas and Southern Africa and the Pacific Islands in comparison to Asia and Northern Africa is baffling, then the same can be said concerning about the primitive state of northern Europe as opposed to Asia and Eastern and Southern Europe. No? A condition that lasted for centuries. In fact, even after 800 years of Greek, Carthaginian and Roman influence they were stil seriously lagging behind. Have any explanation? why did it have to happen that way. Why didn't the northern Europeans take the lead in education and civilization and Verciginorex and his Gauls prevail over Ceasar's legions and easily decimate the Romans instead of the Romans easily decimating them by the hundreds of thousands?

Northern Europeans didn't start domesticating animals plants until much later. This is likely because of the environmental differences between Northern Europe and the fertile crescent. It was easier to get crops and animals to southern Europe than northern Europe and thus southern Europe had a head start. Since Southern Europeans started raising livestock and domesticating plants first, their populations increased and thus they were more prone to come up with new technologies. Also new political systems had to be used due to the need to manage a higher population of people. This is where education and civilization stemmed from as well. They probably would have come to this point much earlier had Romans not been subjecting them so much I think.

Once Northern Europeans became used to these lifestyles and technologies they in turn started improving upon them advancing civilization.



BTW

It wasn't merely superiority of European weapons which made conquering the Aztecs relatively easy. The Spanish had the help of other tribes which were enemies of the Aztecs as allies. Cortez entered Tenochitlan, for example, with 20,000 Indian warriors in addition to his regular troops. When he fled the city during La Noche Triste, he and his men took refuge in ally territory after the Aztecs failed to folllow up their victory imediately.

Also, Moctezuma's failure to take action immediately while the Spaniards were still vulnerable on the coast and his misguided trust in their hypocritical promises of good-will contributed to his empire's swift demise.

Furthermore, the devastating effects of the viral plagues against which the Indians had very little immunological resistance. The native Americans began to interpret the plagues as the wrath of their gods which had abandoned them. That too had a demoralizing effect.

Adding significantly to all this was the Aztec way of waging war. They tried to get prisoners for sacrifice-not kill them. So while the Spaniards were going for the kill the Aztecs were going for captives. The disadvantage should be obvious.

That's true, though even in battle the Aztecs killed the enemy.

[CapelDodger]

Early Polynesians trade with other peoples.

Extensively, but what did Europe have that they wanted?

The reason Europeans travelled so far was to get to the best-quality goods (from China and India) and, of course, spices. They brought with them silver from Peru and Mexico, since that was all they had of value. That combination pretty much closes the circle.

[Z]

Hey Radrook! I forgot to welcome you back. I guess you're no longer virulently upset at everybody.... I still remember your 'Goodbye Idiots' thread! lol

Have you decided finally that some books other than the Bible might actually contain an ounce of truth? :D

Anyway, back on topic - I suspect Eurasians in general advanced technologically more rapidly than other cultures because they had a greater need to do so - that is, greater competition from nearby cultures over more limited and difficult to use resources, in a more limited and constraining environment. In the Americas, Africa, and on many islands, the usable resources were more plentiful (by which I mean, those basic necessaries that allow a civilization to remain in comfort for an extensive time without extensive effort), and in the continental cases, civilizations were often spread by vast areas of land, allowing for considerable expansion potential. And when civilizations did meet, they often met in open areas, easy to traverse - hence, no great need to develop any technology for, say, crossing inhospitable mountains or open ocean.

Natural resources play their part as well, of course - a culture with easy access to, say, iron or coal will inevitably find a use for it; a culture without access, no matter how bright and driven, won't be able to make use of resources they simply don't have.

This topic always brings to mind, to me, the stark contrast between the Europeans who came to the Americas, and the native Americans who were already living here. Europeans of the time came from a crowded land steeped in a culture of conquest, domination, and warfare. They had access to numerous resources and had long ago learned what to do with them, to improve their chances of surviving attacks from neighbors and/or of conquering said neighbors for numerous reasons. Their native farmlands were often cramped or barely viable, and were often targets of the attacks of neighboring cultures; and their weather was often an enemy to be battled against as much as any invading tribe or seagoing pirate.

The American, on the other hand, had a long history of living in a state of relative harmony, migrating along with the game animals, gathering what plant life grew in the area (which, of course, was why the game animals were also in the area), and enjoying the relatively mild weather. Neighbors were likewise living the 'good life', and when warfare did happen, it was usually pretty minor - limited to mostly simple skirmishes and the occasional knock-down, drag-out war over some perceived insult or the theft of womenfolk. They were also relatively rare - no war lasting hundreds of years. The next generation didn't carry on a history of hatred from their fathers' time; they accepted that old grudges died with the elder generations.

Add to that croplands that were expansive and fertile, and that the native people often accepted that, while waring against other people was understandable, warring with plants and animals was just silly...

