# "Guns, Germs, and Steel" and Geographic Determinism



## Makalakumu (Jun 8, 2005)

Jared Diamonds book, _Guns, Germs, and Steel: the fate of human societies_, presents a principle called geographic determinism by anthropologists.  This theory states that cultures do not rise to dominance because of superior ideas, they rise to dominance because of random geographic factors.  Therefore, there are no superior cultural ideasie Capitalism, Democracy, and Christianity.  The bottom line, according to this theory, is that the environment exerts more power on history then ideas.



What do you think of this argument?  Have you read Diamonds book?  What do you think of it?


----------



## Makalakumu (Jun 8, 2005)

This material by sgtmac_46 was originally found in this thread.





			
				sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> Every time I have this discussion, however, someone invariably brings up Germs, Guns and Steel, an arguably well written book that has become the corner stone of the lefts argument as to how western culture does not possess any real superior characteristics to any other culture. I've read the book several times and, while it's a compelling read, it fails to prove it's ultimate conclusion, and that is that pure circumstance has allowed Western Culture to rise to the top of food chain.




Diamond's book is good, there is no doubt. It won the Pulitzer Prize and the research in it is extremely extensive. Yet, it is not anything new. The underlying principle is _geographic determinism_. This is a dominant theory among anthropologists. This theory shows that the concept cultural dominance because of superior ideas is fallacious. Is this the product of a bunch of left-wing professors' bias or is this the product of years of thoughtful research? Good question.



Regardless, geographic determinism is a major bummer for those on the right and left who feel that western culture is the best thing since sliced bread. I would be very interested in starting a discussion on this topic. Diamond and others present a very compelling argument and I'm curious about the reasons why you think it fails to show its central premise.






			
				sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> There are far more compelling arguments that it is as much our philosophical heritage as pure happenstance that is responsible for Western Cultures world topping position. The argument actually ends up being a "Which came first, the chicken or the egg" argument.


 
Could you develop these ideas? I'm curious as to why you do not think the argument is compelling.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jun 8, 2005)

Here are some websites for members who have not read the book...

1.  http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/diamond/diamond_p2.html

2.  http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/ht/34.2/mcneill.html

3.  http://www.wwnorton.com/catalog/spring99/gunsgerms.htm

4.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guns,_Germs_and_Steel

The last site give the quick nasty on the theories presented.


----------



## Phil Elmore (Jun 8, 2005)

Certainly the idea that there are no superior ideas -- only random chance and environmental factors -- will appeal to those whose _inferior ideas_ have led them to view the world around them (and the success of those with _superior ideas_) with the grasping envy and subjectivism that so characterizes life's failures on the individual, national, and international levels.  

Why, it could not possibly be the devotion to Enlightenment ideals of liberty that has made the United States a superpower;  it must be the environment and the crushing unfairness of random history and geogrophy.  

Why, it could not possibly be that devotion to Statism and socialist control over the individual that has mired the world's _former_ powers in the crumbling muck of their own collapsing societies; it must be _bad luck_.

There _are_ superior ideas and there _are_ inferior ideas.  An idea can be evaluated against the degree to which it matches _objective reality_.  Those who believe there is no such thing as objective reality will of course be more comfortable with the notion that their ideas don't matter and that only the environment determines their success or failure.  

Such an external locus of control is the salve for countless' failures' bruised senses of self.


----------



## The Kai (Jun 8, 2005)

Not having read the book (or the websites).  Off the top of my head here goes.


It always struck me as odd that the contries in the northern climates would rise to power.  After all short growing seasons for the crops, sometimes a lack of natural resources..etc
maybe the climate caused someone who could'nt rely on hunting gathering to undertake a systemized way of farming, cattle raising to increase thier odds.

On the other side maybe the people of up north had to learn to rais to take things from the areas more abundant, so they would be nutured into a more aggressive culture


----------



## Makalakumu (Jun 8, 2005)

Sharp Phil said:
			
		

> Certainly the idea that there are no superior ideas -- only random chance and environmental factors -- will appeal to those whose _inferior ideas_ have led them to view the world around them (and the success of those with _superior ideas_) with the grasping envy and subjectivism that so characterizes life's failures on the individual, national, and international levels.
> 
> Why, it could not possibly be the devotion to Enlightenment ideals of liberty that has made the United States a superpower; it must be the environment and the crushing unfairness of random history and geogrophy.
> 
> ...


Well, there certainly are a lot of assumptions in this post. However, I am bewildered by the writers lack of acknowledgement of environmental factors as part of _objective reality_. Perhaps this term describes only the realm _ideas..._which would truly be ironic.

I think a good modern case study of Diamond's work would be the question, "Did the US "win" the Cold War because of our superior culture, or did it "win" because of specific environmental factors?"


----------



## Phil Elmore (Jun 8, 2005)

No one has denied that environment is a _factor_.  In your original post, however, you essentially declared it the _only_ factor, stating that because of environmental factors "there are no superior ideas."  This is obvious tripe.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jun 8, 2005)

Sharp Phil said:
			
		

> No one has denied that environment is a _factor_. In your original post, however, you essentially declared it the _only_ factor, stating that because of environmental factors "there are no superior ideas." This is obvious tripe.


Obvious?  Mr. Diamond's work is quite clear and so is the work of many other anthropologists who subscribe to geographic determinism.  Which has more power in human life?  Ideas or the environment?  In my opinion, the environmental impact on our lives far outweighs the impact of ideas.


----------



## FearlessFreep (Jun 8, 2005)

I think first to answer any of this, you need to define 'superior'.  There is superior in the sense of 'most likely to survive' and then there is superior in the sense of some other form of measurement, such as morality or quality of life.

I think captilaism and democracy defeated one form of communism because it was a superior idea in the sense of survivability.  At the time, capitalism offered high personal reward for high personal effort and that motivated people at a very physical level, and  that probably went a long ways toward 'defeating' a system where the motivation was more idealogical.  Whether or not that means  that capitalism is a more moral idea, for example, is probably subject to personal opinion.  Just an example, though

One way to look at it, if you're really curious, is to look at places where the geography has remained constant but the ideas have changed.


----------



## Phil Elmore (Jun 8, 2005)

> In my opinion, the environmental impact on our lives far outweighs the impact of ideas.



Your opinion is disconnected from reality -- but not terribly surprising, given the political and philosophical views you've already expressed.  Our ideas make _all_ the difference in adapting to the environmental factors with which we are presented.  Our _ideas_ -- our ability to determine _ought_ from _is_ -- are the difference between success and failure.  Environmental factors are just that -- _factors_, not arbiters.

As I said, I can understand how this idea would be very comforting to life's failures, or to those who have difficulty taking responsibility for the content of their philosophies and the logical outcomes of those philosophies.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jun 8, 2005)

Sharp Phil said:
			
		

> Our ideas make _all_ the difference in adapting to the environmental factors with which we are presented. Our _ideas_ -- our ability to determine _ought_ from _is_ -- are the difference between success and failure. Environmental factors are just that -- _factors_, not arbiters.





Oh really?  I would say the winner of the conflict between the US and Soviet Union was _determined_ because of environmental limiting factors.  The Soviet Union was unable to compete with the US not because of its ideology, but simply because of its geography.



Just look at a globe.  The below examples are just a few among many others



1.  The 45th parallel - most of the US lies below the 45th allowing for a better environment for food production.  The Soviet Union always had a hard time producing food for its population because of this.

2.  Climate - the US has an overall warmer and more stable climate then the Soviet Union because of the vast mid-continental weather factors of the Soviet Union.  This means that the Soviets had to spend far more of their national wealth just to keep the heat and the lights on so they could remain productive.

3.  Size  matters.  Infrastructure in the US was much cheaper because it did not have vast surface area of the Soviet Union.  The Soviet Union encompassed 1/6th of the worlds land mass!  That bite choked them.

4.  Viable Coastline  The US has far more coastline that could be used for shipping and trade for most of the year.  The Soviets had only a few ports and this bottlenecked their global trade.

5.  Isolation  The Soviets enemies had direct access to the motherland which caused the them to expend energy to directly defend all of their borders.  This spread the Soviets resources thin and required massive supply lines and infrastructure to maintain.  It was not possible.

6.  Access to resources  The US had far better access to its resources because of its smaller size, lack of geographic boundaries, and superior trade routes.

7.  Resources per square mile  the US has an amazing amount of wealth in resources packed into an area much smaller then the Soviet Union.  This ease of access and transportation allowed for more efficiency.



With all of this and more stacked against the Soviet Union, it is a wonder they could compete at all.  In fact, it may be a testament to their effort that they were able to keep up the conflict for so long.  Perhaps the downplaying of these serious environmental limiting factors is ideological?  Perhaps we give our culture far too much credit?  

upnorthkyosa


----------



## Makalakumu (Jun 8, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Just look at a globe. The below examples are just a few among many others
> 
> 
> 
> ...



One can see that the Soviet Union was competing on a vastly uneven playing field. The environmental limiting factors really limited just how much that population of humans could compete and the USs population of humans. Thus, in order to even stay even with the US, the Soviets may have had no choice but to do the following



Enslave the populace to their work.
Throw all dissenters in gulags.
Pollute like crazy in order to cut production costs.
Oppress and terrorize the populace so that they work harder.
Perhaps it was the environment that forced these extreme measures, not the ideology? Perhaps if our places were reversed, we would have had to resort to more totalitarian measures in order to compete with what we had?


----------



## FearlessFreep (Jun 8, 2005)

Keep in mind that the geography of the area once occupied by the Soviet Union was also populated by people before that time, under different forms of government.  How did they fare?

Also keep in mind that ideas do not just inhabit borders.  The US and Soviet Uniion did not share common borders, but Western Europe and Eastern Europe did.. for every mile of border that the Soviet Union had to defend against the West, the West had to defend against the Soviet Union, assuming you think of the Soviet Union as really the Warsaw Pact and the US as NATO, because the Soviet Union didn't really have a lot exposed border to defend directly.

For what it's worth...the US had superior trade routes because commerce mattered to the US.  The US created a lot of products that people in the world wanted so their was motivation to have good trade routes.  The Soviets didn't produce a heck of a lot of exportable products because it didn't matter to them, so it wasn't worth having trade routes.

Japan, Great Britian, Italy, Egypt have all had powerful Empires at one time....geopgraphy hasn't changed. 

I think you have a point but I think you are overstretching the usefullness of that point.  By your point, Mexico and Brazil should be superpowers as well because they enjoy *many* of the same geopgraphical benefits that you ascribe to the US, but have ahd much different political histories.  A people who were more encouraged to strive for personal advancement could've done much better than the Soviet system.

Too easy to say that the Soviets lost the Cold War because they were in the wrong place.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jun 8, 2005)

FearlessFreep said:
			
		

> Keep in mind that the geography of the area once occupied by the Soviet Union was also populated by people before that time, under different forms of government. How did they fare?


Good question.  I don't think the Tsars were much more successful then the soviets.



			
				FearlessFreep said:
			
		

> Also keep in mind that ideas do not just inhabit borders. The US and Soviet Uniion did not share common borders, but Western Europe and Eastern Europe did.. for every mile of border that the Soviet Union had to defend against the West, the West had to defend against the Soviet Union, assuming you think of the Soviet Union as really the Warsaw Pact and the US as NATO, because the Soviet Union didn't really have a lot exposed border to defend directly.


Each one of those countries were soveriegn nations that set their own agendas against the US.  We could provide aid from far away and with little risk.  While the Soviets had to deal with dozens of very real geographic threats.  This spread their resources very thin and contributed greatly to their collapse.  The US strategy was specifically _designed_ to use geography against the Soviets.



			
				FearlessFreep said:
			
		

> For what it's worth...the US had superior trade routes because commerce mattered to the US. The US created a lot of products that people in the world wanted so their was motivation to have good trade routes. The Soviets didn't produce a heck of a lot of exportable products because it didn't matter to them, so it wasn't worth having trade routes..


The Soviets had to move good around and it was very much worth the effort to do so.  I think it may be a capitalistic fantasy to believe otherwise.

If you look at a map, you'll see that it was much harder to do in the Soviet Union though.  The well established trade routes in the United States are both coasts, the Mississippi River and its large tributaries, and the great lakes.  90% of our nations population lives on these routes.  This geography allowed us to prosper and the Soviets do not have anything remotely resembling this.



			
				FearlessFreep said:
			
		

> Japan, Great Britian, Italy, Egypt have all had powerful Empires at one time....geopgraphy hasn't changed.


This list sparked some very interesting thoughts...see below.



			
				FearlessFreep said:
			
		

> I think you have a point but I think you are overstretching the usefullness of that point.


I'm not so sure.  The more I think about this, the more I am beginning to see a naturalistic explanation for our current position in the world's hierarchy.  I beginning to think that all of our cultural ideas have environmental roots...from religion to freedom.



			
				FearlessFreep said:
			
		

> By your point, Mexico and Brazil should be superpowers as well because they enjoy *many* of the same geopgraphical benefits that you ascribe to the US, but have ahd much different political histories.


The geographic scene shifts in those countries.  There is more disease.  There are more environmental barriers.  There is less usable land for food production and less resources.  No, Mexico and Brazil are exactly where they are because of environmental factors.



			
				FearlessFreep said:
			
		

> Too easy to say that the Soviets lost the Cold War because they were in the wrong place.


No country can escape the constraints of its environment.  Even our country cannot.  Why couldn't the Soviets geography place constraints on their society that prevented them from long term competition with us?  The US is still filthy rich in resources despite over two hundred years and massive amounts of industrialization.  We are where we are because of these riches.  Our ideology is probably nothing more then a response to these riches.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jun 8, 2005)

Environmental Basis for Freedom



Do empires with more environmental limiting factors have to resort to more despotic measures in order to rise to prominence?



The US is the richest empire the world has ever seen. We have a wealth of resources and many convenient geographic features that make this possible. If we look at other empires the world has seen, the US has more freedom then all of them.



Therefore, I think it fair to posit that empires that have more environmental limiting factors then the US, empires that are far poorer, must resort to increasing amounts of despotism. The extreme measures and atrocity is the only way they can rise to prominence.



Thus we see the environmental and geographic roots of freedom. This, I believe is the real reason that some people are more free the others. The bottom line is that the US enjoys the most freedom because our environment allows it.


----------



## Phoenix44 (Jun 8, 2005)

The discussion seems to have a "static" sense about it.  Let's not forget that the world of human culture is still evolving. 

The United States USED TO produce a lot of products the rest of the world wanted, which was part of what made us wealthy and successful.  Not anymore.  Now, we import.  We produce very little that the world wants, which is threatening to make our "empire" irrelevant.  We can only bully our way around the world for so long.

Don't discount Central and South America.  By geographic accident, they have something the rest of the world wants very badly, and will pay for:  OIL.  This could make Venezuela, Argentina, Ecuador, Mexico, and Columbia very important in the near future.  If you read the newspapers closely, you can see this happening already.  If countries like Venezuela manage to hold onto their sovereignty in the face of foreign interference, they will become the new successful cultures.


----------



## Don Roley (Jun 8, 2005)

Let me see if I get this straight.

The communities that Upnorthkyosa held up as examples of selfless communes ground under the heel of capitalism were really small groups of hunter- gathers barely above substance level.

It seems to me that any group wealthy enough to produce something as simple as chocolate cake must then make the transition out of this culture and into another.

If we want to bring back this utopia, we have to get rid of things like chocolate cake. But once we know of it, how can we turn our backs on it. Instead of an apple casting us out of Eden, we have a chocolate cake. Eden must have sucked if the naughtiest thing there was fruit.

Once you get to the level of having bakers specialized enough to produce chocolate cake, then the whole communal system breaks down. Do capitalistic societies teach us to desire things? I do not think I need any training to desire chocolate cake. As soon as you introduce it to a group, it will be desired. And you can't force the genie back in the bottle.


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Jun 8, 2005)

Sharp Phil said:
			
		

> Certainly the idea that there are no superior ideas -- only random chance and environmental factors -- will appeal to those whose _inferior ideas_ have led them to view the world around them (and the success of those with _superior ideas_) with the grasping envy and subjectivism that so characterizes life's failures on the individual, national, and international levels.
> 
> Why, it could not possibly be the devotion to Enlightenment ideals of liberty that has made the United States a superpower;  it must be the environment and the crushing unfairness of random history and geogrophy.
> 
> ...





Diamond's book doesn't deal with the effects of "Enlightenment Ideals," Phil.  It addresses technological and agricultural advancements made in Eurasia  far before Locke ever set pen to parchment.

To go along the lines of your argument, yes, there are good ideas and inferior ideas.  Domesticating horses was a good idea.  Yet there were no horses on any landmass south of the equator (and zebras can't be domesticated).  It was a good idea that couldn't take root.  

A good idea that couldn't take root, literally, is the domestication of various grains found in Eurasia.  They tend not to grow too many other places. 

The issue is one not of superiority of ideas...but the applicability of same.  Had we whites lived in South America, Africa, Australia, or New Guinea...we'd be the ones currently known as the "Third World."  

Our success...and our formulation of our "good ideas" is a result of an accident of geography that permitted our culture to flourish.  The culture itself wasn't necessarily superior...it was simply the lucky one that ended up winning the lottery of location.


Regards,


Steve


----------



## FearlessFreep (Jun 8, 2005)

_The US is the richest empire the world has ever seen. _

Relative to what?

Are we really 'richer' than the Roman Empire at it's height, that controlled a heck of a lot of the known world at the time.  How do you measure 'richness'?  They had a Pax Romana that lasted almost as long as our country has even existed, and we certainly haven't had that kind of stability

The saying was that "The Sun Never Sets On The British Empire" because it was unbelievably huge...are we richer than that?  In what way?

The more you post, I must admit the more it sounds like have already accepted a conclusion and are working backwards to try to prove your point.

Rather than saying "What makes a culture successful?  Is it ideas? Environment?  Luck of being in the right place at the right time?...something else?", which would be an interesting conversation, you seem to be going backwards from "Environment leads to success more than any other factor...so if an idea fails in a given locale...it was the locale and not the idea to blame, now let's talk about (or more likely, let's just all agree on it) how locale determines success", which is not nearly as interesting or useful way to approach the issue.

For what it's worth, there are other nations that are also relatively free, but not nearly as rich, and not in the same enviroment, so I don't think the chain from environment->rich->free is really there like you seem to assume it is


----------



## FearlessFreep (Jun 8, 2005)

Just as a note but Britian used to have a powerful monarchy and unbelievable amount of geography.  Ideas about monarchy. freedom and local self-determination of a populace really changed their geography, and now the British Empire is just and Island with a Parliment and a ceremonial monarchy.

 Not just in the US but all over the world.

 Geography plays a part, ideas play a part, luck plays a part, technology plays a part...


----------



## Makalakumu (Jun 8, 2005)

hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> Diamond's book doesn't deal with the effects of "Enlightenment Ideals," Phil. It addresses technological and agricultural advancements made in Eurasia far before Locke ever set pen to parchment.
> 
> To go along the lines of your argument, yes, there are good ideas and inferior ideas. Domesticating horses was a good idea. Yet there were no horses on any landmass south of the equator (and zebras can't be domesticated). It was a good idea that couldn't take root.
> 
> ...


One of the things that I liked about the book is that it debunked, once and for all, the superior race myths that were very common in the past.  He did spend a lot of time talking about the replacement of one society by another.  This replacement took place because of technology and resources, not because of a set of superior ideals/morals/culture.  Perhaps "ideas" was to broad to begin with, but I think the point remains the same.  The environment shapes a cultures success.  

I can't wait to read Diamond's next book, "Collapse" I hear he takes off on some of these concepts and talks about the rise and fall of civilizations and why some civilizations _choose_ to fail.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jun 8, 2005)

FearlessFreep said:
			
		

> The more you post, I must admit the more it sounds like have already accepted a conclusion and are working backwards to try to prove your point.
> 
> Rather than saying "What makes a culture successful? Is it ideas? Environment? Luck of being in the right place at the right time?...something else?", which would be an interesting conversation, you seem to be going backwards from "Environment leads to success more than any other factor...so if an idea fails in a given locale...it was the locale and not the idea to blame, now let's talk about (or more likely, let's just all agree on it) how locale determines success", which is not nearly as interesting or useful way to approach the issue.
> 
> For what it's worth, there are other nations that are also relatively free, but not nearly as rich, and not in the same enviroment, so I don't think the chain from environment->rich->free is really there like you seem to assume it is


I'm just trying an idea on for size.  I'm not really sure of anything.  Although, I do usually look for naturalistic explanations first...


----------



## FearlessFreep (Jun 8, 2005)

_ This replacement took place because of technology and resources, not because of a set of superior ideals/morals/culture. _


I did a little reading into it and one criticism to Diamond's ideas is that he doesn't really consider the place that ideas play into that replacement.  An example is how "Mainfest Destiny" as an idea drove Americans to drive out the Native Americans.  Sure, they had technology, but the also had desire to use it.  Chinese invented gunpoweder long before it was known in the west, but they did not use the techology for conquering.

_not because of a set of superior ideals/morals/culture._

Depends on what you mean by 'superior', again.  Superior can simply mean "better equipped for success" or it can mean "more morally correct".  Certainly 'manifest destiny" was more successful than the ideas of the people it replaced.  But I definitely wouldn't call it morally superior.  After all, the geography was the same   Yes, the new Americans had technology, but they also had a willingness to use it, driven by ideas, some noble and some not.

Almost any civil war would ague the point that the ability to convince people of the superiority of ideas is going to win out over the geography.

The problem I think you are having in this is that you want ideas to be 'value neutral', that democracy and solicalism and communism and capitalism are all inherently morally equal.   That may be true, although I have a problem seeing facsism as being morally equivalent to democracy   So, if all ideas are equal, then the success of one culture over another must be something else...maybe geography.   The problem with that approach is that while ideas may be *morally* nuetral or equal, they are not all *practically* equal.  Morally good or not, captialism is frighteningly efficient as an economic idea, which even the communists in China are learning to use to their advantage.  Religious fanaticism may come from a feeling of religious superiority that may be wrong, but it's still a powerful idea in terms of what it can practically accomplish


----------



## Tgace (Jun 8, 2005)

Its just another branch of the liberal "nobody should be superior" mentality. There should be no "passing" or "failing" in school...sports and schoolyard games are criticized because they encourage the thought that somebody is "better" than somebody else..."when everybody is super nobody is" etc..instead of excelling kids are taught to "expect".

Here, cultures/societies arent superior due to ideas, invention or technology, just the fate of geography. The Roman roads, military innovations, language, architecture had nothing to do with their success?

Odd ideas to be espoused by martial artists. Especially in the more martial "fighting" arts.


----------



## FearlessFreep (Jun 8, 2005)

Well, for the sake of discussion, I'm willing to grant a morally level playing field for political and economic ideas. However, I don't think that means that some ideas are not more successful than others, and by that I mean more effective at crowding out other ideas.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jun 9, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Its just another branch of the liberal "nobody should be superior" mentality. There should be no "passing" or "failing" in school...sports and schoolyard games are criticized because they encourage the thought that somebody is "better" than somebody else..."when everybody is super nobody is" etc..instead of excelling kids are taught to "expect".
> 
> Here, cultures/societies arent superior due to ideas, invention or technology, just the fate of geography. The Roman roads, military innovations, language, architecture had nothing to do with their success?
> 
> Odd ideas to be espoused by martial artists. Especially in the more martial "fighting" arts.


Serious questions...do you think that _you_ are superior to another person?  Do you believe that you have superior attributes, physical, mental, or moral, that make you superior to say someone who lived in the Soviet Union or someone who lives in the Third World?

You say yes, then I can understand why you believe the things you do.  If no, then I do not understand.  If nothing make you superior as a member of the richest and most powerful nation of the world, what makes anyone else in this country superior?  There has to be another explanation.


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Jun 9, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Its just another branch of the liberal "nobody should be superior" mentality. There should be no "passing" or "failing" in school...sports and schoolyard games are criticized because they encourage the thought that somebody is "better" than somebody else..."when everybody is super nobody is" etc..instead of excelling kids are taught to "expect".
> 
> Here, cultures/societies arent superior due to ideas, invention or technology, just the fate of geography. The Roman roads, military innovations, language, architecture had nothing to do with their success?
> 
> Odd ideas to be espoused by martial artists. Especially in the more martial "fighting" arts.




Cultural relativism isn't the issue here.  The question isn't one of whether one culture is superior to another, rather what causes led up to that ascendancy.  

Clearly western culture dominates the planet now.  In the 11th century that wasn't the case.  The Roman lead to which you refer had largely been lost during that era.  The Muslim world and China held most of the cards insofar as technology, the arts, and the sciences.  With the re-introduction of the works of Aristotle by St. Jerome--_who had them translated from Islamic texts_--the West entered into a new age of intellectual exploration and came out of what we've come to term "The Dark Ages."  

Islam, on the other hand, subsequently ended up repressing intellectual freedom (banning the works of Aristotle in many instances) and went into a cultural decline.  So too did China around that time when eunuch extremists in power clamped down on international trade and the proliferation of ideas.

The West's following ascendancy was due to a spirit of kleptocracy and conquest, and not just "good ideas."  A modification of a traditional verse:

"In fourteen hundred and ninety-two, 
Columbus sailed the ocean blue.
In fourteen hundred and ninety-three,
He began to steal all that he could see."

Some claim that liberals espouse cultural relativism in their defense of the value and contribution of other cultures.  Many of these same critics embrace moral relativism when called on the carpet for the West's destruction of those cultures.  We are asked to understand that the rape and pillage of the day were standards of the time and that we ought to be less harsh in our judgements of those whose actions blight Western history.  We are asked to rationalize their behavior in the name of the subsequent good that allegedly came from such depredations.

We are asked to ignore the achievements of non-white and non-Christian cultures by ignoring the Afro-Phoenician's for their first maritime exploration around Cape Horn.  That honor goes to Vasco De Gama, who did it much later.  We are expected to forget that African artifacts were found in the New World when Columbus arrived there.  If we concede that Columbus wasn't the first to land in the Americas, we should give credit to Leif Ericson, or St. Brendan...not, for goodness sakes, anybody who lived south of Gibralter.  We musn't be afro-centrist now.

And if we recognize these truths of history we are labeled "historical revisionists," as if plumbing for what actually happened is a bad thing.  We ought not rock the boat of history nor disabuse ourselves of our inherent white superiority.  We've got a nice illusion going here...let's not ruin it.


Regards,


Steve


----------



## Makalakumu (Jun 9, 2005)

Phoenix44 said:
			
		

> Don't discount Central and South America. By geographic accident, they have something the rest of the world wants very badly, and will pay for: OIL. This could make Venezuela, Argentina, Ecuador, Mexico, and Columbia very important in the near future. If you read the newspapers closely, you can see this happening already. If countries like Venezuela manage to hold onto their sovereignty in the face of foreign interference, they will become the new successful cultures.


These countries will become powerful no matter what kind of governmental ideals they espouse...all by the accident of geography.


----------



## FearlessFreep (Jun 9, 2005)

One would argue that if it were not for socio-political unrest in these countries that they would be powerful already.

Geography gives potentional, ideals fulfill it...or not


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jun 9, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Well, there certainly are a lot of assumptions in this post. However, I am bewildered by the writers lack of acknowledgement of environmental factors as part of _objective reality_. Perhaps this term describes only the realm _ideas..._which would truly be ironic.
> 
> I think a good modern case study of Diamond's work would be the question, "Did the US "win" the Cold War because of our superior culture, or did it "win" because of specific environmental factors?"


The answer is "Yes".

What you fail to grasp, upnorthyosa, is that this line of argument actually goes nowhere as it's really a "chicken or the egg" argument. The reality is, that superior environmental factors created a circumstance where superior ideas were able to develop. Diamond's work is nothing but the extension of the nature/nurture argument to the civilization level, and in the end, it really doesn't say nearly as much as some would like it to. It merely saws that environmental factors allowed certain civilizations to rise and advance further than others. It certainly does NOT prove that NO civilization is superior to another. 

A civilization that worships the moon is still qualitatively inferior to a civlization that GOES to the Moon, it doesn't matter WHAT environmental factors allowed those civilizations to advance. It's akin to saying that Humans aren't really anymore advanced than other apes, because we just happened to have received enviornmental factors that gave us an advantage. It's irrelavent when discussing the end product and it's quality.

Further, the whole argument seems a veiled attempt to prove that "race" has nothing to do with the success of a civlization.  I thought we pretty much already agreed on that.  Culture is what is important, not race, and Western culture is superior in most respects to any other to have developed.  HOW it developed that superior culture, most likely because of unique environmental factors COUPLED with unique ideas, has nothing to directly to do with the discussion of the quality of that culture.


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Jun 9, 2005)

Phoenix44 said:
			
		

> The United States USED TO produce a lot of products the rest of the world wanted, which was part of what made us wealthy and successful.  Not anymore.  Now, we import.  We produce very little that the world wants, which is threatening to make our "empire" irrelevant.  We can only bully our way around the world for so long.
> 
> Don't discount Central and South America.  By geographic accident, they have something the rest of the world wants very badly, and will pay for:  OIL.  This could make Venezuela, Argentina, Ecuador, Mexico, and Columbia very important in the near future.  If you read the newspapers closely, you can see this happening already.  If countries like Venezuela manage to hold onto their sovereignty in the face of foreign interference, they will become the new successful cultures.




Currently South American researchers are publishing an ever increasing number of scientific and technological research papers.  India has twelve of the finest tech schools in the world and is exporting talented and trained people to the U.S., Singapore, and elsewhere.

Commodities are cheap.  When Aberdeen, Scotland (once the "Granite Capital of the World") needed their public buildings resurfaced, they didn't go to the quarries outside of town.  They imported the granite from China.  It was cheaper that way.

The wealth that the U.S. has accumulated has been because of such commodities.  Our manufacturing industry is dying and moving elsewhere.  If we don't modify our educational institutions to reflect our new service economy, we will decline.

What then of those good western ideas?


Regards,


Steve


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jun 9, 2005)

hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> Currently South American researchers are publishing an ever increasing number of scientific and technological research papers. India has twelve of the finest tech schools in the world and is exporting talented and trained people to the U.S., Singapore, and elsewhere.
> 
> Commodities are cheap. When Aberdeen, Scotland (once the "Granite Capital of the World") needed their public buildings resurfaced, they didn't go to the quarries outside of town. They imported the granite from China. It was cheaper that way.
> 
> ...


You mean those good western ideas being adopted by those nations that you just named? You tell me. It seems as though the ideas are working fine.  The problem is that many in the western world are trying to move AWAY from the very ideas that made them prosperous in the first place.  

It isn't just china's natural resources that are making them prosperous now, but the fact that they are embracing capitalism in a more fundamental way that many in the western world are doing themselves, much less increasingly socialized western europe.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jun 10, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> What you fail to grasp, upnorthyosa, is that this line of argument actually goes nowhere as it's really a "chicken or the egg" argument.


I don't see it that way.  Here is why.  The Earth is our egg.  Our species hatched from it.  No one laid that egg.  Our environment shaped everything about us through evolution.  Group selection and sexual selection added some trappings to the package that natural selection chipped out of the block.



			
				sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> It merely saws that environmental factors allowed certain civilizations to rise and advance further than others. It certainly does NOT prove that NO civilization is superior to another.


No, it does not prove that one civilization is superior to another.  It merely provides a more plausible explanation and I believe it puts a more logical limit on the powers of ideas.  I think that Diamond's work cuts through decades of cold war propaganda and it points a finger at the real source of power in this world...resources, geography, and environment.



			
				sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> A civilization that worships the moon is still qualitatively inferior to a civlization that GOES to the Moon, it doesn't matter WHAT environmental factors allowed those civilizations to advance.


Not necessarily.  A civilization is unable to go to the moon if it does not have the environmental riches to do so.  The US, for five decades starting in the 1920s, had a wealth of black gold that has never been seen in the world since.  Our oil wealth far surpassed the wealth of the Saudis today.  This source of cheap and abundant energy did far more to put men on the moon then any namby pamby ideas.  

The bottom line is that the Soviets never made it to the moon because they were too poor.  Wealth is a proxy for energy.  It is not created by an idea.



			
				sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> It's akin to saying that Humans aren't really anymore advanced than other apes, because we just happened to have received enviornmental factors that gave us an advantage. It's irrelavent when discussing the end product and it's quality.


From a biologic point of view, we are not really more "advanced" then apes.  We are just differently adapted.  Throughout history, there have been species that have arisen and gain control for a time...they all eventually passed on into the big darkness of extinction.  All of this depended on the environment.  All of it.  Ideas are an adaptation, nothing more.

Thus any real comparison of the case study outlined above is not really possible.  The Soviets started out with far less then we did and were destined to lose the competition because of it.



			
				sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> Further, the whole argument seems a veiled attempt to prove that "race" has nothing to do with the success of a civlization. I thought we pretty much already agreed on that. Culture is what is important, not race, and Western culture is superior in most respects to any other to have developed. HOW it developed that superior culture, most likely because of unique environmental factors COUPLED with unique ideas, has nothing to directly to do with the discussion of the quality of that culture.


How our dominance developed is relevant to the discussion.  Our "superiority" is measured by that dominance.  Look at small capitalistic countries that have no where near the environmental gifts that we have.  They are some of the poorest places on the planet.  So much for ideas...


----------



## Makalakumu (Jun 10, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> The problem is that many in the western world are trying to move AWAY from the very ideas that made them prosperous in the first place.


Actually, the problem is that our vast environmental wealth party is coming to an end.  Our consumer materialistic culture threw our wealth into garbage dumps across the country.  Now, we are forced to use our remaining wealth to steal the resources from others.  This won't go on forever because war is expensive...and then nothing will save us.  Not even capitalism.



			
				sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> It isn't just china's natural resources that are making them prosperous now, but the fact that they are embracing capitalism in a more fundamental way that many in the western world are doing themselves, much less increasingly socialized western europe.


Yes, it is the natural resources.  China has worked for decades to dominate the markets and get its hands in the bag first.  Thus, there wealth increases.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jun 12, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Actually, the problem is that our vast environmental wealth party is coming to an end. Our consumer materialistic culture threw our wealth into garbage dumps across the country. Now, we are forced to use our remaining wealth to steal the resources from others. This won't go on forever because war is expensive...and then nothing will save us. Not even capitalism. .


 It's funny that the rising stars of the modern economy are imitating our successful philosophies. Ironic, no?




			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Yes, it is the natural resources. China has worked for decades to dominate the markets and get its hands in the bag first. Thus, there wealth increases.


 China has only been successful since they ditched their Maoists hardline economic policies and embraced the most successful aspects of free market capitalism. Thank you for playing, though.



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> I don't see it that way. Here is why. The Earth is our egg. Our species hatched from it. No one laid that egg. Our environment shaped everything about us through evolution. Group selection and sexual selection added some trappings to the package that natural selection chipped out of the block.


Funny you should mention natural selection. You mean that process whereby superior systems of adaptation replace inferior systems? Oh yeah, you're making a compelling argument for your side of this alright. lol.




			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> No, it does not prove that one civilization is superior to another. It merely provides a more plausible explanation and I believe it puts a more logical limit on the powers of ideas. I think that Diamond's work cuts through decades of cold war propaganda and it points a finger at the real source of power in this world...resources, geography, and environment.


 You mean it merely supports a preconceived notion that you have? It might do you well to understand the difference between the two. Resource, geography and environment PRODUCED superior cultures. Diamond does nothing to prove this wrong, he merely plays a complex shell game. I am sorry to be the one to burst your bubble. 




			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Not necessarily. A civilization is unable to go to the moon if it does not have the environmental riches to do so. The US, for five decades starting in the 1920s, had a wealth of black gold that has never been seen in the world since. Our oil wealth far surpassed the wealth of the Saudis today. This source of cheap and abundant energy did far more to put men on the moon then any namby pamby ideas.


Nor is it able to evolve to a more advanced civilization. What we are talking about are stages of development. It's the same as saying that a Neuro-Surgeon isn't superior to a lab rat, because the Neuro-Surgeon had all kinds of advantages in evolution and environment over the lab rat. That doesn't change what the fact that what ultimately became the Neuro-Surgeon isn't superior to lab rat. One has nothing to do with the other. Of course with all their wealth, I don't see the Saudis going to moon, or even evolving out of a tribal society. Could it be that there is far more to it than simply resources...perhaps a good idea? lol. I'm sure you'll have some bizarre, obtuse explaination for THAT failure as well. 



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> The bottom line is that the Soviets never made it to the moon because they were too poor. Wealth is a proxy for energy. It is not created by an idea.


 They weren't too poor, they merely embraced a system that squandered their wealth. Ideas create wealth, not raw materials. The native americans had the raw materials of the US for thousands of years before we arrived, and they weren't able to turn it in to what we did in a mere few hundred years. Could it be that they didn't have the ideas and knowledge to utilize those raw materials? Africa has infinite raw materials, yet it was not harnessed until Europeans arrived and "exploited it". Don't deceive yourself, the very complaints you usually level in this forum REFUTES your hypothesis. 




			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> From a biologic point of view, we are not really more "advanced" then apes. We are just differently adapted. Throughout history, there have been species that have arisen and gain control for a time...they all eventually passed on into the big darkness of extinction. All of this depended on the environment. All of it. Ideas are an adaptation, nothing more.


 Yes, and the success of an idea to adapt is the measure of superior or inferior. Again, thank you for playing the semantics game, but it's clear by any measure that humans are superior to all other animals on the planet. The idea to the contrary is merely a maladaptive trait of it's own and serves not intrinsic purpose.



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Thus any real comparison of the case study outlined above is not really possible. The Soviets started out with far less then we did and were destined to lose the competition because of it.


 In truth they started out with far MORE and far EARLIER. Again, how do you explain native americans possessing the raw materials that you say made us prosperous, for thousands of years before we arrived? Superior ideas and concepts. We knew how to use them, they did not. The raw materials themselves are USELESS without the knowledge (ideas) to use them effectively. Thus proving the value of ideas over material. Again, this is nothing more than an extension of marxist ideology, the idea that material wealth is predominant over ideas, and you keep losing it.




			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> How our dominance developed is relevant to the discussion. Our "superiority" is measured by that dominance. Look at small capitalistic countries that have no where near the environmental gifts that we have. They are some of the poorest places on the planet. So much for ideas...


 Actually, compared to their socialist contemporaries, they are far wealthier. The poorest nations on the planet embrace communist ideas or, worse yet, tribalistic ideas. Tribalism is why many nations WITH useful raw materials are unable to exploit them and create wealth. Wealth is subjective and the ability to create it revolves around 1) Creativity itself and 2) The resources to exploit. Again, this is nothing but the same, old, marxist arguments remarketed as "Science". Of course, dialectical materialism has always claimed "Scientific" status, so this shouldn't be a shock. Again, it's merely a shell game. Your argument doesn't even come CLOSE to proving what you think it proves. In short, it merely says that advanced cultures, that developed advanced ideas, got a head start from advantages. No kidding.  I thought that much was already accepted.  Natural advantages create cultures that create advanced ideas, which contribute to even greater cultures.  It's like saying that the aforementioned Neuro-Surgeon isn't really intelligent at all, he just had natural advantages...one has nothing to do with another, it's a false argument.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jun 12, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> It's funny that the rising stars of the modern economy are imitating our successful philosophies. Ironic, no?


As far as just getting their hands in the bag and deciding to consume...



			
				sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> China has only been successful since they ditched their Maoists hardline economic policies and embraced the most successful aspects of free market capitalism. Thank you for playing, though.
> 
> Funny you should mention natural selection. You mean that process whereby superior systems of adaptation replace inferior systems? Oh yeah, you're making a compelling argument for your side of this alright. lol.


China is still quite socialist.  Perhaps there is something more to their success?



			
				sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> You mean it merely supports a preconceived notion that you have? It might do you well to understand the difference between the two. Resource, geography and environment PRODUCED superior cultures. Diamond does nothing to prove this wrong, he merely plays a complex shell game. I am sorry to be the one to burst your bubble.


You aren't bursting any bubbles.  You aren't even making argument against Diamond.  What you are doing is saying that since something cannot be proven, then its not true.  That isn't how science works.  



			
				sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> Nor is it able to evolve to a more advanced civilization. What we are talking about are stages of development. It's the same as saying that a Neuro-Surgeon isn't superior to a lab rat, because the Neuro-Surgeon had all kinds of advantages in evolution and environment over the lab rat. That doesn't change what the fact that what ultimately became the Neuro-Surgeon isn't superior to lab rat. One has nothing to do with the other.


As far as evolution goes, the lab rat evolved to fill a certain niche.  The neuro surgeon evolved to fill a certain niche.  They cannot interchange.  They cannot live each other's lives.  The environment shaped who they are.



			
				sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> Of course with all their wealth, I don't see the Saudis going to moon, or even evolving out of a tribal society. Could it be that there is far more to it than simply resources...perhaps a good idea? lol. I'm sure you'll have some bizarre, obtuse explaination for THAT failure as well.


No, it's actually quite simple.  For all of their _wealth_, the saudies really don't have that much else.  Now is there oil wealth so grand that it even comes close to matching the resource wealth of the United States.  They won't go to the moon because they are too poor.



			
				sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> They weren't too poor, they merely embraced a system that squandered their wealth. Ideas create wealth, not raw materials. The native americans had the raw materials of the US for thousands of years before we arrived, and they weren't able to turn it in to what we did in a mere few hundred years. Could it be that they didn't have the ideas and knowledge to utilize those raw materials? Africa has infinite raw materials, yet it was not harnessed until Europeans arrived and "exploited it". Don't deceive yourself, the very complaints you usually level in this forum REFUTES your hypothesis.


Well, now you have hit the crux of Diamonds arguments and you really have done nothing to show that geographic determinism isn't a primary causal factor.  The environment aided the spread of technology allowing some civilizations to develop faster.  Their cultures weren't superior.  They just got lucky.



			
				sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> Yes, and the success of an idea to adapt is the measure of superior or inferior. Again, thank you for playing the semantics game, but it's clear by any measure that humans are superior to all other animals on the planet. The idea to the contrary is merely a maladaptive trait of it's own and serves not intrinsic purpose.


Actually, its not at all clear.  We evolved to fill a niche.  Other animals evolved to fill a niche.  We cannot interchange an expect to be as successful as other evolved organisms.  BTW - by the criteria that you are using to measure success, _bacteria_ are far superior to humans.



			
				sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> In truth they started out with far MORE and far EARLIER. Again, how do you explain native americans possessing the raw materials that you say made us prosperous, for thousands of years before we arrived? Superior ideas and concepts. We knew how to use them, they did not. The raw materials themselves are USELESS without the knowledge (ideas) to use them effectively. Thus proving the value of ideas over material. Again, this is nothing more than an extension of marxist ideology, the idea that material wealth is predominant over ideas, and you keep losing it.


This is the crux of the argument for geographic determinism and Diamond provides a wealth of evidence to show that it occurs.  The environment aids the spread of ideas.  The environment allows a civilization to succeed or fail.  The environment determines far more then some flash in the pan, namby pamby idea.  Look, people believe in capitalism like a religion (odd isn't it that Marx predicted this).  You really want to think that it is superior, but the evidence doesn't support this.  In fact, when one points to these environmental factors, it becomes impossible to distinguish between the success of the idea and the advantages provided by the environment.  And when this stuff is controlled in the scientific sense, ideas lose.  This is something that Diamond and others show with evidence.



			
				sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> Actually, compared to their socialist contemporaries, they are far wealthier. The poorest nations on the planet embrace communist ideas or, worse yet, tribalistic ideas. Tribalism is why many nations WITH useful raw materials are unable to exploit them and create wealth.


Nope.  Tribal societies, once they obtain the technology to exploit resources, become quite wealthy.  Saudi Arabia, for instance, is still a tribal society.  But is there any question that they are not wealthy?  Maybe not wealthy enough to go the moon, but wealthy.  There wealth was determined by the environment. 



			
				sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> Wealth is subjective and the ability to create it revolves around 1) Creativity itself and 2) The resources to exploit.


I agree with you here, but I think that you fail to realize that this is hardwired into all humans regardless of culture.  This defines our niche.  No culture suddenly holds an advantage for these things.  We all have the same genes.



			
				sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> Again, this is nothing but the same, old, marxist arguments remarketed as "Science". Of course, dialectical materialism has always claimed "Scientific" status, so this shouldn't be a shock. Again, it's merely a shell game. Your argument doesn't even come CLOSE to proving what you think it proves. In short, *it merely says that advanced cultures, that developed advanced ideas, got a head start from advantages. No kidding. I thought that much was already accepted. Natural advantages create cultures that create advanced ideas, which contribute to even greater cultures.* It's like saying that the aforementioned Neuro-Surgeon isn't really intelligent at all, he just had natural advantages...one has nothing to do with another, it's a false argument.


How can you differentiate between the advantages of the environment and the success of the idea?  You can't.  And that is why geographic determinism wins out.  Of course, nothing is ever _proven_, but the wealth of evidence shows this to be true, in my opinion.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jun 12, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> As far as just getting their hands in the bag and deciding to consume...


 Or as far as their economic policies are patterned after other successful economies.




			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> China is still quite socialist. Perhaps there is something more to their success?


  You obviously haven't visited china lately.  Their economic policies have become more capitalisitic than many western nations.  China has embraced capitalism in a way that few would have believed possible.  On personal freedom China still retains the feel of a totalitarian state, but on economic issues, China is embracing free trade in a way never thought possible.  You might want to actually do a bit of research on the extent to which China has gone economically toward capitalism, it's definitely a refutement of communist economic policies.