Combine all that with the fact that some resources just weren't easily available, and frankly not needed. Why invent a better weapon when your own spear or bow and arrow does a fine job of hunting and fighting in war? And when you can take a simple bone or wood tool and handle all your farming needs, why bother figuring out how to make metal plows or hoes?

As far as technology goes, their environment gave the Eurasians a distinct advantage, in the form of greater need to innovate and greater natural resources.

Culturally, I still think they're playing catch-up. :D

[CapelDodger]

Once Northern Europeans became used to these lifestyles and technologies they in turn started improving upon them advancing civilization.

They were playing catch-up for a long time. The world wasn't sitting back waiting for them. The world very nearly rolled over them, in fact - it was touch-and-go with the Mongols and the Turks.

[CapelDodger]

I suspect Eurasians in general advanced technologically more rapidly than other cultures because they had a greater need to do so - that is, greater competition from nearby cultures over more limited and difficult to use resources, in a more limited and constraining environment. In the Americas, Africa, and on many islands, the usable resources were more plentiful (by which I mean, those basic necessaries that allow a civilization to remain in comfort for an extensive time without extensive effort), and in the continental cases, civilizations were often spread by vast areas of land, allowing for considerable expansion potential.

In all these cases population pressure will arise. The steppes filled up five thousand years ago, and there's been constant jostling ever since. There's been a lot of pressure for advances in relevant technology, and they got really good at what they did, right up to the 20thCE Cossacks.

And when civilizations did meet, they often met in open areas ...

Open until they both stepped into it at the same time ...

... easy to traverse - hence, no great need to develop any technology for, say, crossing inhospitable mountains or open ocean.

The breakthrough technologies dealt with the remaining problem - the sheer bloody distances involved. Railways. They eat up the miles and can haul previously unheard of amounts of stuff. Cross-continental railways really make a difference.

As far as technology goes, their environment gave the Eurasians a distinct advantage, in the form of greater need to innovate and greater natural resources.

It's a competitive environment so any useful innovation will be taken up, at least by winners. Add to that all the cross-fertilisation and trade and it was bound to be a hothouse environment. The geography dictates it.

Culturally, I still think they're playing catch-up. :D

Hey, show some respect for a native culture, m'kay?

[CapelDodger]

If it was not a technological issue, Then why haven't modern people using those same boats and technology available to Polynesians contemporary to European circumnavigators circumnavigated the world? If it's not an issue of technology, why haven't they?

Why would anybody?

[CapelDodger]

How many ancient Europeans circumnavigated the earth?

Not nearly as many as started out.

What is their longest open ocean voyage compared to the Polynesians?

As I recall, what remained of Magellan's fleet made a reach from the Galapogos to the Philippines. They lost about a third of the company to scurvy in the process - dead or crippled.

Why were they such cowards as to hug the shoreline in almost all of their travels?

Because they had to keep nailing their ships back together after every significant reach.

How many years did such a voyage take and what was the inspiration?

How many lives did it cost?

I just can't see Polynesian seafarers setting out expecting the death-rates that were commonplace in European trade. 20% on a good trip. Life was cheap. There were cities full of it, after all.




See above.




Finally, a relevant and interesting question.

For one, the Polynesians were still expanding their exploration routes when they first encountered Europeans. Naturally, this stalled their expansion. Relative to other parts of the earth, Polynesia was a newly settled area, and most of their attention was turned to holding on to what they had, as well as resolving internal strife. Outward expansion wasn't a primary concern.

Secondly, the Pacific Islands are poor in natural resources, as can be seen by the industries practiced. What they had, they used very well, but they didn't have much. If you would like to talk about Pacific Island industries, practices, and trade, I will direct you back to the book I mentioned earlier (yeah, I know, whatever).

Thirdly, there was no such thing as a centralized governmental system that could be used to fund and organize such an endeavor. Even today, many individual Pacific Islands are still considered independent "kingdoms", even though they may technically belong to one country. Inheritance issues among Micronesian families can give insight in to how things may have worked in pre-contact days. On larger islands, the land would have been divided among many "chiefs" with little or no coordination between them. Inter-archipelago warfare was almost unheard of, most communication between island groups was peaceful and trade-based.

I could go on, but this gives you an idea. Again, it was not a technology issue, but social and resource issues that kept the Pacific Islanders within the Pacific Islands. If you want to argue technology again, I will once again request that you review the literature first, as argument from ignorance is not a discussion.[/quote]

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Extensively, but what did Europe have that they wanted?

The reason Europeans travelled so far was to get to the best-quality goods (from China and India) and, of course, spices. They brought with them silver from Peru and Mexico, since that was all they had of value. That combination pretty much closes the circle.