			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> You aren't bursting any bubbles. You aren't even making argument against Diamond. What you are doing is saying that since something cannot be proven, then its not true. That isn't how science works.


 Science requires proof THAT a hypothesis IS true, not proof it ISN'T.  It is not my role to disprove your hypothesis, I think you may have a fundamental misunderstanding of science, as it is apparent that your only concern with the issue is to further a political mindset, disregarding as you do any evidence that doesn't fit your conclusions.




			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> As far as evolution goes, the lab rat evolved to fill a certain niche. The neuro surgeon evolved to fill a certain niche. They cannot interchange. They cannot live each other's lives. The environment shaped who they are.


 Yes, and who they are is a superior form of life (the Neuro-surgeon) and an inferior one (the lab rat).  The statement that evolution created them is of no consequence to the discussion of qualitative difference.  It's like discussing the works of a particular artist, one may be of far superior quality, the fact that they were both painted by the same artist does NOT make them equal.




			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> No, it's actually quite simple. For all of their _wealth_, the saudies really don't have that much else. Now is there oil wealth so grand that it even comes close to matching the resource wealth of the United States. They won't go to the moon because they are too poor.


 They are not poor at all, their wealth, per capita, is as great as any nation on the planet.  If domestic natural resources alone are the only reason nations rise to dominance, you might, then, explain how Great Britain (that land of LARGE AMOUNTS of natural resources, lol) or Japan rose to world power levels.  I doubt you'll succeed in making that argument based on pure, raw materials alone.




			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Well, now you have hit the crux of Diamonds arguments and you really have done nothing to show that geographic determinism isn't a primary causal factor. The environment aided the spread of technology allowing some civilizations to develop faster. Their cultures weren't superior. They just got lucky.


 You're making a ficitious argument.  You want to create a strawman where, at the beginning, some cultures were naturally superior.  The fact is that, irregardless of the cause, some cultures DID advance to superior levels.  Why they did so is irrelavent, as they did end up becoming superior and developing superior ideas.  As I said, your summation of Diamond's work and how it applies is merely a shell game.  Superior technology is superior technology, superior ideas are superior ideas.  The aforementioned scientist was aided by being born genetically better off than the lab rat, that doesn't prove that his ideas and innovations aren't of more quality than anything that lab rat will produce.  Your whole hypothesis is based on a false argument.




			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Actually, its not at all clear. We evolved to fill a niche. Other animals evolved to fill a niche. We cannot interchange an expect to be as successful as other evolved organisms. BTW - by the criteria that you are using to measure success, _bacteria_ are far superior to humans.


 Now that is funny, what criteria is that?  Your whole argument is predicated on a false idea, and that idea is that there is no objective measure of superior or inferior.  Further, I suspect that you even know this argument is false, that you are merely making it because you believe it will aid you in damaging a system you disagree with.  The ultimate goal seems to be to convince people that there is nothing superior about the current system, so there is no reason NOT to change it.  Of course the idea that no idea or system is superior doesn't apply to any system you believe should replace the current one, does it.  When science is guided by political ideology, I question it as pseudo-science.


This is the crux of the argument for geographic determinism and Diamond provides a wealth of evidence to show that it occurs. The environment aids the spread of ideas. The environment allows a civilization to succeed or fail. The environment determines far more then some flash in the pan, namby pamby idea. Look, people believe in capitalism like a religion (odd isn't it that Marx predicted this). You really want to think that it is superior, but the evidence doesn't support this. In fact, when one points to these environmental factors, it becomes impossible to distinguish between the success of the idea and the advantages provided by the environment. And when this stuff is controlled in the scientific sense, ideas lose. This is something that Diamond and others show with evidence. [/QUOTE] 

Nope. Tribal societies, once they obtain the technology to exploit resources, become quite wealthy. Saudi Arabia, for instance, is still a tribal society. But is there any question that they are not wealthy? Maybe not wealthy enough to go the moon, but wealthy. There wealth was determined by the environment.  [/QUOTE] 

I agree with you here, but I think that you fail to realize that this is hardwired into all humans regardless of culture. This defines our niche. No culture suddenly holds an advantage for these things. We all have the same genes. [/QUOTE] 

How can you differentiate between the advantages of the environment and the success of the idea? You can't. And that is why geographic determinism wins out. Of course, nothing is ever _proven_, but the wealth of evidence shows this to be true, in my opinion. [/QUOTE]


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jun 12, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> This is the crux of the argument for geographic determinism and Diamond provides a wealth of evidence to show that it occurs. The environment aids the spread of ideas. The environment allows a civilization to succeed or fail. The environment determines far more then some flash in the pan, namby pamby idea. Look, people believe in capitalism like a religion (odd isn't it that Marx predicted this). You really want to think that it is superior, but the evidence doesn't support this. In fact, when one points to these environmental factors, it becomes impossible to distinguish between the success of the idea and the advantages provided by the environment. And when this stuff is controlled in the scientific sense, ideas lose. This is something that Diamond and others show with evidence.


Now you're becoming more honest in your motives.  The discussion of Marx and capitalism shows the true motive for wanting to foster this idea....specifically, to try and prove that capitalism is in no way superior so that you can replace it with......another idea.   The very fact that you are trying to do this PROVES that you really don't believe this idea of geographic determinism.  If you DID believe it, you would believe that no idea YOU had would in any way make anything better, everything is just an accident.  You might want to keep in mind that it was western culture that created the very science that you are using to try and prove that western culture has no greater or lesser value than any other.  Further, Diamond might be forced to acknowledge that it is western scientific empirical thinking that he has made a corner stone of his life, thereby proving that he views it as of superior value than other ideals.  Science WAS created by western culture, and as it is used to manipulate our entire reality to our will, it PROVES the value of ideas over environment.  Checkmate.



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Nope. Tribal societies, once they obtain the technology to exploit resources, become quite wealthy. Saudi Arabia, for instance, is still a tribal society. But is there any question that they are not wealthy? Maybe not wealthy enough to go the moon, but wealthy. There wealth was determined by the environment.


 The rest of this discussion is merely footnotes to a lost game on your part, but i'll continue.  This part of your post amuses me the most, first you claim the Saudi's are poor, now you assert they are WEALTHY?  lol.  At least be consistent in the ame posts.



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> I agree with you here, but I think that you fail to realize that this is hardwired into all humans regardless of culture. This defines our niche. No culture suddenly holds an advantage for these things. We all have the same genes.


 We all have similar genes, funny how some are able to exploit their environment far better than others though, isn't it?



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> How can you differentiate between the advantages of the environment and the success of the idea? You can't. And that is why geographic determinism wins out. Of course, nothing is ever _proven_, but the wealth of evidence shows this to be true, in my opinion.


  Simple, we look at any place where a culture has a disadvantage in resources, but an advantageous idea.  Take Great Britain or Japan as examples of being short on resources.  Then you compare them with any culture that has an abundance of natural resourcs, say native american culture (who lived on the land you claim is solely responsible for the United States' dominance for thousands of years before Europeans arrived).  The Native Americans didn't have the ideas that were required to exploit their natural resources, despite having possession of them for THOUSANDS of years (remember all that oil).  If merely possessing natural resources was enough, Native American culture would be one of the most advanced on the planet.


----------



## elder999 (Jun 12, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> Then you compare them with any culture that has an abundance of natural resourcs, say native american culture (who lived on the land you claim is solely responsible for the United States' dominance for thousands of years before Europeans arrived). The Native Americans didn't have the ideas that were required to exploit their natural resources, despite having possession of them for THOUSANDS of years (remember all that oil). If merely possessing natural resources was enough, Native American culture would be one of the most advanced on the planet.


Kind of misses the point though: who's to say that their's *wasn't* one of the most advanced on the planet? Certainly not you-our current culture is doomed to failure because of our dependency on the very resource you bring up, as are the Saudis.

To many, the oil beneath the sands of the Middle East is a kind of godsend for them. My take on it is that its illusionary wealth in the same way that the mining of gold and silver in the New World by the Spanish ultimately proved to be more bane than boon for them, and the way stealing technology became economic suicide for the Soviets during the Cold War. 

What the Arabs have achieved is tantamount to what a student cheating in high school achieves. Both easy wealth and cheating provide an instant reward, but neither provide a foundation. And like cheating in high school, once you get locked into easy wealth, you discover you need more and more of it just to keep going. 

So, heres my thesis: the oil the Arabs are selling isnt a blessing at all; its a curse. 

From the 16th to the early 19th centuries, the Spanish sent shipload after shipload of mineral wealth back to their country from the New World. But instead of using it for capital investment, the gold, silver, and gems soon left Spain to be spent in other countries to buy the goods those countries produced. In the meantime, those resource-poor countries like England, France, and Germany, who hadnt found gold mines in their colonies or at home, had to depend on developing technology, building factories, and creating trade routes to build wealth. Gradually, Spain, while keeping the facade of being rich, became a country without an economic base, trying to keep up with its resource-poor neighbors who had built industrial bases that sustain them to this day. 

Something similar happened with the Soviet Union during the Cold War. They stole technology from the West, rather than develop their own, but in the long run their thievery benefited the West, not the Soviet Union. Like the cheating highschooler, the Soviets discovered that the more complicated technology became, the less capable they were of doing original work because they hadnt built a foundation. The result was that, although they did make huge strides in a few fields, such as metallurgy and mathematics, they fell way behind in numerous others. What comes to mind is computers. Rather than getting in a race with the United States, as the Japanese did, to develop the tools of the Information Age, the Soviets were content to sit back and just take what they could steal. 

The difference in the two economies, the Japanese and the present day Russians, is testament to the rewards of making sacrifices in costly R&D and hard work versus the fleeting rewards of theft. So, technologically and economically, the Soviets/Russians fell further and further behind. Today the Japanese are an economic world power while the Russians are an economic basket case. 


It should be noted that the Soviet refusal to understand what it takes to be a major economic power goes back years before the Cold War. As an example, when Henry Ford went to the Soviet Union as a guest of Stalin in the 1930s, Stalin reputedly asked him how the Soviets could build a trucking industry, something required for a modern industrial country. Ford said, Build cars. If you create a nation of drivers, trucks and a trucking industry would naturally follow. Ford didnt believe you could build a trucking industry in a country where the populace rode in mule carts. And he was right. The automobile would have created the foundation for what Stalin wanted. But he couldnt see it, so the cars werent built, trucks never became much of a factor, and the Soviet Union suffered. 


There are even earlier examples in prehistory of how easy wealth destroys. In prehistoric times, wealth did not go to those societies that hunted and gathered best, it went to those which domesticated cattle and planted gardens. 


Now its the Arabs who will never really get anywhere until they realize that wealth doesnt come easyor, in their casefrom a hole in the ground. It comes from hard work, working smart, and original research and development.


----------



## elder999 (Jun 12, 2005)

double post-sorry!


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jun 12, 2005)

elder999 said:
			
		

> Kind of misses the point though: who's to say that their's *wasn't* one of the most advanced on the planet? Certainly not you-our current culture is doomed to failure because of our dependency on the very resource you bring up, as are the Saudis.
> 
> To many, the oil beneath the sands of the Middle East is a kind of godsend for them. My take on it is that its illusionary wealth in the same way that the mining of gold and silver in the New World by the Spanish ultimately proved to be more bane than boon for them, and the way stealing technology became economic suicide for the Soviets during the Cold War.
> 
> ...


That's all very interesting, but is a completely different topic from the conclusion that northkyousa has been trying to come to.  In fact, what you just outlined tends to support what I have been saying...that resources alone aren't enough without a good cultural foundation that is able to appropriately utilize those resources.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jun 12, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> Science requires proof THAT a hypothesis IS true, not proof it ISN'T. It is not my role to disprove your hypothesis, I think you may have a fundamental misunderstanding of science, as it is apparent that your only concern with the issue is to further a political mindset, disregarding as you do any evidence that doesn't fit your conclusions.


You aren't presenting any plausible alternatives that explain the evidence as well as geographic determinism.  In fact, all you are saying is that I am biased, which _really is_ a non argument.




			
				sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> Yes, and who they are is a superior form of life (the Neuro-surgeon) and an inferior one (the lab rat). The statement that evolution created them is of no consequence to the discussion of qualitative difference. It's like discussing the works of a particular artist, one may be of far superior quality, the fact that they were both painted by the same artist does NOT make them equal.


Again, by your criteria, bacteria are far _superior_ to humans...hmmmm

The simple fact of the matter is that there are no superior life forms.  A lab rat is supremely evolved for that niche and humans cannot suddenly jump in and out compete the rat.  This misunderstanding of evolution is the reason why you fail to understand this argument.



			
				sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> They are not poor at all, their wealth, per capita, is as great as any nation on the planet. If domestic natural resources alone are the only reason nations rise to dominance, you might, then, explain how Great Britain (that land of LARGE AMOUNTS of natural resources, lol) or Japan rose to world power levels. I doubt you'll succeed in making that argument based on pure, raw materials alone.


They dominated with superior technology and exploited weaker neighbors and took their resources.  Its that simple.  It wasn't any ideology that made the differece.  

Technology is not ideology.  Nor is it the property of one culture.  All humans use it and devolop it...and innovation is also environment dependent.



			
				sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> Now that is funny, what criteria is that?


Your claim that one must obviously be superior if one is able to dominate large areas of land mass, resources, and other species.  Thus, bacteria are far superior to humans since they do all of this and more.  

Or they could just be differently adapted and shaped by their environments.  Just like everything else is.



			
				sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> Your whole argument is predicated on a false idea, and that idea is that there is no objective measure of superior or inferior. Further, I suspect that you even know this argument is false, that you are merely making it because you believe it will aid you in damaging a system you disagree with. The ultimate goal seems to be to convince people that there is nothing superior about the current system, so there is no reason NOT to change it. Of course the idea that no idea or system is superior doesn't apply to any system you believe should replace the current one, does it. When science is guided by political ideology, I question it as pseudo-science...


Making assumptions about my motives doesn't damage the argument.  It only shifts the focus.  The points are clear.  You don't understand the subtleties involved.  The argument is not _nothing_ is superior or inferior it is that the environment determines whether or not a culture dominates another culture.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jun 12, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> Now you're becoming more honest in your motives. The discussion of Marx and capitalism shows the true motive for wanting to foster this idea....specifically, to try and prove that capitalism is in no way superior so that you can replace it with......another idea. The very fact that you are trying to do this PROVES that you really don't believe this idea of geographic determinism. If you DID believe it, you would believe that no idea YOU had would in any way make anything better, everything is just an accident. You might want to keep in mind that it was western culture that created the very science that you are using to try and prove that western culture has no greater or lesser value than any other. Further, Diamond might be forced to acknowledge that it is western scientific empirical thinking that he has made a corner stone of his life, thereby proving that he views it as of superior value than other ideals. Science WAS created by western culture, and as it is used to manipulate our entire reality to our will, it PROVES the value of ideas over environment.


More assumptions and less argument.  Also, science as a way of knowing and technology are two different things.  One is a product of western culture and another is something that all humans do.



			
				sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> Checkmate.


Hardly.   



			
				sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> The rest of this discussion is merely footnotes to a lost game on your part, but i'll continue. This part of your post amuses me the most, first you claim the Saudi's are poor, now you assert they are WEALTHY? lol. At least be consistent in the ame posts.


So, we've resorted to intentionally misreading posts in order to discredit an idea and claiming some sort of _victory_?  I said that the Saudis are wealthy, but they are too poor to go the moon.  Is that so hard to understand or are you just getting desperate?

I imagine spelling and grammatical errors will be next.  I'll be very careful...



			
				sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> We all have similar genes, funny how some are able to exploit their environment far better than others though, isn't it?
> 
> Simple, we look at any place where a culture has a disadvantage in resources, but an advantageous idea. Take Great Britain or Japan as examples of being short on resources. Then you compare them with any culture that has an abundance of natural resourcs, say native american culture (who lived on the land you claim is solely responsible for the United States' dominance for thousands of years before Europeans arrived). The Native Americans didn't have the ideas that were required to exploit their natural resources, despite having possession of them for THOUSANDS of years (remember all that oil). If merely possessing natural resources was enough, Native American culture would be one of the most advanced on the planet.


The environment determines what ideas emerge.  The environment determines how powerful they become.  The environment determines how they spread.  You are giving humans too much credit.  

Great Britain and Japan benefited from other _environmental_ resources...they imported technology very quickly and they were able to use to take the resources they needed to form the empires they did.  The geography of their countries and the proximity of information made this impossible.  Not their ideas or culture.  They were in the right place at the right time.

As far as the native americans are concerned, again, look no further then the geography.  There were huge barriers that prevented the flow of ideas.  Diamond addresses these marvoulously.  Things like physical barriers, environmental choke points, and continent axis are well supported by evidence.  If you want to take this on, then you'll have to provide some counter evidence.


----------



## elder999 (Jun 13, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> That's all very interesting, but is a completely different topic from the conclusion that northkyousa has been trying to come to. In fact, what you just outlined tends to support what I have been saying...that resources alone aren't enough without a good cultural foundation that is able to appropriately utilize those resources.


errr....I'm fairly certain that's what I was trying to do.....just without the whole cultural bias as to what  constitutes  a "good cultural foundation".


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jun 14, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> You aren't presenting any plausible alternatives that explain the evidence as well as geographic determinism. In fact, all you are saying is that I am biased, which _really is_ a non argument.


I'm not even sure you know what you're trying to claim. The fact is, if all you are trying to prove that environments shape cultures, the rest of us accepted that fact a long time ago, nothing earth shattering there. Your evidence doesn't proven anything else.





			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Again, by your criteria, bacteria are far _superior_ to humans...hmmmm


 Depends on what criteria your are using. If the criteria is adapting technology to allow it travel vast distances and control it's environment i'm not sure you have a grasp on the situation.



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> The simple fact of the matter is that there are no superior life forms. A lab rat is supremely evolved for that niche and humans cannot suddenly jump in and out compete the rat. This misunderstanding of evolution is the reason why you fail to understand this argument.


It's not me that has a fundamental misunderstanding of evolution and evolutionary processes. I'm not even sure you have a firm grasp on what your own point is.




			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> They dominated with superior technology and exploited weaker neighbors and took their resources. Its that simple. It wasn't any ideology that made the differece.


Thank you for acknowledging "superior" technology. That's what life forms do. Those that are better adapted route the weak. Remember "evolution". This is why I wonder if you have even a miniscule grasp of the subject matter.



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Technology is not ideology. Nor is it the property of one culture. All humans use it and devolop it...and innovation is also environment dependent.


 Technology is based on ideas. Ideas create technology. Maybe the problem is a misunderstanding about the idea of cause and effect. A good idea results in technological advantage. All life is part of the environment, your statement that "innovation is environment dependent" is really non-sense. All life is environmentally dependent. It's like saying "survival is environmentally dependent". No kidding. 




			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Your claim that one must obviously be superior if one is able to dominate large areas of land mass, resources, and other species. Thus, bacteria are far superior to humans since they do all of this and more.


 Actually, that was also your claim. Remember "superior" technology. My claim was that one culture is superior to another culture because it beat it out and dominated large areas of land mass. Much as one bacteria may be evolutionarily superior by it's ability to be more competative over another bacteria. You see how the this works. It's really a comparison among competing entities. If two cultures compete and one wins and dominates the other, from an evolutionary stand point it is "superior". 



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Or they could just be differently adapted and shaped by their environments. Just like everything else is.


 However you wish to describe it. Words are just a way of describing phenomenon. 




			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Making assumptions about my motives doesn't damage the argument. It only shifts the focus. The points are clear. You don't understand the subtleties involved. The argument is not _nothing_ is superior or inferior it is that the environment determines whether or not a culture dominates another culture.


 It does if you don't truly believe your own argument. If that is the case you are merely engaging in sophistry. 


			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> More assumptions and less argument. Also, science as a way of knowing and technology are two different things. One is a product of western culture and another is something that all humans do.


lol. Nice spinning, are you getting dizzy yet? You've not added anything new to this conversation. You're stuck at a logical impasse. Your evidence does not support your hypothesis.




			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> So, we've resorted to intentionally misreading posts in order to discredit an idea and claiming some sort of _victory_? I said that the Saudis are wealthy, but they are too poor to go the moon. Is that so hard to understand or are you just getting desperate?


Nothing about your argument makes me desperate. First you claimed they are actually poor, then they are actually wealthy. You created a strawman by inserted the argument about going to the moon. It doesn't require being able to go to the moon to allegedly be wealthy enough to advance beyond a tribal society. The Saudis apparently either A) Don't possess even that much wealth or B) They are missing something other than resources that will allow them to advance. So which is it. The moon reference on your part is just a red herring.



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> I imagine spelling and grammatical errors will be next. I'll be very careful...


 It's not spelling errors that I find irritating, it's logical reasoning errors. I'm not a spell checker.




			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> The environment determines what ideas emerge. The environment determines how powerful they become. The environment determines how they spread. You are giving humans too much credit.


 Again, more logical reasoning errors. You keep confusing the source of a given phenomenon with it's quality. One culture can have greater value than another culture, it can have greater technology, greater ideas. Where that technology and ideas came from is irrelavent. You keep wanting to link one with the other to pursue a political agenda, and even Diamond was not successful in that. He and you are playing a shell game, thinking that if you spend quite a lot of time proving one, you don't have to discuss the other, you can just throw your hands up and say "See". You haven't proven your hypothesis, and that hypothesis is that all cultures are equal. All you've proven is "Well, the environment is responsible for molding cultures". I thought all of us already accepted this fact, and it has nothing to do with what you are alleging it proves.



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Great Britain and Japan benefited from other _environmental_ resources...they imported technology very quickly and they were able to use to take the resources they needed to form the empires they did. The geography of their countries and the proximity of information made this impossible. Not their ideas or culture. They were in the right place at the right time.


 All you've proven is that superior resources produce superior cultures with superior ideas. Let me see if I can spell it out for you. Modern western culture has been able, by virtue of resources, to produce a situation where we can set aside a group of people who don't have to physically labor. We call them 'academics'. They, in turn, expand our body of knowledge and technology. Therefore, resources has produced a superior civilization. Wow. That's far from "All civilizations are equal, some just had the advantage of resources". One has nothing to do with the other.



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> As far as the native americans are concerned, again, look no further then the geography. There were huge barriers that prevented the flow of ideas. Diamond addresses these marvoulously. Things like physical barriers, environmental choke points, and continent axis are well supported by evidence. If you want to take this on, then you'll have to provide some counter evidence.


 I'll say it again, why native american culture stayed a stone age culture has less bearing than THAT they stayed a stone aged culture. It proves nothing to claim that it was because of their environment. We can accept that and STILL refute that they were equal to our culture. That part of this equation is just wishful thinking on your part and has nothing to do with science, but is mere ideology pretending to be science.


----------



## Tgace (Jun 14, 2005)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guns,_Germs_and_Steel#Criticisms_of_methodology



> A more fundamental argument against Diamonds thesis is that he does not understand the true nature of history; if history is defined as a study of human actions then it must be a study of conscious action and the evolution of ideas, rather than environmental factors. The ability of man to shape his environment and create a positive environment for growth presents many counterexamples to Diamonds thesis, such as the numerous cases of rapid prosperity achieved by countries with few resources but *free markets* such as Japan, South Korea, or Taiwan. (Compared with nations blessed with natural resources that have stagnated under interventionist governments, examples: Brazil, Nigeria, and Russia.)


----------



## Makalakumu (Jun 14, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> I'm not even sure you know what you're trying to claim. The fact is, if all you are trying to prove that environments shape cultures, the rest of us accepted that fact a long time ago, nothing earth shattering there. Your evidence doesn't proven anything else.


The implications of this are such that you refuse to see them. If the environment shapes culture and determines success, then abstract ideas such as capitalism and socialism are _irrellevent_. This is the argument I've been trying to make from the start.

The only real mistake I've made is that I did not make the separation of concrete/material and abstract ideas more clear...as Hardheadjarhead pointed out. Technology is a concrete/material idea and can allow groups of our species to dominate another group...yet even this is environmentally dependent as we both seem to agree.



			
				sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> Thank you for acknowledging "superior" technology. That's what life forms do. Those that are better adapted route the weak. Remember "evolution". *This is why I wonder if you have even a miniscule grasp of the subject matter*.


I've acknowledged this point from the beginning of this thread. I even went back and reread the entire thing to be sure that I haven't said anything that could be interpretted as otherwise. As far as evolution goes, the better adapted win out against the _lesser adapted_...not the _weak_. The difference is subtle, but important to this argument. Weak is an unsupportable value judgement that _you_ are placing on the lesser adapted.

This fundamental misunderstanding of evolution that you have leads you into thinking that since one civilization dominated another, then one is _strong_ and the other is _weak_. This _preconceived_ _value judgement_ is causing you to miss all of the environmental factors that determined this contest. Strong or Weak are irrellevant. _Lesser adapted_ is determined environmentally. Your preconceived notions do not exist.

BTW - do you need to keep making inflamatory statments like the ones in bold? Think about how this invective reflects on your character...



			
				sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> Technology is based on ideas. Ideas create technology. Maybe the problem is a misunderstanding about the idea of cause and effect. A good idea results in technological advantage. All life is part of the environment, your statement that "innovation is environment dependent" is really non-sense. All life is environmentally dependent. It's like saying "survival is environmentally dependent". No kidding.


The funny part about this argument is that despite our differences, we are agreeing on the key points. 



			
				sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> Actually, that was also your claim. Remember "superior" technology. My claim was that one culture is superior to another culture because it beat it out and dominated large areas of land mass. Much as one bacteria may be evolutionarily superior by it's ability to be more competative over another bacteria. You see how the this works. It's really a comparison among competing entities. If two cultures compete and one wins and dominates the other, from an evolutionary stand point it is "superior".


I am beginning to see that long ago some biology teacher beat..."survival of the fittest" into your brain. That is fine, it is a way of understanding natural selection if you understand the caveat that Darwin himself pointed out. _Fittest_ is not a value judgement. Fittest means _better adapted. _And Darwin himself states that fittest does not mean strongest or even superior. Evolution happens because of the accidents of environment. Adaptation is driven by these accidents. All value judgements beyond this are completely unsupportable because...and please pay attention...because a species/population/culture/civilization/(and in many ways) an individuals success is an accident of environment.



			
				sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> Nothing about your argument makes me desperate. First you claimed they are actually poor, then they are actually wealthy. You created a strawman by inserted the argument about going to the moon. It doesn't require being able to go to the moon to allegedly be wealthy enough to advance beyond a tribal society. The Saudis apparently either A) Don't possess even that much wealth or B) They are missing something other than resources that will allow them to advance. So which is it. The moon reference on your part is just a red herring.


The point is easy to understand. You're injecting lots of ideas in here that are not mine. The point is simple. The Saudis are wealthy, but not wealthy enough to go to the moon. They are, in essence, to poor to accomplish that goal. Thus, they are too poor to really compete with the United States. There ideas are irrellevant. The environment determined the answer.



			
				sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> Again, more logical reasoning errors. You keep confusing the source of a given phenomenon with it's quality. One culture can have greater value than another culture, it can have greater technology, greater ideas. Where that technology and ideas came from is irrelavent.


What you are really talking about is success. I've dealt with value judgements like quality above. The origin of better adaption *is* the point. The environment determined this, not the ideology or another form of abstract ideals or religion. 



			
				sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> You keep wanting to link one with the other to pursue a political agenda, and even Diamond was not successful in that. He and you are playing a shell game, thinking that if you spend quite a lot of time proving one, you don't have to discuss the other, you can just throw your hands up and say "See". *You haven't proven your hypothesis, and that hypothesis is that all cultures are equal*.


The boldface statement above caused me to go back and carefully reread this thread. This is your invention. You injected this into the argument and I have never even implied it. This is, by definition, a strawman, because it is far easier to defeat this argument then the argument that I actually have been making. Groups of people have obviously shown that they are _better adapted_, but this apparent success was not due to anything abstract. It was an accident of environment.



			
				sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> All you've proven is that superior resources produce superior cultures with superior ideas. Let me see if I can spell it out for you. Modern western culture has been able, by virtue of resources, to produce a situation where we can set aside a group of people who don't have to physically labor. We call them 'academics'. They, in turn, expand our body of knowledge and technology. Therefore, resources has produced a superior civilization. Wow. *That's far from "All civilizations are equal, some just had the advantage of resources".* One has nothing to do with the other.


The interesting thing here is that your strawman pops up in the guise of my argument and then you try to fall back on my original point. You're missing the point, because you don't understand the implications...and I've pointed that out above.



			
				sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> I'll say it again, why native american culture stayed a stone age culture has less bearing than THAT they stayed a stone aged culture. It proves nothing to claim that it was because of their environment. We can accept that and STILL refute that they were equal to our culture. That part of this equation is just wishful thinking on your part and has nothing to do with science, but is mere ideology pretending to be science.


The native americans were less adapted because of the environment, not because of their abstract ideas. Their lot was determined by accident. That is what my point illustrates. Your ideology prevents you from accepting this argument because is devalues our culture and ideas. It threatens the basic tenents of individuality and places a very real limit on the power you think that you have. Your difficulty with this reductionism is the same recycled resistance that people had for heliocentrism. For centuries, science has been showing us that our place in the universe has been getting smaller and smaller and that our supposed power of the environment is getting less and less. 


upnorthkyosa


----------



## Tgace (Jun 14, 2005)

Mr. Diamond seems to have written this book as a means of refuting the old theories about non-Europeans being backward, and in a classic case of political correctness, he actually argues that the inhabitants of New Guinea are more intelligent than their European counterparts. New Guinea--the same country in which cannibalism is believed to still go on in some areas. Here's the gist of the author's argument: Europe's dominance of the world was almost solely an accident of geography; Europe had more natural resources (both plant and animal) than any other continent, and even people stupider than New Guineans couldn't have screwed it up. While there is no doubt that Europe has been blessed with a favorable climate, good soils and plentiful wildlife, the same can be said for many other regions (such as North America, Australia and even West Africa), and Diamond's attempt to explain the difference between them left me unconvinced. Diamond's theory also completely fails to explain the success of Japan--a country that possesses few natural resources. In short, this is a classic case of a guy using selective data to prove a questionable point.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jun 15, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> The implications of this are such that you refuse to see them. If the environment shapes culture and determines success, then abstract ideas such as capitalism and socialism are _irrellevent_. This is the argument I've been trying to make from the start.


Yet Diamond just came out with a followup book extolling certain societal virtues as contributing to their success or failure as a culture. Could it be that you simply don't understand Diamond's point all that well?



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> The only real mistake I've made is that I did not make the separation of concrete/material and abstract ideas more clear...as Hardheadjarhead pointed out. Technology is a concrete/material idea and can allow groups of our species to dominate another group...yet even this is environmentally dependent as we both seem to agree.


Again, the only real mistake you keep making is mixing ideas up. You keep assuming that the fact that environment impacts what ultimately becomes society is the same as saying that all societies are equal. Environment ultimately impacts what organisms are produced as well, and the organisms that end up surviving are those most able to adapt to new environments, while other organisms die out. You have not proven your hypothesis, which is NOT that environment impacts society. Your hypothesis is that this somehow proves that all societies are equal, which it doesn't even come close to proving. What you are experiencing is a categorical error, believing that one thing is the same as another.



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> I've acknowledged this point from the beginning of this thread. I even went back and reread the entire thing to be sure that I haven't said anything that could be interpretted as otherwise. As far as evolution goes, the better adapted win out against the _lesser adapted_...not the _weak_. The difference is subtle, but important to this argument. Weak is an unsupportable value judgement that _you_ are placing on the lesser adapted.


 The difference is semantic. Lesser is as much a value judgement. At some point semantical arguments become completely inane. We can argue all night long about whether "lesser" or "weaker" is a value judgement. We can actually define both in concrete terms, so again, semantical arguments go nowhere.



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> This fundamental misunderstanding of evolution that you have leads you into thinking that since one civilization dominated another, then one is _strong_ and the other is _weak_. This _preconceived_ _value judgement_ is causing you to miss all of the environmental factors that determined this contest. Strong or Weak are irrellevant. _Lesser adapted_ is determined environmentally. Your preconceived notions do not exist.


 Again, simply more semantical arguments that I believe you are resorting to because you have nothing left. 



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> BTW - do you need to keep making inflamatory statments like the ones in bold? Think about how this invective reflects on your character...


 Is this your idea of a preconceived value judgement? lol.



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> The funny part about this argument is that despite our differences, we are agreeing on the key points.


 The only key point we agree on is the fact that environment shapes biology and, by proxy, society. As this is nothing new or earth shattering, I don't see why you sought to create an entire thread on that point alone. It's much the same as creating a thread inquiring if the world is flat or not.



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> I am beginning to see that long ago some biology teacher beat..."survival of the fittest" into your brain. That is fine, it is a way of understanding natural selection if you understand the caveat that Darwin himself pointed out. _Fittest_ is not a value judgement. Fittest means _better adapted. _And Darwin himself states that fittest does not mean strongest or even superior. Evolution happens because of the accidents of environment. Adaptation is driven by these accidents. All value judgements beyond this are completely unsupportable because...and please pay attention...because a species/population/culture/civilization/(and in many ways) an individuals success is an accident of environment.


 lol "please pay attention", you actually think you are engaging in some sort of sophisticated lecture. That's amusing. An individuals success or failure is based on the adaptive nature of how his biology interacts with his environment, that's a very distinct difference from the conclusion that environment is the sole cause of success or failure. You seem to miss the fact that it's the organisms interaction with and adaption TO it's environment that decides whether it succeeds or fails. The environment is really a testing ground of adaptation. It seems you only have a grasp on part of the equation, either that or you are purposely attempting to leave out key aspects of reality in order to support your conclusions. One of those adaptive traits are ideas. If an idea allows an organism to adapt to it's environment well, then it will survive as an idea. Again, you might refer to Diamond's LATEST book wherein he discusses how cultural ideas can lead to their success or failure as a culture. His conclusion not mine. And since your entire thesis here is based on Diamond, it must be rather disconcerting for him to be veering away from what you believed his conclusions were. You might want to check out "*Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed" By Jared Diamond.*



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> The point is easy to understand. You're injecting lots of ideas in here that are not mine. The point is simple. The Saudis are wealthy, but not wealthy enough to go to the moon. They are, in essence, to poor to accomplish that goal. Thus, they are too poor to really compete with the United States. There ideas are irrellevant. The environment determined the answer.


 And you are attempting to make a strawman by setting the true measure of societal material wealth at traveling to the moon. Since only one culture has attained that level of success, despite numerous cultures attaining considerable wealth, it is not relavent in that context.



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> What you are really talking about is success. I've dealt with value judgements like quality above. The origin of better adaption *is* the point. The environment determined this, not the ideology or another form of abstract ideals or religion.


 lol. ideology is an adaptive trait. I already explained to you that the interaction and success or failure of adaptive traits interacting with the environment has a direct impact on success or failure of a culture. Further, I think Diamond agrees with that conclusion, otherwise he wouldn't have written a followup book outlining what he sees as successful adaptive ideologies gleaned from historical sources. lol. 



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> The boldface statement above caused me to go back and carefully reread this thread. This is your invention. You injected this into the argument and I have never even implied it. This is, by definition, a strawman, because it is far easier to defeat this argument then the argument that I actually have been making. Groups of people have obviously shown that they are _better adapted_, but this apparent success was not due to anything abstract. It was an accident of environment.


 All life should be considered an accident, however that does not alter that some life forms are better adapted than others. That is what we are really talking about, and some traits are more useful as adaptations than others. Ideologies are merely adaptive traits to be emulated, much like some animals emulate traits of other animals for protection or hunting. That is what an idea is, an adaptive trait. The fact that all life is an accident has no bearing on whether or not the bow and idea was a successful adaptation. Again, you are arguing yourself in to a corner. I think you've tried to take Diamond's work in a direction he never intended.



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> The interesting thing here is that your strawman pops up in the guise of my argument and then you try to fall back on my original point. You're missing the point, because you don't understand the implications...and I've pointed that out above.


 That's because your point is not supported by your evidence. 




			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> The native americans were less adapted because of the environment, not because of their abstract ideas. Their lot was determined by accident. That is what my point illustrates. Your ideology prevents you from accepting this argument because is devalues our culture and ideas. It threatens the basic tenents of individuality and places a very real limit on the power you think that you have. Your difficulty with this reductionism is the same recycled resistance that people had for heliocentrism. For centuries, science has been showing us that our place in the universe has been getting smaller and smaller and that our supposed power of the environment is getting less and less.


 Their environment did not allow them to develop the kind of abstract ideas and concepts that would allow them to be competative. I don't understand why this idea is so foreign to you, except that perhaps you have an ulterior motive that is threatened by this whole concept.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jun 15, 2005)

***Same recycled arguments that contain the same fundamental misunderstandings.  This isn't going anywhere...***

I'll attempt to keep this brief...

1.  A societies dominance is determined by the geography and resources in the environment.
2.  A societies ideals are also products of the environment, but they have a diminished role.
3.  Better and lesser adaptations are determined by the accident of environment.  

BTW - Darwin himself spend a lot of time making the distinction between _fittest_ and _lesser_ or _better_ adapted.  Why?  Because many times the "winners" is not the fittest.  They are the freaks, the malformed, the wasteful, bloated, myopic and addicted to oil.  

The bottom line is that a society does not rise to prominance because of its ideals, it rises because of pre-existing factors that had far more power then ideals.  Thus, the claim that a societies ideals is solely responsible for its success is fallacious.

The obvious question is this..."what real power do ideals exert on a society?"

This is the subject of the book Collapse: How societies choose the fail or succeed.  Its a good thing I'm reading this book right now, because the title would seem to contradict the points made above.  It does not.  It goes further into the topic of geographic determinism and it illustrates how it can determine a societies failure.  It also talks about the _real power_ of ideals in response to these environmental/geographic causes.  

This is taken from here
_



Collapse is divided into four parts. 


Part One describes the environment of the US state of Montana, focusing on the lives of several individuals in order to put a human face on the interplay between society and the environment
Part Two describes past societies that collapsed. Diamond uses a "framework" when considering the collapse of a society, consisting of five "sets of factors" that may affect what happens to a society: environmental damage, climatic change, hostile neighbors, friendly trade partners, and the society's own responses to its environmental problems. The societies Diamond describes are:
Easter Island (a society that collapsed entirely due to environmental damage)
The Polynesians of Pitcairn Island (environmental damage and loss of trading partners)
The Anasazi of the Southwestern USA (environmental damage and climate change)
The Maya of Central America (environmental damage, climate change, and hostile neighbours)
The Greenland Norse, whose society collapsed owing to all five factors, include the final one, an unwillingness to change in the face of social collapse.
Finally, Diamond discusses three past success stories:
The tiny Pacific island of Tikopia
The agricultural success of central New Guinea
The Tokugawa-era forest management in Japan.


Part Three examines modern societies, including:
The collapse into genocide of Rwanda, caused in part by overpopulation
The failure of Haiti compared with the relative success of its neighbour, the Dominican Republic
The problems facing a Third World nation, China
The problems facing a First World nation, Australia

Part Four concludes the study by considering such subjects as business and globalization, and "extracts practical lessons for us today" (p. 22  23).
In the prologue, Diamond previews Collapse in one paragraph, as follows.

This book employs the comparative method to understand societal collapses to which environmental problems contribute. My previous book (Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies), had applied the comparative method to the opposite problem: the differing rates of buildup of human societies on different continents over the last 13,000 years. In the present book focusing on instead of collapses rather than buildups, I compare many past and present societies that differed with respect to environmental fragility, relations with neighbors, political institutions, and other "input" variables postulated to influence a society's stability. The "output" variables that I examine are collapse or survival, and form of the collapse if collapse does occur. By relating output variables to input variables, I am to tease out the influence of possible input variables on collapses. (p. 18)
		
Click to expand...

One out of the five factors that cause a societies collapse is something our ideals can affect...and that is only if we are willing to change them in response to a changing environment.  In a few weeks, when I finish the book, I'll start a new thread on this book._


----------



## Tgace (Jun 15, 2005)

The Diamond Fallacy.



> Diamond Does Not Comprehend the True Character of History
> 
> I believe that Diamond's desire to transform the practice of history stems chiefly from the fact that he understands neither the nature of the material from which the historian launches his inquiries, nor what the historian's task is in relation to that material. Diamond has reverted to the view of history held by 19th-century positivists, who believed that the historian is presented with a collection of "historical facts," and that his job is to discover the "laws" or "historical forces" that explain those facts.
> 
> ...


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Jun 15, 2005)

_One of Diamond's chief motivations in writing the book under review seems to have been to discredit racial explanations of the course of history. However, if he had comprehended the true character of historical explanation, he would have seen that he was battling a chimera. Race can no more substitute for genuine historical understanding than can geography. How could it possibly explain the concrete particularities of history, when the past presents us with Germans as different as Johann Goethe and Adolf Hitler, Jews as dissimilar as Karl Marx and Ludwig von Mises, Irishmen as far apart as James Joyce and Gerry Adams, Chinese as divergent as Lao Tsu and Mao Tse Tung, blacks like George Washington Carver and Idi Amin, and so on._


The issue of race and the development of culture is hardly a chimera.  With the rise of Herbert Spencer's notions of social Darwinism, the spread of eugenics in the late nineteenth and early 20th century, and current arguments over the racial heritability of intelligence as given in "The Bell Curve," one has to stretch quite a bit to ignore what is a huge controversy.

This is an incredibly bad piece of writing, reflective of some of the worst Post-Modern prose I've ever seen.

His listing of Japan as a country that succeeds inspite of a lack of material goods is incorrect.  Japan's culture was always on the cutting edge until their three hundred year hermitage.  Once introduced to Western culture they readily assimilated it because of the infrastructure that was in place.  Japan was...and is...a part of that Europ-Asian grain belt that Diamond lists as being so critical to the rise of cultures in Euro-Asia.  This is hardly an anomaly.  

The author insists that highly interventionist governments such as those in Brazil and Nigeria are responsible for their languishing economies inspite of their natural resources.  Yet these natural resources do not and can not fit into Diamond's paradigm, nor should they.  It is hardly reasonable to expect the inhabitants of what is now Nigeria to have developed their natural gas and petroleum resources 30,000 years ago.  Contrasting current development in the last fifty years with Diamond's model is absolutely silly.

One must note that China is a highly interventionist government with far superior resources to either Brazil or Nigeria.  China's ascendancy as a power in the Pacific rim, then, is an anomaly?

Callahan also suggests that Diamond's model of an agrarian culture overcoming a hunter/gatherer culture is flawed.  He then points out the Mongol and Hittite conquests, among others.  He fails to note that neither the Mongols or the Hittite's were hunter/gatherer.  Their nomadic cultures were quite agrarian in that they were herdsmen.  They were a part of the very culture Diamond lists as having ascended over the hunter/gatherers. Diamond lists sheep and horses among those domesticated animals that led to the ascension of Euro-Asian cultures.  Moreover, in listing the Goths he lists a group that was comprised of farmers, as were the Turks and Hittites and Dorians.  Once their invasions were completed, the quickly settled down to lives on the farm.  The Goths themselves moved west with the incursion into their lands by eastern tribes such as the Huns.  Prior to that, they were happy farmers...well, as happy as one could be in an age where life was nasty, brutish, and short.

Additionally, the conquests Diamond correctly observes took place far before those Callahan cites, and in no way defuse Diamond's thesis. 

Callahan hides a number of flaws in his argument behind a wordy and opaque prose style.  He employs some of the worst jargon I've seen out of an academic.

The founders of this site, if you'll read a little further, promotes  "classical liberalism," a form of libertarianism that advocates individual action over democracy.  It advocates "natural elitism".

Let me suggest to TGace and others here that while such a philosophy might at first appeal to you, you'd best understand that it does not serve you.  Men such as Ludwig Mises could give a rat's *** about the likes of us.  They are far more than eurocentric.  They're aristocrats.  While their myth of self determination might sound great to the middle class here in America, and inspires notions of the "American Dream," I suspect you will quickly find your opportunities diminishing in a world of their vision.



Regards,


Steve


----------



## Tgace (Jun 15, 2005)

http://www.lrainc.com/swtaboo/stalkers/ml_ggs.html



> But the deepest changes in the human psyche induced by urbanization concern co-operation and intelligence. Everyone in a small band of hunter-gatherers is related, so general altruism enhances inclusive genetic fitness. By aiding any other band member, even at some cost to myself, I automatically aid a carrier of some of my own genes. Greater concern for closer relatives aside, no advantage accrues to discrimination about whom to help. But when (thanks to farming) hundreds of people live together, pure helpfulness may subordinate my own genetic interests to those of an unrelated stranger. Being able to tell relatives from non-relatives suddenly becomes adaptive, and the enhanced cognitive abilities needed to do so are likely to develop.
> 
> But it is also in my interest to help strangers willing to help me back. So there is also pressure to develop the yet more sophisticated ability to keep track of those I have helped, those in my debt, proven welshers (who wont get my help again), to calculate the odds that I can get away with accepting help today without having to reciprocate tomorrow, and so on. And the more adept urban dwellers became at these calculations, the subtler their interactions became, which selected for even better abilities to handle these interactions.
> 
> ...


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jun 15, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> ***Same recycled arguments that contain the same fundamental misunderstandings. This isn't going anywhere...***
> 
> I'll attempt to keep this brief...
> 
> ...


I can sum your basic misunderstanding up far more simply and with far less obfuscation than you are attempting. You (and apparently Diamond) are mixing up the concept of race (a mostly irrelavent concept) with culture. They are not one and the same, and it is this categorical error that accounts for much of the great flaw in your argument. You (through Diamond) attempt to make two simultaneous arguments. 