Guns, Metal, Animals, Crops, etc.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Hey Radrook! I forgot to welcome you back. I guess you're no longer virulently upset at everybody.... I still remember your 'Goodbye Idiots' thread! lol

Have you decided finally that some books other than the Bible might actually contain an ounce of truth? :D

Anyway, back on topic - I suspect Eurasians in general advanced technologically more rapidly than other cultures because they had a greater need to do so - that is, greater competition from nearby cultures over more limited and difficult to use resources, in a more limited and constraining environment. In the Americas, Africa, and on many islands, the usable resources were more plentiful (by which I mean, those basic necessaries that allow a civilization to remain in comfort for an extensive time without extensive effort), and in the continental cases, civilizations were often spread by vast areas of land, allowing for considerable expansion potential. And when civilizations did meet, they often met in open areas, easy to traverse - hence, no great need to develop any technology for, say, crossing inhospitable mountains or open ocean.

Natural resources play their part as well, of course - a culture with easy access to, say, iron or coal will inevitably find a use for it; a culture without access, no matter how bright and driven, won't be able to make use of resources they simply don't have.

This topic always brings to mind, to me, the stark contrast between the Europeans who came to the Americas, and the native Americans who were already living here. Europeans of the time came from a crowded land steeped in a culture of conquest, domination, and warfare. They had access to numerous resources and had long ago learned what to do with them, to improve their chances of surviving attacks from neighbors and/or of conquering said neighbors for numerous reasons. Their native farmlands were often cramped or barely viable, and were often targets of the attacks of neighboring cultures; and their weather was often an enemy to be battled against as much as any invading tribe or seagoing pirate.

The American, on the other hand, had a long history of living in a state of relative harmony, migrating along with the game animals, gathering what plant life grew in the area (which, of course, was why the game animals were also in the area), and enjoying the relatively mild weather. Neighbors were likewise living the 'good life', and when warfare did happen, it was usually pretty minor - limited to mostly simple skirmishes and the occasional knock-down, drag-out war over some perceived insult or the theft of womenfolk. They were also relatively rare - no war lasting hundreds of years. The next generation didn't carry on a history of hatred from their fathers' time; they accepted that old grudges died with the elder generations.

Add to that croplands that were expansive and fertile, and that the native people often accepted that, while waring against other people was understandable, warring with plants and animals was just silly...

Combine all that with the fact that some resources just weren't easily available, and frankly not needed. Why invent a better weapon when your own spear or bow and arrow does a fine job of hunting and fighting in war? And when you can take a simple bone or wood tool and handle all your farming needs, why bother figuring out how to make metal plows or hoes?

As far as technology goes, their environment gave the Eurasians a distinct advantage, in the form of greater need to innovate and greater natural resources.

Culturally, I still think they're playing catch-up. :D


Most Native American tribes were very war like as well.


Why would anybody?

For a challenge. For fame. People are always trying to do things that no one else has ever done before and a lot of people have circumnavigated the earth in various types of boats or airplanes or balloons which had never been used to do such before.

[Loss Leader]

For a challenge. For fame. People are always trying to do things that no one else has ever done before and a lot of people have circumnavigated the earth in various types of boats or airplanes or balloons which had never been used to do such before.



Yes. I understand that you, yourself, are in possession of a giant gasbag.

[Ladewig]

Guns, Metal, Animals, Crops, etc.

It has been awhile since I've read up on that time period, so I may be way off base, but I don't remember Europeans exporting animals and crops to India and China.

[Radrook]

Good Points!

[Radrook]

....That's true, though even in battle the Aztecs killed the enemy.

Excerpt:

When the army arrived at the enemy city, Jaguar knights were sent to spy out the land. They signalled to each other by imitating bird calls. The Eagle knights attacked at dawn, making a great noise, stamping their feet, chanting, an whistling loudly to frighten the foe. Then the jaguar knights encircled their enemy . The fighting was very fierce , but Aztecs tried to wound or captured their enemies rather than kill them . When the Aztec's general decided that the battle was won. Messengers were sent to call on their opponents to surrender. Once the enemy surrendered, a peace treaty was drawn up which listed the amount of tribute. The conquered city would be governed by an aztec noble. Prisoners - men women, and children were taken back to the victorious cities until the time came for them to be sacrificed.

http://www.azteca.net/aztec/nahuatl/warfare.html

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Yes. I understand that you, yourself, are in possession of a giant gasbag.

Huh?

[CapelDodger]

Guns, Metal, Animals, Crops, etc.

Guns for doing what with? Metals, animals and crops they had. Breadfruit, for instance, which was transplanted to the Cairibbean and (I think) Africa. Pigs they had, which is the primary livestock. Wool they didn't need, obviously, and I don't think there was much call for milk or gin.

For a challenge. For fame. People are always trying to do things that no one else has ever done before and a lot of people have circumnavigated the earth in various types of boats or airplanes or balloons which had never been used to do such before.

No, they're not really. That derives from a rather European mindset. Most cultures have their own means of gaining status which are rather less extravagent. Kill some dangerous animals, steal some goats (or better yet, a woman), win a boat-race, that sort of thing.

Expensive and dangerous exploits for no return are not common exercises. In Western cultures we're fed on them as unquestionably splendid and admirable, but there's