1) That race is irrelavent in determining whether a society succeeds. That environment plays a greater role than racial differences. That argument is not in any way earth shattering and is irrelavent in the way an argument that the world is round is irrelavent.  

2) That culture and cultural values, likewise, are irrelavent to whether societies succeed or fail. It is the first point that Diamond's book (and your argument) has been spending it's time trying to prove. You have not given one argument to prove the second point, nor are you capable of doing so as your whole argument is based on the hope that the reader will not notice the fact that the two, culture and race, are not the same thing.

What Diamond does is a clever trick (one you are trying to do). It makes two points, and spends a lot of time and energy proving only one, the easiest one. Then, at the end, he points to the bulk weight of his argument and declares both points proven, finally and conclusively. You can keep spewing that line all day, but it still doesn't prove the second point because culture and race are not the same thing. Your argument is based on the concept that both are indifferentiable, and that is a poor and obvious strawman. I have illustrated time and time again that cultural ideas are able to alter environmental factors. In fact, ideas, by their very nature, are judged as successful or not on their ability to adapt the environment to suit a given need.  Everything from the fire to crop rotation to neuro-surgery to nano-technology illustrate how the ingenuity of human beings is able to alter environmental restrictions. 

By your argument, your are suggesting that if you get an illness you will not see a doctor. The idea of medicine is a creation of human creative, not some random environmental phenomenon existing seperate from human ideas.  Medicine adapts the environment to serve human interests. If human ideas don't have any effect on the environment,and everything is just an accident, then a doctor won't do you any good, the environment will decide whether you live or do. So, do you visit doctors when you are ill?



			
				hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> _One of Diamond's chief motivations in writing the book under review seems to have been to discredit racial explanations of the course of history. However, if he had comprehended the true character of historical explanation, he would have seen that he was battling a chimera. Race can no more substitute for genuine historical understanding than can geography. How could it possibly explain the concrete particularities of history, when the past presents us with Germans as different as Johann Goethe and Adolf Hitler, Jews as dissimilar as Karl Marx and Ludwig von Mises, Irishmen as far apart as James Joyce and Gerry Adams, Chinese as divergent as Lao Tsu and Mao Tse Tung, blacks like George Washington Carver and Idi Amin, and so on._
> 
> 
> The issue of race and the development of culture is hardly a chimera. With the rise of Herbert Spencer's notions of social Darwinism, the spread of eugenics in the late nineteenth and early 20th century, and current arguments over the racial heritability of intelligence as given in "The Bell Curve," one has to stretch quite a bit to ignore what is a huge controversy.
> ...


You speak as if you actually believe in the power of ideology, good or bad. I thought the point was that ideology has no real impact. I guess that's not the REAL point is it? I think we are getting closer to the source of your REAL position on this topic. A little bit of manipulating "science" for a political agenda. It's really the sophistry of it all that offends me. As if we are idiotic enough to buy in to it hook, line and sinker the shell game that is being played here, and i'm the idiot for pointing out that the hypothesis doesn't add up to what you and northkyosa (and Diamond) claim. Here's a little hint: When you start out with your conclusions, and then only seek facts that support that conclusion, it IS NOT SCIENCE. As for the power of ideas to alter reality, if you didn't believe in the power of ideas, you wouldn't be giving your warning about the "American Dream", nor would North be spending so much time trying to preach this line. No objective truth but that which serves the cause? Pretty much what I thought.


----------



## Tgace (Jun 15, 2005)

http://www.foreignaffairs.org/19980...on-history-that-feels-good-usually-isn-t.html



> And yet, as fascinating as this book is, it is also in important ways destructive. It is untrue to claim, as Diamond does, that the traditional account of the rise of the West was an implicitly racist one. At least in this century, the traditional account of the rise of the West has given credit to its propitious political and social institutions. That is not true only of recent times, when the institutions in question are liberal ones, but of more ancient history as well, when the West benefited from the devolution of power implicit in feudalism and the scope for free thought created by the independence of the medieval Christian church from political control. And that traditional account agreed, with varying degrees of certainty, that those traditions were more or less available to anyone else and would have more or less similar results wherever they were tried. Today Latin American and Asian countries are rocketing toward prosperity (with a bump or two along the way) by mimicking the institutions painfully evolved in England and North America. Curiously, at the very moment when the evidence seems strongest for this institutional theory, we seem most eager to believe that backward countries are the helpless victims of their pasts.
> 
> This reproach is especially pertinent in Diamond's case because his own intentions are so stridently polemical. He wants to scold Westerners for ever having looked down on others and to lift up those others who feel demoralized by the West's superior success. "We keep seeing all those glaring, persistent differences in people's status," he writes. "We're assured that the seemingly transparent biological explanation of the world's inequalities as of AD 1500 is wrong, but we're not told what the correct explanation is. Until we have some convincing, detailed, agreed-upon explanation for the broad pattern of history, most people will continue to suspect that the racist biological explanation is correct after all."
> 
> We can all agree that racist arrogance is wrong, both in fact and on principle. But today, racist arrogance is both less prevalent and less dangerous than the opposite danger: a self-pitying refusal to learn from the success of others. History has its victims, of course, and Diamond's account of how those victims became victims is powerful and illuminating. But the best way to deal with one's victimhood is by putting it behind one, rather than lounging upon it and indulging it. History should not be written with the intent to help: it is scholarship, not social work, and its only criterion of success is truth. Still, if it seeks to help, it ought actually to be helpful. And despite its originality and erudition, the lesson that this book seeks to impart is anything but that.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jun 15, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> http://www.foreignaffairs.org/19980901fareviewessay1423/david-frum/how-the-west-won-history-that-feels-good-usually-isn-t.html


It is for these politically correct reasons alone, not for any real scientific validity, that Diamond is so often cited with such reverence by some. It isn't his science they support, it's his political conclusions. I often believe that some people will forgive any error in fact, so long as the politics are correct.  Further, for a group of people who claim that Diamond conclusively proves that cultural ideas and ideology have absolutely no impact on the success or failure of society, they certainly spend quite a lot of time prostylizating to others about it.  Could it be that they simply see Diamond's work (perhaps even Diamond himself see's his work) as a tool to damage whatever system they seek to replace.  All of this shows that obviously Diamond (and those who cite him) truly believe that ideas have power, otherwise they wouldn't be seeking to convince others of the rightness of theirs.


----------



## Tgace (Jun 15, 2005)

Exactly..on one hand we are "destroying" the world with our technology and "ideas" and on the other we are pawns of the environment where our ideas and hard work have no value. Which is it? Whichever supports the ideology de jour.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jun 15, 2005)

hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> _One of Diamond's chief motivations in writing the book under review seems to have been to discredit racial explanations of the course of history. However, if he had comprehended the true character of historical explanation, he would have seen that he was battling a chimera. Race can no more substitute for genuine historical understanding than can geography. How could it possibly explain the concrete particularities of history, when the past presents us with Germans as different as Johann Goethe and Adolf Hitler, Jews as dissimilar as Karl Marx and Ludwig von Mises, Irishmen as far apart as James Joyce and Gerry Adams, Chinese as divergent as Lao Tsu and Mao Tse Tung, blacks like George Washington Carver and Idi Amin, and so on._
> 
> 
> The issue of race and the development of culture is hardly a chimera. With the rise of Herbert Spencer's notions of social Darwinism, the spread of eugenics in the late nineteenth and early 20th century, and current arguments over the racial heritability of intelligence as given in "The Bell Curve," one has to stretch quite a bit to ignore what is a huge controversy.
> ...


Moreover, this argument reeks of the same arguments that creationists make against evolution...

Take this selection...



> Now, despite the recent emphasis in the philosophy of science on how all facts are "theory laden," there is a sense in which it is true that the natural scientist does have the facts to be explained presented to him as a given starting point for his investigations. A certain star just does produce a certain spectral pattern. There may be disagreement as to what the pattern means, or even as to whether it is significant, but there it is. If some astronomer doubts it is so, he can re-create the pattern for himself. Compound A and compound B just do produce a certain amount of heat when combined. The chemist skeptical of the fact as reported can combine them herself and make her own measurement.
> 
> But no similar facts are given to the historian. Instead, he is faced with certain artifacts that have survived into the present, and which he takes to be signs of past events that are not present before him, events that it will never be possible to re-create. Nor can the surviving pieces of evidence of past happenings be taken at face value. A text purporting to describe a battle may have been composed to glorify the victor or excuse the loser. A politician's memoirs may have been written with an eye to making him look good to future generations. The inscription on a statue may have been re-inscribed at the behest of a ruler jealous of his illustrious predecessor's accomplishments. The historian is always presented with a collection of initially ambiguous and often, on their face, mutually contradictory pieces of evidence, on the basis of which he attempts to determine what the facts really were. The "facts of history" are not the starting point of his inquiry, but are instead its end product. As Collingwood notes, "The fact that in the second century the legions began to be recruited wholly outside Italy is not immediately given. It is arrived at inferentially by a process of interpreting data according to a complicated system of rules and assumptions" (1946, pg. 133).
> 
> To denigrate historical inquiry because it does not mimic the natural sciences in attempting to discover universal laws is to declare that there is no value in simply determining what really happened in humanity's past. Setting aside, for the moment, the question of whether it is even feasible to formulate "laws of history," a question that we will address below, I contend that the effort to discover the historical past is worthwhile in its own right, even if there is another discipline that could discover historical laws. To learn what really occurred in the past is to understand how we came to be where we are today. The knowledge gained through historical inquiry enables us to see how the myriad decisions and actions of our predecessors, the ideas they held, the ideals to which they aspired, the gods they worshipped, and the demons they feared, all combined to create the world in which we find ourselves today.


In these three paragraphs, the writer contradicts himself by attempting to make a separation between historical inquiry and natural science and then he uses examples that use the very same techniques that natural scientists use to formulate theories.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jun 15, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> http://www.lrainc.com/swtaboo/stalkers/ml_ggs.html





> _Guns is easily the best environmentalist anthropology ever written. But Prof. Diamonds scientific edifice stands on the usual moralistic foundation. He makes very plain his opposition to "racism." Unlike Stephen Jay Gould, Prof. Diamond is too honest to cheat for ideological reasons, but he so dislikes "racists" that he cant separate his desire to refute them from the happy feeling of actually having done so. *I honestly wonder how Prof. Diamond would react if forced to deal with the detailed evidence of race differences that has been accumulating for the past half century*.
> _


_ 
I would be very interested in seeing this evidence. Is race more of a factor in the rise of societies then is conventionally thought? Is there really a superior race? The author implies these questions..._


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jun 15, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Moreover, this argument reeks of the same arguments that creationists make against evolution...


I guess at this point you are backing away from the defending your argument linking race and culture together, and are merely attempting to engage in an ad hominem attack where you simply try to link the argument of those who disagree with you with creationists arguing against evolution. By proxy, you are claiming that your unproven hypothesis is a supported theory. Nice try.



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> In these three paragraphs, the writer contradicts himself by attempting to make a separation between historical inquiry and natural science and then he uses examples that use the very same techniques that natural scientists use to formulate theories.


 The contradiction is only in your mind. Claiming that the two disciplines have two distinct methods of interpreting information is in no way contradictory. This is by no means the same as declaring that god created the world in 7 days and the argument on your part that it is, is simply more sophistry so as to not have to deal with the actual argument.  If anything, your dogmatic defense of your theory sounds more like that of religious fanaticism than anything you've cited above.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jun 15, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> _I would be very interested in seeing this evidence. Is race more of a factor in the rise of societies then is conventionally thought? Is there really a superior race? The author implies these questions..._


Again with this strawman. The point he was making was simply that Diamond's ulterior motive of attempting to prove his preconceived notion may be weighing heavily on his objectivity. You need to read what is actually written, not read in to it more than is there or create your opponents arguments for them.  The point he was making was simply this: if the data were to contradict Diamond's conclusions, would he be objective enough not to simply be so dogmatic as to ignore the data for the benefit of his preconceived notions.  Put simply, at what point does a political agenda equal bad science?


----------



## Makalakumu (Jun 15, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> I can sum your basic misunderstanding up far more simply and with far less obfuscation than you are attempting. You (and apparently Diamond) are mixing up the concept of race (a mostly irrelavent concept) with culture. They are not one and the same, and it is this categorical error that accounts for much of the great flaw in your argument. You (through Diamond) attempt to make two simultaneous arguments.


No, the argument has been the same from the beginning. Societies rise and fall not because of their ideology, but because of the environment.



			
				sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> 1) That race is irrelavent in determining whether a society succeeds. That environment plays a greater role than racial differences. That argument is not in any way earth shattering and is irrelavent in the way an argument that the world is round is irrelavent.


One would argue whether or not racial differences exist...



			
				sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> 2) That culture and cultural values, likewise, are irrelavent to whether societies succeed or fail. It is the first point that Diamond's book (and your argument) has been spending it's time trying to prove. You have not given one argument to prove the second point, nor are you capable of doing so as your whole argument is based on the hope that the reader will not notice the fact that the two, culture and race, are not the same thing.


Here you are attempting to shift the focus of the argument from the main focus. This argument isn't about race. It never was. It was about societies and about the reasons they rise and fall. So far, every point you've brought up regarding the real argument has been refuted...its no wonder you want to switch topics...



			
				sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> What Diamond does is a clever trick (one you are trying to do). It makes two points, and spends a lot of time and energy proving only one, the easiest one. Then, at the end, he points to the bulk weight of his argument and declares both points proven, finally and conclusively. You can keep spewing that line all day, but it still doesn't prove the second point because culture and race are not the same thing. Your argument is based on the concept that both are indifferentiable, and that is a poor and obvious strawman.


Of course it is a strawman, but it is of your creation. You created a strawman, called it a strawman, and then claimed that I made the strawman. Thank you, Hannity. Here is the truth of the argument and I have read this thread four times (and I'm about to read it a fifth), the argument has always been about the environmental factors that cause a society to rise to dominance. The argument has been about showing how these factors determined the outcomes we see today. The argument has always been that ideology has far less impact then traditionally thought. Every single point you've brought up regarding this argument has been refuted. Now you are forced to resort to cheap logical parlor tricks...



			
				sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> I have illustrated time and time again that cultural ideas are able to alter environmental factors. In fact, ideas, by their very nature, are judged as successful or not on their ability to adapt the environment to suit a given need. Everything from the fire to crop rotation to neuro-surgery to nano-technology illustrate how the ingenuity of human beings is able to alter environmental restrictions.


And I have illustrated time and time again that technology is _created_ by the environment and _limited_ by the environment, but you have chosen to ignore these points and their implications. Technology isn't the ultimate solution. Sometimes complexity is a hinderance. The bottom line is that ideology does not create technology and none of the miracles of technology are possible without a wealth in resources. This is geographically determined. Thus Diamond's points are supported again.



			
				sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> By your argument, your are suggesting that if you get an illness you will not see a doctor. The idea of medicine is a creation of human creative, not some random environmental phenomenon existing seperate from human ideas. Medicine adapts the environment to serve human interests. If human ideas don't have any effect on the environment,and everything is just an accident, then a doctor won't do you any good, the environment will decide whether you live or do. So, do you visit doctors when you are ill?.


When I say the power of ideology is limited and diminished, I am not saying that it is powerless. There is a very real sphere of influence that these things can influence. When it comes to large scale phenomenon like societies, though, the environmental factors win out, hands down. The environment dominates over the power of ideology.



			
				sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> 1. You speak as if you actually believe in the power of ideology, good or bad. I thought the point was that ideology has no real impact. I guess that's not the REAL point is it?
> 
> 2. I think we are getting closer to the source of your REAL position on this topic. A little bit of manipulating "science" for a political agenda. It's really the sophistry of it all that offends me. As if we are idiotic enough to buy in to it hook, line and sinker the shell game that is being played here, and i'm the idiot for pointing out that the hypothesis doesn't add up to what you and northkyosa (and Diamond) claim.
> 
> ...


1. You assume a lot because that is all you have left in this argument. YOU have been injecting political bias into this debate from the beginning. You have attempted to make this debate into something that it is not. YOU have tried really hard to protect your ideology from the implications of this argument. I could care less which ideology dominates as long as one realizes that it wasn't the ideology that made the difference, it was the environment. There isn't much else beyond that, that one can do.

2. Of course it doesn't add up to what you claim. You've claimed alot of things that are not even close to what is actually being claimed. THAT is a strawman. When it comes right down to it, all of the major points that I've made in this argument, you have AGREED with them in some way, shape, or form (usually by claiming that these things were pre-understood or some such adolescent logical game). The bottom line is that the original conclusion, the one I actually have been arguing, adds up. If you would bother to reread this thread, read the book, and have the guts to challenge your own beliefs, you might see this.

3. You are wrong. Science can be inductive and deductive. There are models that work both ways. If you had any training in this matter, then you'd realize that the ability to differentiate real knowledge exists both inductively and deductively. In fact, the shift in perspectives is often quite helpful in understanding nature.

4. The myths have been shattered. It will take some time for many to realize this. Our ideology did not determine our societies success. The environment did. This argument is all but settled. Who wants to ask what this means for our lives...


----------



## Makalakumu (Jun 15, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> I guess at this point you are backing away from the defending your argument linking race and culture together, and are merely attempting to engage in an ad hominem attack where you simply try to link the argument of those who disagree with you with creationists arguing against evolution. By proxy, you are claiming that your unproven hypothesis is a supported theory. Nice try.


If one would actually bother to read what was written and then study a few other sources, then one would find that my original point is true.  I see you are attempting to use the race and culture debate strawman again.  This is becoming a joke and you are only making yourself look foolish.  The debate is about societies and the reason they rise to dominance.  The issue of race is a sideline issue.  



			
				sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> The contradiction is only in your mind. Claiming that the two disciplines have two distinct methods of interpreting information is in no way contradictory. This is by no means the same as declaring that god created the world in 7 days and the argument on your part that it is, is simply more sophistry so as to not have to deal with the actual argument. If anything, your dogmatic defense of your theory sounds more like that of religious fanaticism than anything you've cited above.


Well, actually, claiming that our ideology is responsible for our societies success is very much like claming God created the Universe in seven days.  Both are equally unsupportable.  And both are aredently defended by those whose world views cannot stand in the face of such truths.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jun 15, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> Again with this strawman. The point he was making was simply that Diamond's ulterior motive of attempting to prove his preconceived notion may be weighing heavily on his objectivity. You need to read what is actually written, not read in to it more than is there or create your opponents arguments for them. The point he was making was simply this: if the data were to contradict Diamond's conclusions, would he be objective enough not to simply be so dogmatic as to ignore the data for the benefit of his preconceived notions. Put simply, at what point does a political agenda equal bad science?


I noticed that the writer of said article presented no data whatsoever concerning the insinuated claim that race might have mattered in the rise of certain societies.  I would like to see this data.  I suspect there is a reason as to why it wasn't cited...


----------



## FearlessFreep (Jun 15, 2005)

I said my piece and got out early because I knew the conversation would spiral in circles and go nowhere (which it has).

 Just a quick observation and then I'm out again.

 The implication to this is it doesn't really matter if your are liberal or conservative. In the end it won't matter anyway, and neither can claim to be 'right'. Republican, Democrat, Nazi, Fascist, Communist, Klan, Libertarian...doesn't really matter.  Be what you want to be and if anyone objects, just say 'ideas don't matter, just environment'


----------



## Makalakumu (Jun 15, 2005)

FearlessFreep said:
			
		

> I said my piece and got out early because I knew the conversation would spiral in circles and go nowhere (which it has).
> 
> Just a quick observation and then I'm out again.
> 
> The implication to this is it doesn't really matter if your are liberal or conservative. In the end it won't matter anyway, and neither can claim to be 'right'. Republican, Democrat, Nazi, Fascist, Communist, Klan, Libertarian...doesn't really matter. Be what you want to be and if anyone objects, just say 'ideas don't matter, just environment'


Ideology matters in how we decide to run our personal lives...how we decide to be happy.  It doesn't determine much about the success of our society though...


----------



## Makalakumu (Jun 16, 2005)

On Race and Culture

It was recently opined upthread that Mr. Diamond shows that the concept of a superior race is untrue by pointing out all of the environmental factors that contributed to a race's success.  It was further opined that Diamond did not show that these same factors applied to culture.  

I disagree.

Diamond opens his book with Yali's Question...which, in essence asks why did one group of people end up with so much "cargo" and another did not.  The question implies race, but that implication is shallow, as Diamond points out.  Thus, Diamond skips the issue of race and focuses on culture.

Here is why.  Look at the following series of arguments...

1.  The white race dominates the world not because of its inherit superiority, but because of environmental factors.

2.  The white culture dominates the world not because of its inherit superiority, but because of environmental factors.

3.  Western culture dominates the world not because of its inherit superiority, but because of environmental factors.
As one moves down the list, one finds that each subsequent argument explains more and more data.  For example, parts of the first argument are true, but it is too vague.  There are lots of instances that fall into the catagory but are not explained by the argument.  As soon as we add the cultural component though, one begins to explain more data...and when race is removed altogether, the largest pool of data is explained.  

Thus, race is really just a sideline issue.  It wasn't the point.  The point was culture and showing that the concept of a superior culture leading to superior societies was fallacious.  When the environment determines a societies success, then the particular culture of that society is relegated to a more natural humanistic position.  A position that is best fit by the available evidence.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jun 16, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> On Race and Culture
> 
> It was recently opined upthread that Mr. Diamond shows that the concept of a superior race is untrue by pointing out all of the environmental factors that contributed to a race's success. It was further opined that Diamond did not show that these same factors applied to culture.
> 
> ...


But since all the effort is used up toward proving the easier assertion (i.e. that race is irrelavent) i guess you and Diamond didn't have enough space yet to deal effectively with culture, so you just decided to erase "race" and replace it with the word "culture" and declare yourself victorious?  lol. All the evidence has proven is that western culture has been better adapted by the environment to compete, that's why it has been successful.  The issue of environmental causes is irrelavent, as it is already accepted that environment impacts the outcome of an organism.  It's really taking a commonly accepted theory and attempted to apply it where it does not apply.  One has nothing to do with the other, and your attempt to regurgitate, over and over again, that environmental conditions are the source, therefore all cultures are equal, is asinine.  But if first you don't succeed, keep repeating yourself I guess.


----------



## Tgace (Jun 16, 2005)

I always love it when one side claims victory for themselves. And how they are right on everything. I always note which side claims it first....seems to be a pattern.


----------



## Tgace (Jun 16, 2005)

So environment is all powerful, however humans living in that environment for eons remain biologically unchanged?


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jun 16, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> No, the argument has been the same from the beginning. Societies rise and fall not because of their ideology, but because of the environment.


 No, the argument has been that societies rise and fall by the ability of their ideology to adapt the society to it's environment. As socieities have ZERO physical characteristiscs, they are SOLELY ideology. So your claim is that the success of a phenomenon that is solely ideology, has nothing to do with ideology, is asinine. That is why cultures succeed or fail, based on their success or failure to adapt the people to the environment or the environment to the people. 



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> One would argue whether or not racial differences exist...


 One would be engaging in a red herring discussion.



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Here you are attempting to shift the focus of the argument from the main focus. This argument isn't about race. It never was. It was about societies and about the reasons they rise and fall. So far, every point you've brought up regarding the real argument has been refuted...its no wonder you want to switch topics...


 Your argument (because of Diamonds) has always been about taking an argument about racial differences, and cut and pasting it to deal with culture. You have not refuted ANY argument, merely regurgitated the same old tired points, which were wrong from the beginning. You declarations to the contrary do not an argument make. 



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Of course it is a strawman, but it is of your creation. You created a strawman, called it a strawman, and then claimed that I made the strawman. Thank you, Hannity. Here is the truth of the argument and I have read this thread four times (and I'm about to read it a fifth), the argument has always been about the environmental factors that cause a society to rise to dominance. The argument has been about showing how these factors determined the outcomes we see today. The argument has always been that ideology has far less impact then traditionally thought. Every single point you've brought up regarding this argument has been refuted. Now you are forced to resort to cheap logical parlor tricks...


 The argument has been that culture and the characteristics therein have absolutely nothing to do with the success or failure of a culture. It's asinine and has no basis in reality. All culture is, is adaptive characteristics of a group of people. It's much like saying the adaptive traits of a particular animal have no bearing on it's success or failure. It's much like saying the adaptive quality of a polar bear has nothing to do with it's success in dealing with cold climates. It's an argument based on a categorical error.



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> And I have illustrated time and time again that technology is _created_ by the environment and _limited_ by the environment, but you have chosen to ignore these points and their implications. Technology isn't the ultimate solution. Sometimes complexity is a hinderance. The bottom line is that ideology does not create technology and none of the miracles of technology are possible without a wealth in resources. This is geographically determined. Thus Diamond's points are supported again.


 Technology is created by societies in an attempt to adapt to their environment. You have chosen to ignore this very important distinction in your humanistic attempt to alter reality. Your argument that technology is geographically determined has nothing to do with how well adapted a culture has become. It does not make all cultures equal, as some have better adapted themselves to their environment than others, and that is what determines success. It is also why your argument does not attack cultural differences as successfully as racial ones. Again, a categorical error of an argument. 



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> When I say the power of ideology is limited and diminished, I am not saying that it is powerless. There is a very real sphere of influence that these things can influence. When it comes to large scale phenomenon like societies, though, the environmental factors win out, hands down. The environment dominates over the power of ideology.


 Wow, your original assertion was that ideology has ZERO effect, now you seem to be backpedalling and attempting to qualify yourself. I guess no one is hopeless. You still are clinging to the basic misunderstanding. The reality is that the adaptive traits of culture and their interaction with the environment determine success or failure. They are not the same thing, but interacting phenomenon. That must be the core of your failure, but you believe that culture and environment are the same thing. They are interacting phenomenon. Discussing which is more important, or claiming one is unimportant, is about the same as claiming that environment is far more important than genes in determing biological success, it's built on a basic misunderstanding of the interactive process...there can be no interaction with one missing.



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> 1. You assume a lot because that is all you have left in this argument. YOU have been injecting political bias into this debate from the beginning. You have attempted to make this debate into something that it is not. YOU have tried really hard to protect your ideology from the implications of this argument. I could care less which ideology dominates as long as one realizes that it wasn't the ideology that made the difference, it was the environment. There isn't much else beyond that, that one can do.


 It is not me that is injecting political bias, it is your humanistic philosophies that is directing your "scientific" research. Again, agenda based science is bad science. The only ideology I have is that all life is competition between competing phenomenon. I didn't base my world view on a preconceived notion, I base my world view on my observations of how phenomenon appears to operate. Again, it is the interaction of culture and it's ability to adapt that decides it's success or failure in the environment. The environment is a playing field, it's limits and opportunites are the variables, the culture plays within that field and it's adaptive nature decides it's success or failure.



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> 2. Of course it doesn't add up to what you claim. You've claimed alot of things that are not even close to what is actually being claimed. THAT is a strawman. When it comes right down to it, all of the major points that I've made in this argument, you have AGREED with them in some way, shape, or form (usually by claiming that these things were pre-understood or some such adolescent logical game). The bottom line is that the original conclusion, the one I actually have been arguing, adds up. If you would bother to reread this thread, read the book, and have the guts to challenge your own beliefs, you might see this.


 I'm not even sure you understand what my argument is. I certainly am sure you can't summarize my argument, so you refer to it in vague terms. The idea that the environment impacts the outcome of the interaction is, again, nothing of any great and earth shattering nature. What you have a difficulty understanding is the role the environment plays. You believe that the environment IS the entire phenomenon. Environment is merely a word describing the playing field. It is the interaction of adaptive traits WITH the environment that determines success or failure. You seem to be entirely blind, either deliberately or inadvertantly, to this aspect of reality. Also, i've already read Diamond's book, two years ago, and it's in my personal library. Again, his argument is not as earth shattering as he and you assume it is, and his arguments that race is not a deciding factor, DO NOT directly apply to culture.



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> 3. You are wrong. Science can be inductive and deductive. There are models that work both ways. If you had any training in this matter, then you'd realize that the ability to differentiate real knowledge exists both inductively and deductively. In fact, the shift in perspectives is often quite helpful in understanding nature.


 The scientific method creates the foundation of science. In addition, science is a cultural adaptive phenonmenon (one of those things you claim are irrelavent), it's an ideology developed whereby objective reality is attempted to be deciphered through logical enquiry.



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> 4. The myths have been shattered. It will take some time for many to realize this. Our ideology did not determine our societies success. The environment did. This argument is all but settled. Who wants to ask what this means for our lives...


 It means you have merely imposed your humanistic philosophy as science, that is what it means. Again, nothing as earth shattering as your claim. It does show, however, how easy it is to allow personal beliefs to become dogma and allow it's carrier to ignore and invent evidence to support that ideology. Take the idea that environment and culture are the same thing. It basic misunderstanding ignores the reality that success or failure is determined by the adaptive ability of culture's interaction with the environment. It's much like saying that a polar bears hollow hairs and black skin have nothing to do with whether a polar bear freezes to death, it's all environment. Again, a categorical error, and simply arguing that the polar adapted to it's environment by adapting those physical characteristics does not make your argument. That is nowhere NEAR the same thing as saying it's all environment. It's actually the interaction of the biological entity with environment, and it's ability to adapt TO environment, that determines it's success. Any other interpretation is apparently built on bizarre philosophical wishful thinking.


----------



## Flatlander (Jun 16, 2005)

I'll preface this by stating that I haven't read the book; I have, however, followed the thread quite closely.

Here's how I'm reading this:

1. Societies are necessarily limited by the environment in which they exist.
2. Ideology is the vehicle through which societies relate and adapt to their environment.
3. Ideology is able to give societies some measure* of control over their environment.

For me, a few questions are raised at this point:

a) If ideology does not afford a society absolute and complete control over the environment, does this grant environment primacy with respect to limiting growth, dominance, success, or what have you?

b) What, then, causes a society's fall - ideology or environment?

c) How are we defining society for this discussion - tribe, nation, humankind in general?  I believe this to be an important distinction for the purpose of this discussion.

Thoughts?

*What measure of control is reasonable to assume here?  It seems to me that it would be unreasonable to assert that we, or any other society, has established _complete and absolute_ control over the environment.  Were we able to do so, then I would have to agree on the _potential_ primacy of ideology.  However, it seems that until we are able to assert complete control, the environment remains the limiting factor, thus affording it primacy in determining the ongoing success or failure of a society.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jun 16, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> But since all the effort is used up toward proving the easier assertion...


You missed the point.  The race assertion is not the best assertion.  The race argument does not explain all of the evidence.  However, culture, does.  You've presented nothing in this post that counters the argument I made above.  In fact, you simply declared it wasn't true and then expected someone to believe it.  



			
				sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> All the evidence has proven is that western culture has been better adapted by the environment to compete, that's why it has been successful.


What evidence have you presented to back up this claim?  Zero.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jun 16, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> I always love it when one side claims victory for themselves. And how they are right on everything. I always note which side claims it first....seems to be a pattern.


I'd like to see some data on that...


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jun 16, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> You missed the point. The race assertion is not the best assertion. The race argument does not explain all of the evidence. However, culture, does. You've presented nothing in this post that counters the argument I made above. In fact, you simply declared it wasn't true and then expected someone to believe it.
> 
> 
> What evidence have you presented to back up this claim? Zero.


Here's the evidence I have. You've asserted that mere environment accounts for the success or failure of society. I propose that this idea is based on the most absurd rationalization i've seen in a while. How do you explain, if environment is the sole decisive agent, how, when western culture began entering America, they were able to do, in a few generations, what the native culture could not in thousands of years. The idea that it is "environment" is absurd at that point, as they were, in reality, living in the same environment as the native americans, so the argument that the resources were different is absurd. They used the same material resources the native culture had access to. The only difference, period, is that they brought a different culture, which brought their collective knowledge, learning, and other adaptive traits that allowed them to exploit and adapt themselves and their environment to the same environment the natives were unable to adapt to.  They changed environments but maintained the same successful cultural characteristics that allowed them to adapt and adapt to the new environment. 

If you wish to dispute this, then tell me what physical environmental material that those Europeans living in America had access to that the natives did not have access to.  Guns?  Can be made using entirely American materials, likewise swords, and any other creation we wish to make.  The physical environmental materials is exactly the same.  The only difference is (even using Diamonds argument) that Europe had access to cultural influences beyond the native cultures stagnant stone age society.

Where your argument fails (and, by proxy, Diamond's) is this very concept. Even in Diamond's own words, western culture's success was as a resulted of the flowering of influences from a multitude of cultures. Western culture sat at a crossroads where it was able to adapt the ideas that worked from other cultures, everything from mathmatics to gun powder. This, however, far from being an argument against the power of culture, is a powerful argument FOR culture, because, far from having access to physical resources that gave them an advantage, western culture had access to cultural resources. In fact, I inadvertantly made reference to this aspect of Diamond's arguments. You might want to try and refute this before continuing your assertion that culture is irrelavent.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jun 16, 2005)

Flatlander said:
			
		

> I'll preface this by stating that I haven't read the book; I have, however, followed the thread quite closely.
> 
> Here's how I'm reading this:
> 
> ...


All very good questions. I'll give you my take. 

"a) If ideology does not afford a society absolute and complete control over the environment, does this grant environment primacy with respect to limiting growth, dominance, success, or what have you?"

No, what occurs is that ideology is merely an adaptive trait, or in societies case, large collection of traits. What determines socieities success or failure is these adaptive traits ability to allow society to gain an advantage in the environment, either A) by adapting the environment to fit society or B) by adapting society to fit the environment. Again, the problem is that the other side in this argument is apparently blind to this fact.

"b) What, then, causes a society's fall - ideology or environment?" As we've already discussed, ideology is adaptation, much as claws, fur, ears, etc, are physical adaptations of animals trying to adapt to environment conditions. To say that ideology or environment cause a societies success or failure is to misunderstand the discussion. It is the interaction of adaptation with the environment that results in success or failure. If the adaptation is able to give the organism or the society an advantage, it will likely succeed, if not, it will likely be a maladaptive trait.  That is why it is absurd to claim that society, and by proxy, adaption is irrelavent, only environment is important.

"c) How are we defining society for this discussion - tribe, nation, humankind in general? I believe this to be an important distinction for the purpose of this discussion." It is defined as any group that acts as a carrier for ideas and ideology. In order for ideology to be a social phenomenon it must be shared by a group of people. As such, since people are constantly changing and evolving, so, too, is society and societal institutions and ideas.  If these shared ideas give the group an advantage, it will probably be adopted and imitated by others, if not, it will likely have the result that other adaptive traits have...extinction for the carrier.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jun 16, 2005)

I'm going to edit out the invective in this post. Watch what happens to the amount of verbage...



			
				sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> That is why cultures succeed or fail, based on their success or failure to adapt the people to the environment or the environment to the people.


When one "culture" starts with geographic and environmental factors lined up in its favor, it is impossible to determine how much of an effect the ideology had in that culture's success. It's like running a race with two vehicles and one of the vehicles only has a quater tank of gas. When the disadvantaged vehicle loses, does the other claim it was because of the superior engineering of the car?



			
				sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> One would be engaging in a red herring discussion.


You missed the point.



			
				sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> Your argument (because of Diamonds) has always been about taking an argument about racial differences, and cut and pasting it to deal with culture.


Lets reexamine the two arguments in question...

1. Societies rise and fall not because they are comprised of a superior race, but because of environmental factors.
2. Societies rise or fall not because they are beholden of a superior culture, but because of environmental factors. 

If one uses the first argument as a thesis, one is left with innumerable examples where culture jumped racial lines. Thus one is left to believe that the best argument to make if one is talking about societies, is not one about race. It is one about culture. No race ever rose or fell, it was always the culture. The fact that Diamond refutes the old race issues is a sideline issue. In fact, if race were the central focus of this book, the overall argument would be _weaker_ not stronger.

That argument would gloss over cultural differences between races and it would run into large problems where cultures and races intermix. Thus, your protrayal of Diamonds argument as an argument about race extrapolated over culture is a misunderstanding of the thesis. 



			
				sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> 1. The argument has been that culture and the characteristics therein have absolutely nothing to do with the success or failure of a culture.
> 
> 2. All culture is, is adaptive characteristics of a group of people. It's much like saying the adaptive traits of a particular animal have no bearing on it's success or failure.


1. The influence of culture on a societies success or failure. Geography and resources present hurdles that culture cannot overcome. Geography and resources also present opportunities that culture cannot create. Thus, there is absolutely no way that one can make the distinction as to whether or not Western Culture is superior. Our culture started with so many advantages that, as Tgace said above, even Europeans couldn't mess it up.

2. You are talking about _group selection_...which is different then _natural selection_. Group selection posits a mechanism for evolutionary change among groups of organisms. Group selection is heavily dependent on geography and resources. Many times, maladaptive ideas pass on into populations simply because the "winners" had more energy...



			
				sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> 1. Technology is created by societies in an attempt to adapt to their environment. Your argument that technology is geographically determined has nothing to do with how well adapted a culture has become.
> 
> 2. It does not make all cultures equal, as some have better adapted themselves to their environment than others, and that is what determines success.


1. Technology requires energy to implement. If a culture lacks energy in the form of resources, then it would be unable to implement that technology. That is one way technology is geographically determined and it has everything to do with how well adapted a culture has become. 

2. The adaptation of a culture is heavily dependent upon the environment that the culture in which the culture is located. Culture develops anywhere humans are present and not all places on this planet were created equal. Thus, all cultures _cannot_ *be* equal. This determination was not due to some inherit failing of the culture, it was action of _group selection_ in a superior environment.



			
				sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> The reality is that the adaptive traits of culture and their interaction with the environment determine success or failure. They are not the same thing, but interacting phenomenon. That must be the core of your failure, but you believe that culture and environment are the same thing. They are interacting phenomenon. Discussing which is more important, or claiming one is unimportant, is about the same as claiming that environment is far more important than genes in determing biological success, it's built on a basic misunderstanding of the interactive process...there can be no interaction with one missing.


Whenever groups compete, the way they order themselves socially has proven to have very little effect on the outcome of the competition. Therefore, what determined the winner? Most often, it was who had more resources to start with. Cultures do not evolve via natural selection. That mechanism deals with individuals. Group selection is the mechanism in question, and it is far more complicated and heavily environmentally dependent. Innovation happens in all groups, yet some groups have been gifted with more resources to implement these innovations. 



			
				sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> The environment is a playing field, it's limits and opportunites are the variables, the culture plays within that field and it's adaptive nature decides it's success or failure.


You are assuming that the "playing field" is equal. It is not. Thus, not all cultures will be equal. A culture that plays in a field that is rich in environmental and geographic resources will win in a competition with a culture that has not been gifted. The ideology of the culture has very little determinable impact when these factors are taken into account.



			
				sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> The idea that the environment impacts the outcome of the interaction is, again, nothing of any great and earth shattering nature. What you have a difficulty understanding is the role the environment plays. You believe that the environment IS the entire phenomenon. Environment is merely a word describing the playing field. It is the interaction of adaptive traits WITH the environment that determines success or failure.


When groups are involved, the environment is a primary factor in the determination of its success or failure. Adaptations in groups are not governed natural selection and are not soley determined by the actions of genes. An individual interacting in the environment evolves under different rules then a group. Selection pressure on the individual level is _negative_. A girrafes neck got longer because those who did not possess that trait died. In groups, selection pressure is _positive_. Groups that possess more energy are able to pass on their traits more readily. This pressure is independent of the actual substance of the trait in question.



			
				sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> Any other interpretation is apparently built on bizarre philosophical wishful thinking.


I'm afraid not.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jun 16, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> Here's the evidence I have. You've asserted that mere environment accounts for the success or failure of society. I propose that this idea is based on the most absurd rationalization i've seen in a while. How do you explain, if environment is the sole decisive agent, how, when western culture began entering America, they were able to do, in a few generations, what the native culture could not in thousands of years.


1.  The Europeans brought with them germs that killed over 90% of the people of the Americas.  These germs developed because of the domestication of animals and the European dominance of the Americas would most assuredly have been more difficult with these germs.  This was, by far, the largest factor.

2.  The East/West axis made it easier to transport ideas and goods because environmental differences were more similar.  The Europeans benifitted from a trade in technology that was not available in the Americas.  The sheer number of cultures that lay along the east/west axis of Eurasia was staggering and all of these cultures innovated.

Western culture was privy to both physical and geographic resources and it was these resources that allowed it to succeed.  If one looks at the actual ideologies that the cultures possessed, one will see that they had very little bearing on the outcome.



			
				sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> The idea that it is "environment" is absurd at that point, as they were, in reality, living in the same environment as the native americans, so the argument that the resources were different is absurd. They used the same material resources the native culture had access to. The only difference, period, is that they brought a different culture, which brought their collective knowledge, learning, and other adaptive traits that allowed them to exploit and adapt themselves and their environment to the same environment the natives were unable to adapt to. They changed environments but maintained the same successful cultural characteristics that allowed them to adapt and adapt to the new environment.


The physical resources are only one peice.  The other peice is the geographic resources.  If one group of people lives within easy access of another group, then exchanges of ideas happen more readily.  Any culture would benefit from this exchange.  Europeans lived in close proximity to other cultures along an East/West continental axis this gave them the advantage of being able to accumulate technologic resources as a rate faster then native americans.  Thus, the environment was a greater determinate of the Europeans success.



			
				sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> If you wish to dispute this, then tell me what physical environmental material that those Europeans living in America had access to that the natives did not have access to. Guns? Can be made using entirely American materials, likewise swords, and any other creation we wish to make. The physical environmental materials is exactly the same. The only difference is (even using Diamonds argument) that Europe had access to cultural influences beyond the native cultures stagnant stone age society.


The amount of physical resources did not decide _this_ contest.  It was the geographic resources as was pointed out above.  Access to technology is determined by the a gift of environment in the form of geography.  This is still geographic determinism.  Western cultures rose to prominance because of these gifts, not because the inherit superiority of its abstract ideals.

BTW - Native American culture wasn't as stagnant or stone age as you think.  In mesoamerica the structures they built rival structures built in eurasia.  Also, in the beginning, Europeans did not bring gold and silver back, they brought food.  The native americans were geniuses when it came to food production.  They domesticated a number of species that far out stripped what was domesticated in Europe (they relied on stuffs domesticated in the fertile crescent thousands of years ago).  When native american species of domesticated food stuffs were spread across the world, a population explosion occurred.  It has been argued convincingly that native american food stuffs were the primary factor that allowed societies to industrialize.



			
				sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> Where your argument fails (and, by proxy, Diamond's) is this very concept. Even in Diamond's own words, western culture's success was as a resulted of the flowering of influences from a multitude of cultures. Western culture sat at a crossroads where it was able to adapt the ideas that worked from other cultures, everything from mathmatics to gun powder. This, however, far from being an argument against the power of culture, is a powerful argument FOR culture, because, far from having access to physical resources that gave them an advantage, western culture had access to cultural resources. In fact, I inadvertantly made reference to this aspect of Diamond's arguments. You might want to try and refute this before continuing your assertion that culture is irrelavent.


All of this is still geographic determinism.  The fact that western culture sat at a crossroads was a gift.  The technologic gains were another "resource" that Europeans tapped into...and most of these technologies were not even developed by Europeans!  Material ideas, like the domestication of horses are valuable.  This was pointed out far earier in this thread by Hardheadjarhead.  However, they are not the sole product of a group that happens to use them.  They are a product of geography and they depend on physical resources for development.  Western Culture had the benefit of both and thus rose to prominance because of that...not because of the inherit superiority of its cultural abstracts.  I believe I made this distinction far upthread...


----------



## Tgace (Jun 16, 2005)

So if you buy this "theory" what does this all mean? 

Im sure there is some social engineering soon to be voluntered based on this "ground breaking", "earth shattering" revalation......or is it just hand wringing apologetics with no solution from a "white guy"?


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jun 17, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> I'm going to edit out the invective in this post. Watch what happens to the amount of verbage...
> 
> When one "culture" starts with geographic and environmental factors lined up in its favor, it is impossible to determine how much of an effect the ideology had in that culture's success. It's like running a race with two vehicles and one of the vehicles only has a quater tank of gas. When the disadvantaged vehicle loses, does the other claim it was because of the superior engineering of the car?


It is certainly possible to note which environment has the best adaptation to the environment.  I notice you buy-pass the inconvenient point that Western Culture living in the Americas was living in the same environment as the natives living in america, with access to the exact same resources.  The only diffence between the two groups is the advantage given by access to a wider range of cultural influences in Europe.  This, far from proving your, actually destroys it.  Using your analogy, lets illuminate the real process.  If two cars use the exact same gasoline from the exact same location, but one car uses it to generate more horse power, more efficiently, with greater mileage and fewer breakdowns, we are forced to conclude that that car has a superior design.  The fact that the car came from a different plant has nothing to do with that conclusion.  Your theory concludes that because the car with the superior design came from a better factor with better engineers, that it has received an advantage from "the environment" and is, therefore, not really a superior design, merely "different".  That is based on poor reasoning and is not supported by the facts.  The reason your analogy fails is because western cultural influences that migrated to the Americas weren't operating on more gas, they were operating on a better design.  After they arrived they utilized the same environmental physical material that was available to the natives.



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> You missed the point.


  One of us has missed the point.  I think the majority of others following this post are quickly determining who that is.

Lets reexamine the two arguments in question...



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> 1. Societies rise and fall not because they are comprised of a superior race, but because of environmental factors.


Actually, this is another error.  Societies rise and fall not because they are comprised of a superior race, but because their ability to develope adaptive traits that allow them to interact advantageously with their environment.  The environmental factors are the factors with which the society must contend.  It's much like saying "An animal is successful or not because of environmental factors".  It's really a non-sensical statement.  In order to make sense it must say "An animal is successful or not based on it's ability to adapt behaviors that allow it to interact advantageously with the environment."


			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> 2. Societies rise or fall not because they are beholden of a superior culture, but because of environmental factors.


 Again, societies rise and fall based on their cultural traits and those traits ability to give them an adaptive advantage within the environment.  Again, saying it "is because of environmental factors" is really a non-sensical statement. 



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> If one uses the first argument as a thesis, one is left with innumerable examples where culture jumped racial lines. Thus one is left to believe that the best argument to make if one is talking about societies, is not one about race. It is one about culture. No race ever rose or fell, it was always the culture. The fact that Diamond refutes the old race issues is a sideline issue. In fact, if race were the central focus of this book, the overall argument would be _weaker_ not stronger.


 If that were the case, then Diamond would not have spent so much time arguing against racial primacy.  The fact that Diamond refutes old race issues is his only real point.  His successful begins and ends with that point alone.  That is why his (and your) overall argument IS weaker and not stronger.  Don't blame me for this fundamental flaw in your argument.  Diamond inadvertantly showed this flaw when he pointed out that native american societies didn't have access to varied cultures that carried new ideas to them like Europeans.  It is these new and varied ideas that gave the advantage to European culture, and it is that fact that destroys your original thesis.



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> That argument would gloss over cultural differences between races and it would run into large problems where cultures and races intermix. Thus, your protrayal of Diamonds argument as an argument about race extrapolated over culture is a misunderstanding of the thesis.


No, it is clear understanding of what he managed to prove.  The rest he just seemed to hope we would ignore the fact that he didn't prove.  Is your whole argument in this paragraph that this could not possibly be Diamond's argument because it would present large problems?  Again, don't blame me for a flawed argument on Diamond's part.


			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> 1. The influence of culture on a societies success or failure. Geography and resources present hurdles that culture cannot overcome. Geography and resources also present opportunities that culture cannot create. Thus, there is absolutely no way that one can make the distinction as to whether or not Western Culture is superior. Our culture started with so many advantages that, as Tgace said above, even Europeans couldn't mess it up.


  The fact that our culture developed concepts that apply in a variety of environments absolutely destroys your argument.  You claim that the environment will decide success or failure.  How do you explain the success of the United States.  European cultural influences with an American environment, the same environment you claim results in a lack of success.  The only advantage the United States had was European cultural influences, the environment was the exact same possessed for thousands of years by the native population.  You have no answer for this, and I doubt you'll even try.



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> 2. You are talking about _group selection_...which is different then _natural selection_. Group selection posits a mechanism for evolutionary change among groups of organisms. Group selection is heavily dependent on geography and resources. Many times, maladaptive ideas pass on into populations simply because the "winners" had more energy...


 And ultimately maladaptive ideas result in failure for the group.  That is the very definition of maladaptive...it is not adaptive.  Again, you don't attempt to refute my argument, you attempt to bypass it.  Moreover, I never mentioned the term "natural selection" I mentioned adaptation, a phenomenon you seem to have no desire to discuss.



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> 1. Technology requires energy to implement. If a culture lacks energy in the form of resources, then it would be unable to implement that technology. That is how technology is geographically determined and it has everything to do with how well adapted a culture has become.


 But native american culture was not lacking in resources, they were lacking a cultural foundation that gave them the adaptive ability to utilize those resources.  We are operating a successful society utilizing the exact same resources originally controlled by the native cultures.  They didn't magically appear when Europeans arrived, they were always here.  Culture and Civilization provide an ideological foundation required to utilize resources.  It wasn't lack of resources, but a lack of cultural influences, that resulted in the stagnant society of the America's prior to the arrival of Europeans.  As i've already shown conclusively, it was Europeans positioning in close proximity to varied cultures that determined it's success, not it's natural resources.  You've yet to even come close to assailing that fact.



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> 2. The adaptation of a culture is heavily dependent upon the environment that the culture in which the culture is located. Culture develops anywhere humans are present and not all places on this planet were created equal. Thus, all cultures _cannot_ *be* equal. This determination was not due to some inherit failing of the culture, it was action of _group selection_ in a superior environment.


 This really says nothing.  Adaptive cultural traits allow societies to operate or not in varied environments and compete with varied groups.  Again, to claim that "environment" determines success or failure is to completely misunderstand the reality of the situation.  environment is the playing field, not the player.



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Whenever groups compete, the way they order themselves socially has proven to have very little effect on the outcome of the competition. Therefore, what determined the winner? Most often, it was who had more resources to start with. Cultures do not evolve via natural selection. That mechanism deals with individuals. Group selection is the mechanism in question, and it is far more complicated and heavily environmentally dependent. Innovation happens in all groups, yet some groups have been gifted with more resources to implement these innovations.


 Again, you have completely gone off the page.  China had access to far more resources than the Japanese during WWII.  In fact, it was to gain resources that Japan went to war to begin with.  Japan was able, militarily, to dominate China militarily.  It was not access to far more resources that allowed this, as anyone with an understanding of history knows China had far more resources and a far greater population, it was Japans cultural characteristics that allowed them to gain military advantage. 



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> You are assuming that the "playing field" is equal. It is not. Thus, not all cultures will be equal. A culture that plays in a field that is rich in environmental and geographic resources will win in a competition with a culture that has not been gifted. The ideology of the culture has very little determinable impact when these factors are taken into account.


  Ah, now we get the core of the matter.  Equal playing fields have nothing to do with this discussion.  Much like your car analogy earlier, it makes no difference to whether or not a car design is superior that the superior car design was developed by superior car designers with superior resources.  The end product is an imporant aspect of the phenomenon.



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> When groups are involved, the environment is a primary factor in the determination of its success or failure. Adaptations in groups are not governed natural selection and are not soley determined by the actions of genes. An individual interacting in the environment evolves under different rules then a group. Selection pressure on the individual level is _negative_. A girrafes neck got longer because those who did not possess that trait died. In groups, selection pressure is _positive_. Groups that possess more energy are able to pass on their traits more readily. This pressure independent of the actual substance of the trait in question.


 It's interesting that you are now trying to distance yourself from natural selection.  It is clear to me that you see your argument is fundamentally flawed unless you are able to attack the concept of adaptive traits.  It is also clear that your argument to defend this distancing is completely contrived.  You have no foundation with which to discuss "negative" or "positive" pressure.  Moreover, it is also clear you have no understanding of the phenomenon or "group selection" nor what effect it has on cultural success.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jun 17, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> 1. The Europeans brought with them germs that killed over 90% of the people of the Americas. These germs developed because of the domestication of animals and the European dominance of the Americas would most assuredly have been more difficult with these germs. This was, by far, the largest factor.


 That factor is actually a very minor one.  European culture had advantages over American ones from the very beginning, far before the first Americans died of any germs.



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> 2. The East/West axis made it easier to transport ideas and goods because environmental differences were more similar. The Europeans benifitted from a trade in technology that was not available in the Americas. The sheer number of cultures that lay along the east/west axis of Eurasia was staggering and all of these cultures innovated.


 Glad you are finally acknowledging what I have been saying.  That is, that it was the exchange of ideas that resulted more in Europes success than physical environmental materials.  It was this lack of spreading of ideas that resulted in the stagnant state of the culture in the Americas.  Ideas, it appears, are valuable afterall, even by your argument.



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Western culture was privy to both physical and geographic resources and it was these resources that allowed it to succeed. If one looks at the actual ideologies that the cultures possessed, one will see that they had very little bearing on the outcome.


 That's funny, by your own argument a paragraph earlier it was the geographic ability of these ideas to flow and spread that resulted in success.  Now you claim that this proves that the ideas weren't important.  I find the contradictory nature of your argument confusing.  Before you start claiming your are being "taken out of context" you should explain what you mean by "geographic resources".  I'll help you, you mean the geographic locations allow the spread of ideas and technology (which is an idea) to flow more easily.  hmmm.  I think your ship is sinking further.




			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> The physical resources are only one peice. The other peice is the geographic resources. If one group of people lives within easy access of another group, then exchanges of ideas happen more readily. Any culture would benefit from this exchange. Europeans lived in close proximity to other cultures along an East/West continental axis this gave them the advantage of being able to accumulate technologic resources as a rate faster then native americans. Thus, the environment was a greater determinate of the Europeans success.


 Ahhhh.  So now you are admitting it is the flow of these ideas, which you first claimed are unimportant, that helped Europeans?  lol.  I think the boat is about to join the Titanic.  Your original thesis was that ideas and ideology matter little.  Now you've stated that the environment allowed certain socieities to succeed because they allowed these unimportant ideas to spread more easily.  I believe I explained this concept earlier, and you decided to try and refute them.  Now you are making the same claims, but still trying to make the same assertions.  In reality, the argument you are making is directly out of Diamonds book, and it was made against racial differences not making a difference, not cultural.  What has happened is that you've tried to adapt Diamond's arguments for a purpose he didn't intend.  I can prove that, as well.  Take this sentence 

"Europeans lived in close proximity to other cultures along an East/West continental axis this gave them the advantage of being able to accumulate technologic resources as a rate faster then native americans. Thus, the environment was a greater determinate of the Europeans success."  Really, a greater determinate than what?  Certainly not culture as Diamond was just arguing that it was varied cultural influences that spelled success for Europeans.  Clearly Diamond means "was a greater determinate of the European success than race".




			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> The amount of physical resources did not decide _this_ contest. It was the geographic resources as was pointed out above. Access to technology is determined by the a gift of environment in the form of geography. This is still geographic determinism. Western cultures rose to prominance because of these gifts, not because the inherit superiority of its abstract ideals.


 Yes, by geographic resources Diamond meant the easy spread of "abstract ideas" such as technology.  Further, these abstract ideas were brought and applied to a new environment where they proved, also, to be positive adaptations.  Ironic, no?  It is you, not Diamond, inserting that this applies to culture.  Diamond is clearly referring to racial differences not contributing to a cultures success.  Diamond clearly views cultural phenomenon as being very important, otherwise he would not be talking about "geographic resources", which means the ability of ideas and technology to flow and be exchanged.  Diamond clearly understands that these "abstract ideas" are clearly important a societies success or failure, he merely claims that they are not inherent in superior or inferior races, but are the result of the free exchange and evolution of "abstract ideas".  I think you might be alone on this subject.  I think even Diamond has abandoned you.



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> BTW - Native American culture wasn't as stagnant or stone age as you think. In mesoamerica the structures they built rival structures built in eurasia. Also, in the beginning, Europeans did not bring gold and silver back, they brought food. The native americans were geniuses when it came to food production. They domesticated a number of species that far out stripped what was domesticated in Europe (they relied on stuffs domesticated in the fertile crescent thousands of years ago). When native american species of domesticated food stuffs were spread across the world, a population explosion occurred. It has been argued convincingly that native american food stuffs were the primary factor that allowed societies to industrialize.


  They certainly don't rival European structures of today.  Your argument that post-Roman European civilization had not adapted much subsequently is nothing new, and really doesn't make your case.  Further, your statement that Europeans brought food stuffs back isn't helpful to your argument either.  It merely reflects how cultures adapt practices, technology and abstract ideas from other cultures.  "When native american species of domesticated food stuffs were spread across the world, a population explosion occurred. It has been argued convincingly that native american food stuffs were the primary factor that allowed societies to industrialize."  So, again, we see the power of abstract concepts.  Native American adaptations were a primary factor that allwed societies to industrialize?  I thought you assertion that success or failure was based on environmental factors, now you claim that adaptations were able to give an environmental advantage?  In your attempt to corner me as some sort of Euro-centrist, you have, again, painted yourself in to a corner rhetorically.  




			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> All of this is still geographic determinism. The fact that western culture sat at a crossroads was a gift. The technologic gains were another "resource" that Europeans tapped into...and most of these technologies were not even developed by Europeans! Material ideas, like the domestication of horses are valuable. This was pointed out far earier in this thread by Hardheadjarhead. However, they are not the sole product of a group that happens to use them. They are a product of geography and they depend on physical resources for development. Western Culture had the benefit of both and thus rose to prominance because of that...not because of the inherit superiority of its cultural abstracts. I believe I made this distinction far upthread...


  Geographic determinism would mean that any two cultures who existed in the same environment would exhibit the same cultural characteristics and the same success or failure in that environment.  As we have seen that to clearly be untrue, your theory of Geographic determinism doesn't hold water.  As noted before, European Culture utilized American resources far differently than native socities, and with a far different degree of success.  This shows, clearly, that geographic location is not the sole deciding factor.  Adaptive traits and their ability to give advantage within the environment is the deciding factor.  Western Culture rose to dominance because of adaptive traits that allowed it to utilize varied environments to it's advantage.  I think I made this distinction far upthread....


----------



## Makalakumu (Jun 17, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> I notice you buy-pass the inconvenient point that Western Culture living in the Americas was living in the same environment as the natives living in america, with access to the exact same resources. The only diffence between the two groups is the advantage given by access to a wider range of cultural influences in Europe. This, far from proving your, actually destroys it.


Hardly.  Culture is comprised of abstract ideas that dictate how people interact, how they worship, what they find funny, what is artistic.  Technology is not an abstract idea.  It is a material idea whose origin is NOT linked to any of the above abstract ideas.  The origin of technology lies in us all regardless of these abstract ideas, because all people use it survive.    Europe had access to many other peoples technology and was privy to a faster flow of ideas then the people of the Americas.  This geographic/technologic resource helped the European culture rise to prominance over the cultures of the americas.

btw - this process is not adaptation in the sense that the environment is exerting pressure to force people to change.  That is negative pressure.  This process is akin to building a better mousetrap and then watching as the new design spreads among all people regardless of cultural groupings.  This is positive pressure...group selection.  More on this later.

As far as the racecar analogy applies to the competition between native americans and europeans, if the native americans build their race car in their garage and the europeans in an advanced engineering lab, when one wins the contest, it is no surprise.  The one that benefitted from the technologic resources has a distinct advantage.  For the Europeans, the technologic resources were geographically determined.  They were not products of the European culture itself.  In fact, if one examines the rennaisance period one will see a drawing together of technology that originated in cultures that were vastly different then the European cultures.

_One of us has missed the point. I think the majority of others following this post are quickly determining who that is._



			
				sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> Lets reexamine the two arguments in question....


Sometimes when you chop an argument up, you miss the point because the context of the points are linked together.  You missed the point of this reasoning by attempting to address each peice separately.  The point of the reasoning that culture and not race makes a better thesis because it explains more of the data.  I will address the points you made below though...



			
				sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> Actually, this is another error. Societies rise and fall not because they are comprised of a superior race, but because their ability to develope adaptive traits that allow them to interact advantageously with their environment. The environmental factors are the factors with which the society must contend. It's much like saying "An animal is successful or not because of environmental factors". It's really a non-sensical statement. In order to make sense it must say "An animal is successful or not based on it's ability to adapt behaviors that allow it to interact advantageously with the environment."


An individual animal is not a group.  They do not adapt in the same way.  Natural selection deals with animals on an individual level and it depends on the negative pressure of the environment to weed out individuals who are lesser adapted.  Group adaptation is different.  Negative pressure exists on smaller scales, but on larger scales, positive pressure determines competitive outcomes.  Positive pressure comes from multiple sources.  It can come in the form of energy.  It can come in the form of resources.  It can come in the form of technology.  Groups that have a wealth of these have a greater chance of passing on the culture of their groups.  This is the concept of group selection and it is used by evolutionary anthropologists to describe cultural replacement.  Diamond makes use of this concept in his book.



			
				sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> If that were the case, then Diamond would not have spent so much time arguing against racial primacy. The fact that Diamond refutes old race issues is his only real point. His successful begins and ends with that point alone. That is why his (and your) overall argument IS weaker and not stronger. Don't blame me for this fundamental flaw in your argument. Diamond inadvertantly showed this flaw when he pointed out that native american societies didn't have access to varied cultures that carried new ideas to them like Europeans. It is these new and varied ideas that gave the advantage to European culture, and it is that fact that destroys your original thesis.


You are collapsing concepts.  Culture and technology are not synonymous.  Culture is comprised of the abstract concepts of human life like the laws we choose to live by, our religion, our humor, our art, our ideology.  Technology is comprised of material ideas that translate into actual things that humans use...like food production, domestication, mining techniques, etc.  All of this stuff is culturally independent.  Technology trades like any commodity and it flows between cultures at a rate that is exponentially greater then the rate at which abstract cultural ideas flow.  The two are obviously separate phenomenon because they are governed by such obviously different rule sets.  An anthropology professor in my undergrad made this distinction in an entry level, general education class.  It's not rocket science, its only logical, because one cannot begin to discuss cultural anthropology without making this distinction.

Here is an example of what I'm talking about.  We'll take the often brought up example of Japan.  This tiny nation somehow grew powerful enough to take on large neighbors and dominate them.  How did this happen?  They were not privy to any vast wealth in natural resources.  The answer is that they had a technologic revolution.  The process started with Commodore Perry fired off his cannons and scared the crap out of Japanese, thus causing them to engage in a wild race to gather up as much technology as they possibly could.  While this was happening, the culture was changing, but not because any abstract cultural ideas were attached to the items of technology.  Their cultural revolution re-installed an emperor and expanded the samurai ideals to everyone.  These were big changes in culture, but they paled in comparison to the changes in technology.  In the end, Japan retained its art, its religion, the overall structure of how the people interacted, and its ideology.  The cultural "revolution" was more of a "tweak" in comparison with the technologic revolution.  The differing revolutions of culture and technology cannot be explained adequately if they are collapsed into one.  



			
				sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> You claim that the environment will decide success or failure. How do you explain the success of the United States. European cultural influences with an American environment, the same environment you claim results in a lack of success. The only advantage the United States had was European cultural influences, the environment was the exact same possessed for thousands of years by the native population.


Part of the environmental factors that I noted from the beginning were geographic.  Europeans took their culture to America and their culture supplanted the Native Culture because of the geographic advantages that the Europeans enjoyed.  They had a wealth of technology that was separate from cultural ideas like Christianity, Liberty, Capitalism, and Democracy.  The best thought experiment that one can do in order to understand just how much of an advantage these geographic phenomenon gave the Europeans is to imagine that ideals like this arose in a culture that was not privy to the technologic/geographic resources.  These ideals would not have been successful.



			
				sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> Culture and Civilization provide an ideological foundation required to utilize resources.


No group of humans on this planet can be successful if it does not incorporate technology.  Of all of the overarching commonalities between cultures that cultural anthropologists have identified, one of the strongest is that ALL cultures exploit technology to the greatest degree that they are able.  This exploitation depends on natural resources - btw and that played an important role in determining the outcome of other historical conflicts in history.  Namely, the Cold War.  This peice was not as big of a factor for native americans.  That outcome was determined by technologic advantage and the action of microbes.  The common thread through both of these is geographic determinism.



			
				sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> Equal playing fields have nothing to do with this discussion.


It has everything to do with the discussion.  If the European culture existed in the americas and the native american culture arose in Europe with all of the geographic/technologic resources, then it would be the European culture that was replaced.  Abstract cultural ideas that would have the advantage would be things like theocracy, human sacrifice, and slavery.  Christianity would be a footnote and we'd have temples dedicated to the Winged Serpent...



			
				sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> It's interesting that you are now trying to distance yourself from natural selection. It is clear to me that you see your argument is fundamentally flawed unless you are able to attack the concept of adaptive traits. It is also clear that your argument to defend this distancing is completely contrived. You have no foundation with which to discuss "negative" or "positive" pressure. Moreover, it is also clear you have no understanding of the phenomenon or "group selection" nor what effect it has on cultural success.


The concept of group selection has been revived by Harvard scholars Richard Dawkins and EO Wilson.  It is used heavily in evolutionary psychology to explain the evolutionary root of our behaviors.  Natural selection runs into problems when it attempts to explain the action of groups...your view of adaptation is based on natural selection and it does not explain the phenomenon that groups exhibit.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jun 17, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> That factor is actually a very minor one. European culture had advantages over American ones from the very beginning, far before the first Americans died of any germs.


90% of native americans died from these germs. This happened in the span of a generation. Europeans encountered empty cities when they explored the americas. The greatest advantage that the native americans had was the distance europeans had to travel in order to come to america. Their technology could only transport small numbers of people at a time. These small numbers of people could not have replaced a population of more then 20 million. 

The European germs took away the advantage of numbers and greatly increased the impact of superior technology. The effect of the germs took away the native americans largest advantage over the Europeans.

Diamond goes on to show how these germs were geographicaly determined side effects of domestication technology.



			
				sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> In reality, the argument you are making is directly out of Diamonds book, and it was made against racial differences not making a difference, not cultural. What has happened is that you've tried to adapt Diamond's arguments for a purpose he didn't intend. I can prove that, as well. Take this sentence
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The argument against superior race is a poorer thesis then the argument against superior culture because it doesn't fit the examples where culture jumps racial boundaries. Race is implied in the passage you quoted, but so is culture. It is purposely written to imply both and Diamonds thesis supports both equally. The bottom line is that European means many more things then race and Diamond illustrates this in the latter chapters of his book.



> "When native american species of domesticated food stuffs were spread across the world, a population explosion occurred. It has been argued convincingly that native american food stuffs were the primary factor that allowed societies to industrialize."





			
				sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> So, again, we see the power of abstract concepts. Native American adaptations were a primary factor that allwed societies to industrialize? I thought you assertion that success or failure was based on environmental factors, now you claim that adaptations were able to give an environmental advantage?


A potato is not an abstract concept. It is a peice of agricultural technology that leaped across cultural lines. Europeans benefitted from this peice of technology greatly and it was NOT part of European culture. This example illustrates how the material ideas of technology are different from the abstract ideas of culture. A potato is a technologic resource that is geographically determined. 



			
				sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> 1. Geographic determinism would mean that any two cultures who existed in the same environment would exhibit the same cultural characteristics and the same success or failure in that environment. As we have seen that to clearly be untrue, your theory of Geographic determinism doesn't hold water. As noted before, European Culture utilized American resources far differently than native socities, and with a far different degree of success. This shows, clearly, that geographic location is not the sole deciding factor.
> 
> 2. Adaptive traits and their ability to give advantage within the environment is the deciding factor. Western Culture rose to dominance because of adaptive traits that allowed it to utilize varied environments to it's advantage. I think I made this distinction far upthread....


1. Geographic determinism deals with natural resources and technologic resources that come available due to favorable geography. The example of the European replacement of Native American culture is a perfect example of how a cultures greater access to material technologic resources through geography allowed it to rise dominance. The abstract culture itself was not a determining factor.

2. Your understanding of adaptation is flawed. Think of the potato. People who used the potato experienced an inflation of population. This positive effect allowed a group to flourish and compete _regardless of the fittness of the individual. _That is the big difference between natural selection and group selection. A potato is an adaptation, but it has a direction effect that is completely opposite of the adaptations that occur in an individual.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jun 17, 2005)

I think the previous exchange will be the last on this thread. I'll be out of town for a while and I won't have a lot of time when I get back. Good discussion.  Good points on all sides.  Maybe we can pick this up when I finish Diamond's new book...

upnorthkyosa


----------



## Marginal (Jun 17, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> So if you buy this "theory" what does this all mean?
> 
> Im sure there is some social engineering soon to be voluntered based on this "ground breaking", "earth shattering" revalation......or is it just hand wringing apologetics with no solution from a "white guy"?



The converse to the "It's our really great morally superior ideaology that made us strong!" is, since China's existed for ages now, and it's rapidly becoming a superpower now, does than mean that China's ideaology is superior? What if China surpasses the US? Where does that leave that particular mode of apologist thinking then?

At worst, geographic determinism undermines the idea that one country needs to impose their will on another because their vision is purer and truer.


----------



## Tgace (Jun 17, 2005)

No..it just says that one country can impose their will on another because they have the geographic resources to do so. As it was Chinas ideology/politics that has held them back for the last however many years I dont know if they are a shining example of the theory.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jun 17, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Hardly. Culture is comprised of abstract ideas that dictate how people interact, how they worship, what they find funny, what is artistic. Technology is not an abstract idea. It is a material idea whose origin is NOT linked to any of the above abstract ideas. The origin of technology lies in us all regardless of these abstract ideas, because all people use it survive. Europe had access to many other peoples technology and was privy to a faster flow of ideas then the people of the Americas. This geographic/technologic resource helped the European culture rise to prominance over the cultures of the americas.


 The ability to develop technology is the very definition of an abstract idea.  Perhaps this is part of your misunderstanding.  Creativity, by it's very definition, is abstract.  There is no such thing as a "material idea" as no ideas are "material".  You can't see, touch, taste or hear an idea, it exists only as an abstract concept.  The very concept of "material idea" is ludicrous and shows a basic misunderstanding of the terms.  You have no basis for calling technology concrete other than the knowledge that this is a weak point in your argument and you HAVE to try and prove it is concrete.  Again, the very concept is absurd.



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> btw - this process is not adaptation in the sense that the environment is exerting pressure to force people to change. That is negative pressure. This process is akin to building a better mousetrap and then watching as the new design spreads among all people regardless of cultural groupings. This is positive pressure...group selection. More on this later.


 Of course it is adaptation.  Cultures shift and adapt in response to environmental pressures.  Concepts and ideas that do not give an adaptative advantage tend to die out.  those that do, however, tend to be adopted.  This includes technological advantage, which i've already established are part of a culture.  



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> As far as the racecar analogy applies to the competition between native americans and europeans, if the native americans build their race car in their garage and the europeans in an advanced engineering lab, when one wins the contest, it is no surprise. The one that benefitted from the technologic resources has a distinct advantage. For the Europeans, the technologic resources were geographically determined. They were not products of the European culture itself. In fact, if one examines the rennaisance period one will see a drawing together of technology that originated in cultures that were vastly different then the European cultures.


 And again, that has no bearing the superiority of the design.  I guess it might make the losers feel better, but a superior design is a superior design as far as your race car analogy goes.  Again, your comment about the Renasaince period is nothing but a backdoor admission to my point, which was....the true advantage Europeans had was in being a cross-roads of cultural ideas and concepts, including technological ones, not their concrete resources.  Even you are increasingly acknowledging that point, although reluctantly i'll wager.



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> _One of us has missed the point. I think the majority of others following this post are quickly determining who that is._


 I think it's probably clear by this time.



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Sometimes when you chop an argument up, you miss the point because the context of the points are linked together. You missed the point of this reasoning by attempting to address each peice separately. The point of the reasoning that culture and not race makes a better thesis because it explains more of the data. I will address the points you made below though...


 So because I dissected your argument and dealt with each aspect logically, I missed, what, the holistic message of your argument?  What I did was logically dissect your argument and show it's inconsistency when in examined in depth.  The problem with most fallacious arguments is that they appear true when examined at a distance.  It is after they are dissected that their fallacious nature becomes painfully apparent.




			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> An individual animal is not a group. They do not adapt in the same way. Natural selection deals with animals on an individual level and it depends on the negative pressure of the environment to weed out individuals who are lesser adapted. Group adaptation is different. Negative pressure exists on smaller scales, but on larger scales, positive pressure determines competitive outcomes. Positive pressure comes from multiple sources. It can come in the form of energy. It can come in the form of resources. It can come in the form of technology. Groups that have a wealth of these have a greater chance of passing on the culture of their groups. This is the concept of group selection and it is used by evolutionary anthropologists to describe cultural replacement. Diamond makes use of this concept in his book.


 So you're claim is that such things as disease,starvation and war are "positive pressures"?  It must be so, because these phenomenon have swallowed up countless civilizations, and your argument is that with groups it is only "positive pressure" that determines the outcome.  Your argument is becoming more convoluted by the minute.  Really, your argument is based on an absurdity.  Simply put, the idea that animal competition is decided by "negative pressure" and group competition is decided by "positive pressure" is contrived.  Positive or negative really depends on who is receiving the outcome.




			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> You are collapsing concepts. Culture and technology are not synonymous. Culture is comprised of the abstract concepts of human life like the laws we choose to live by, our religion, our humor, our art, our ideology. Technology is comprised of material ideas that translate into actual things that humans use...like food production, domestication, mining techniques, etc. All of this stuff is culturally independent. Technology trades like any commodity and it flows between cultures at a rate that is exponentially greater then the rate at which abstract cultural ideas flow. The two are obviously separate phenomenon because they are governed by such obviously different rule sets. An anthropology professor in my undergrad made this distinction in an entry level, general education class. It's not rocket science, its only logical, because one cannot begin to discuss cultural anthropology without making this distinction.


 Culture is a carrier for abstract concepts and ideas, one of which is technology.  Technology is part of culture, it is NOT culture, it is an aspect of culture.  We have already established that technology IS an abstract concept.  Technology is not concrete, it is an idea carried by the carrier of culture between peoples.  Again, it is required for the sake of your fallacious argument to prove that technology is concrete (and not an abstract concept) because your whole argument is sunk by technology.  A car is concrete, the idea of a car is not.  A car did not magically spring forth from the environment, it was created by the human mind and existed only as an idea until human creativity produced it from raw materials.  By your definition, however, a car suddenly sprung forth from the ground, whole and intact, having nothing to to with human abstract creativity.  Again, contrived arguments.



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Here is an example of what I'm talking about. We'll take the often brought up example of Japan. This tiny nation somehow grew powerful enough to take on large neighbors and dominate them. How did this happen? They were not privy to any vast wealth in natural resources. The answer is that they had a technologic revolution. The process started with Commodore Perry fired off his cannons and scared the crap out of Japanese, thus causing them to engage in a wild race to gather up as much technology as they possibly could. While this was happening, the culture was changing, but not because any abstract cultural ideas were attached to the items of technology. Their cultural revolution re-installed an emperor and expanded the samurai ideals to everyone. These were big changes in culture, but they paled in comparison to the changes in technology. In the end, Japan retained its art, its religion, the overall structure of how the people interacted, and its ideology. The cultural "revolution" was more of a "tweak" in comparison with the technologic revolution. The differing revolutions of culture and technology cannot be explained adequately if they are collapsed into one.


 Yes, and the Japanese were able, through cultural advantages, to utilize this new technology in creative (abstract) ways to gain an advantage.  Score another victory for culture over environment.  Thank you for playing.  I think I have finally figured out the basic source of your misunderstanding, however, it is the failure to understand the definition of "abstract" and "concrete".  Apparently you are unable to differentiate the physical car from the concept of the car as an idea.  The abstract idea came first and was the most important part of the equation.  The material car is a product of the idea, not the other way around.  This is commonly understood, I would have thought, my most rational people. Cars do not reproduce like cattle.  Furthermore, the ability to build a car, even post idea, must be taught and carried forward.  It is this group learning phenomenon that is one of the most important aspects of a culture.




			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Part of the environmental factors that I noted from the beginning were geographic. Europeans took their culture to America and their culture supplanted the Native Culture because of the geographic advantages that the Europeans enjoyed. They had a wealth of technology that was separate from cultural ideas like Christianity, Liberty, Capitalism, and Democracy. The best thought experiment that one can do in order to understand just how much of an advantage these geographic phenomenon gave the Europeans is to imagine that ideals like this arose in a culture that was not privy to the technologic/geographic resources. These ideals would not have been successful.


 No, because of the cultural advantages that Europeans enjoyed.  At that time they were living in the exact same environment.  You'll noticed they moved, so they no longer enjoyed the same geographical advantage.  Ironically, their new environment (America) was even MORE geographically advantageous...if you had the cultural advantages to exploit it. "Christianity, Liberty, Capitalism, Democracy," technology, a whole host of other concepts.  I still see your only hope is distancing technology and science from concepts you want to point out as irrelavent.  In reality, the point of your argument is an attempt to prove "Christianity, Liberty, Capitalism, and Democracy" are irrelavent.  To do so, however, you've tried to create a false reality where they are what is considered culture and abstract concepts, but you've attempted to seperate technology and science from your broad brush strokes by calling them "concrete concepts", and absurd term given that those concepts only exist within the human mind as abstract concepts.  It is only the results of those concepts, not the concepts themselves, that can be seen, touched, felt, heard, etc.  Again, a fallacious argument.





			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> No group of humans on this planet can be successful if it does not incorporate technology. Of all of the overarching commonalities between cultures that cultural anthropologists have identified, one of the strongest is that ALL cultures exploit technology to the greatest degree that they are able. This exploitation depends on natural resources - btw and that played an important role in determining the outcome of other historical conflicts in history. Namely, the Cold War. This peice was not as big of a factor for native americans. That outcome was determined by technologic advantage and the action of microbes. The common thread through both of these is geographic determinism.


 Saying ALL cultures exploit technology is like saying ALL cultures have the same culture.  It's non-sense.  All cultures do no create steam engines, all cultures do not create rocket ships and jet airplanes.  It's an absurdity designed to conceal the obvious advantage created by technology which IS an abstract concept resulting from cultural advantages.  It is Aristotle and the greeks who set in motion modern science and logical inquiry.  All cultures do not engage in an active exploration of our world in a logical manner.  Some cultures attempt to explain phenomenon by super-natural means.  That cultural trend retards a cultures ability to advance because the belief in super-natural agencies prevents them from an understanding of the world in a rational way which, ultimately, allows them to advance in technology and understanding.




			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> It has everything to do with the discussion. If the European culture existed in the americas and the native american culture arose in Europe with all of the geographic/technologic resources, then it would be the European culture that was replaced. Abstract cultural ideas that would have the advantage would be things like theocracy, human sacrifice, and slavery. Christianity would be a footnote and we'd have temples dedicated to the Winged Serpent...


  Again, that argument only applies to race.  You keep denying it, but aside from racial differences the statement 

"If the European culture existed in the americas and the native american culture arose in Europe with all of the geographic/technologic resources, then it would be the European culture that was replaced."

Is non-sensical.  Aside from racial differences, if European culture existed in Americas it would be Amercian culture and European culture would still be European culture, albeit a different race.  Europeans (your racial native americans) would still have a more adaptive culture than native americans.  As we have already established, is the adaptive traits of culture, not race, that is important. This analogy of yours illustrates, further, that have simply substituted race for culture.




			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> The concept of group selection has been revived by Harvard scholars Richard Dawkins and EO Wilson. It is used heavily in evolutionary psychology to explain the evolutionary root of our behaviors. Natural selection runs into problems when it attempts to explain the action of groups...your view of adaptation is based on natural selection and it does not explain the phenomenon that groups exhibit.


 It runs into problems ONLY because it doesn't fit your hypothesis...that is not a problem.  Groups are an individual adaptation.  The only reason that animals created groups to begin with was to gain an individual advantage.  Wolf packs make it easier to hunt, humans found cooperation able to gain an individual advantage.  Cultures spring out of individual adaptation.  You keep wanting to create a duality where none exists for the purposes of this argument.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jun 17, 2005)

Marginal said:
			
		

> The converse to the "It's our really great morally superior ideaology that made us strong!" is, since China's existed for ages now, and it's rapidly becoming a superpower now, does than mean that China's ideaology is superior? What if China surpasses the US? Where does that leave that particular mode of apologist thinking then?
> 
> At worst, geographic determinism undermines the idea that one country needs to impose their will on another because their vision is purer and truer.


I'm not sure who made the argument that "superior technology" equals "morally superior ideology".  It certainly wasn't me and it certainly wasn't Tgrace.  What morality has to do with this discussion, I have no idea.  Maybe you could explain further.


----------



## Tgace (Jun 17, 2005)

Im still waiting for the shoe to drop....what is this theorys point where the rubber meets the road? Is it just pure observation or is there some action the author wants to make things "more fair" to the "geographically challenged"? Some sort of "global welfare state"?


----------



## Makalakumu (Jun 17, 2005)

I just wanted to check sgtmac_46 rebuttle.  

It seems as if this argument hinges on the idea of technology.  Is technology part of culture or is it separate?  Is technology an abstract idea or is it concrete?

sgtmac_46 plays a game of semantics in order to back up his claim that it is abstract, however, if one knows anything about science, one can surely see the difference between a potato and a prayer.  Technology is a concrete idea in every sense of the word.  What do others think about this?

As far as collapsing culture and technology is concerned, one has some difficulties that must be explained...

1.  First, they must show how technology can be the "property" of a culture.
2.  Second, they must explain why technology jumps cultural lines so much more readily then things like art, humor, or religion.
3.  Third, they must be able to provide historical cultural links between cultures that developed technology in places separated by large distances.

These are the three major hurdles that resist the concept of including technology into the cultural sphere.  The last point is the most difficult.  If the same technology arises in two dissimilar cultures that have absolutely no way of communicating, then the idea of technology being a part of culture is refuted.  No one culture can own an idea that develops independently in two places on earth that have no connections to each other.  Try if you want, but there is no logical way that you can pin a technology like this as being the property of one culture and not the other.  

Thus they are separate...

Ee gads!  I only meant to check!  I gotta go.  I'll see ya'll in a week or two!

upnorthkyosa


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jun 18, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> I just wanted to check sgtmac_46 rebuttle.
> 
> It seems as if this argument hinges on the idea of technology. Is technology part of culture or is it separate? Is technology an abstract idea or is it concrete?
> 
> ...


  A concrete idea? lol.  This is getting pretty silly. The whole argument is completely contrived and it's now getting to the level where you will do anything to escape the fundamental flaw in your theory, to include calling an idea "concrete".  I especially like the idea that technology is not culture but religion is because technologies develop in seperate parts of the world? lol.  So religion isn't cultural either, as concepts like monotheism, ancestor worship, polytheism and other religious concepts have developed by different and varied cultures independently.  For that matter, language, art, and mathmatics have all developed in different cultures.  They must not be cultural either.  In fact, if you use that definition to determine what is and is not a culture, then nothing is culture.  It's really an absurdly transparent argument designed try and hide the fundamental flaw in your overall argument...concrete ideas? lol, is that like jumbo shrimp?


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jun 18, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Im still waiting for the shoe to drop....what is this theorys point where the rubber meets the road? Is it just pure observation or is there some action the author wants to make things "more fair" to the "geographically challenged"? Some sort of "global welfare state"?


 Maybe we'll find out when northkyosa comes back from the vacation. Though, if I were to guess, looking at north's other posts, the answer has more to do with "more fair" to the "geographically challenged". Since when did science become about evening up the score? Perhaps when Marx told everyone that his philosophy was a science, and people started believing him. Oh, the irony. Doesn't matter how you dress up a pig, or what names you call it, it's still just a pig in a dress.  That's the impression I get about north's arguments, that it is nothing more personal philosophy disguised in the trappings of "science" so as to convince the ignorant that it is "irrefutable fact" when it is nothing more than dogma. That's why northkyosa made the comment about my attacking the argument piece by piece, because dogmatic belief is a wholesale endeavor.  When the argument is dissected and examined piece by piece, the deception becomes apparent. It's built on distortions and misapplied definitions.  Take "Concrete ideas".  Concrete means real, tangible.  You cannot touch an idea, it exists in the human mind.  The product of that idea can be made manifest in reality, but the idea itself is still abstract.  The idea, not the concrete result, is the most important part of the equation.  Northkyosa would have us believe technology springs from the ground like crops or exists underground like coal, instead of being the product of the human imagination and creativity.  Truly bizarre.


----------



## Marginal (Jun 18, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> I'm not sure who made the argument that "superior technology" equals "morally superior ideology".  It certainly wasn't me and it certainly wasn't Tgrace.  What morality has to do with this discussion, I have no idea.  Maybe you could explain further.



Seems to be the subtext. When the notion of cultural superiority gets taken away, a whole lotta folks get very defensive. Thing is, there doesn't seem to be an especially good reason for doing so. Instead it's very easy to digress to kneejerk shouts of "That's just relativism!". (While coyly advancing a might makes right relativist stance in its stead.)



> Certainly the idea that there are no superior ideas -- only random chance and environmental factors -- will appeal to those whose inferior ideas have led them to view the world around them (and the success of those with superior ideas) with the grasping envy and subjectivism that so characterizes life's failures on the individual, national, and international levels.



Kinda like that.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jun 18, 2005)

Marginal said:
			
		

> Seems to be the subtext. When the notion of cultural superiority gets taken away, a whole lotta folks get very defensive. Thing is, there doesn't seem to be an especially good reason for doing so. Instead it's very easy to digress to kneejerk shouts of "That's just relativism!". (While coyly advancing a might makes right relativist stance in its stead.)
> 
> 
> 
> Kinda like that.


Actually, you miss the entire point of the argument. Morality has nothing to do with it. Pragmatics does. What offends me about the argument is the that the argument of the opposition is disingenuous and is designed strictly to attack a set of beliefs they disagree with, in order to replace it with an order of it's own. I don't believe the other side is relativisitic at all, merely attempting to be clever and use relativism to destroy one system in order to make way for another. Morality has really nothing to do with it. This is just the battlefield of ideas and I take a stand like everyone else. I will attack any argument that appears to be merely pre-text for a hidden agenda, especially if that argument is full of inconsistencies. 

As far as your attack on "might makes right" I don't even accept the reality of the context of that statement. Right is relative, however, what works and what does not isn't relative, and can be illustrated by examining historical context. It actually appears to be you advancing a morality argument at this point, trying to paint those you are against as immoral for believing that "Might makes right". If that's your stand, fine, but I reject morality discussions wholesale as being irrelavent. 

Again, what does morality have to do with any of this?  

Further, I suggest we move away from ad hominem (i.e. a discussion of the morality of the opposition, rather than the argument) arguments as they serve no purpose but trying to derail a discussion.  I'd prefer we get back to themes of the argument as it has been presented.  

For example, Northkyosa has tried to make the point that technology and the ideas that produce them are concrete.  It is my assertion that to call any "Idea" concrete is absurd, and is merely contrived to shore up a faulty and flawed argument that says that only concrete material and resources account for societies successes.  In order to shore that argument up, Northkyosa was forced to construct a theory whereby things like Art, Religion, Philosophy, etc are "Abstract ideas", while Science, Technology, Creativity are "Concrete ideas".  It is clear examing this argument that is absolutely absurd.  I doubt Northkyosa would have even attempted to make the absurd distinction had Diamond not espoused the benefit that technological advancement had lent to Western Civilization.  Even North was forced to acknowledge this, but then had to backtrack and form a qualifying argument to prevent this from destroying the overall argument: i.e. That concrete environmental factors, such as natural resources and geography, not Cultural factors, such as ideas and ideology, account for the success or failure.  Therefore, using this logic, north has stated that religion IS an idea, but technology and science are NOT ideas and hence, not cultural.  What think you?


----------



## Marginal (Jun 18, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> Actually, you miss the entire point of the argument. Morality has nothing to do with it. Pragmatics does. What offends me about the argument is the that the argument of the opposition is disingenuous and is designed strictly to attack a set of beliefs they disagree with, in order to replace it with an order of it's own.



Which set of beliefs are they designed to attack?



> I will attack any argument that appears to be merely pre-text for a hidden agenda, especially if that argument is full of inconsistencies.



What's the agenda?



> As far as your attack on "might makes right" I don't even accept the reality of the context of that statement. Right is relative, however, what works and what does not isn't relative, and can be illustrated by examining historical context.



Right's only relative when your ideas aren't universally correct.



> It actually appears to be you advancing a morality argument at this point, trying to paint those you are against as immoral for believing that "Might makes right".



Actually, I'm more interested in pointing out the absurdity of hiding behind a relativist shield while attacking relativism. 



> If that's your stand, fine, but I reject morality discussions wholesale as being irrelavent.



It's not a morality question/discussion. It's just reducing the rhetoric to its essence. If we're just folks that happened across greatness through geographic location, then we're not that one glimmering speck that matters in God's eye. Hence the overemotional rhetoric attacking the notion. 



> Again, what does morality have to do with any of this?



Nothing except that the theory advanced REMOVES the issue of morality from the equation. Cultural development's mainly reduced to a blind algorhythmic process under the theory's view. 



> Further, I suggest we move away from ad hominem (i.e. a discussion of the morality of the opposition, rather than the argument) arguments as they serve no purpose but trying to derail a discussion.



Ironic.



> For example, Northkyosa has tried to make the point that technology and the ideas that produce them are concrete.  It is my assertion that to call any "Idea" concrete is absurd, and is merely contrived to shore up a faulty and flawed argument that says that only concrete material and resources account for societies successes.



Gunpowder is concrete. It exists. It is not merely an idea. (Same thing with most technology) How it is put to use (rockets, fireworks, propellant for hunks of lead etc) is up to the culture that develops/encounters it. 

For example, if you are first in developing gunpowder, but shrink away from using it on the battlefield due to how drastically it alters how a battle progresses. It doesn't matter much if you have it or not. If that idea doesn't change until faced with foe that does use the technology effectively, it's hard to justify the claim that all ideas are ever changing. That doesn't disqualify the notion that geography and resources will fuel or enable cultural change. China couldn't have retreated into itself if it was easy for Europe to influence it for example. 



> Therefore, using this logic, north has stated that religion IS an idea, but technology and science are NOT ideas and hence, not cultural.  What think you?



Matching "logic" with "logic" doesn't generate a valid argument. It generates a similar "logical" argument.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jun 19, 2005)

Marginal said:
			
		

> Which set of beliefs are they designed to attack?


 Based on many of Northkyosa's other posts, the argument seems designed to pave the way for a philosophical egalitarian view. In other words, the goal is to try and make egalitarian philosophy, somehow, scientific. I already outlined how it's merely a continuation of Marx did when he declared Marxism a science. It's designed to avoid any questioning of the philosophy by convincing people it is unassailable truth. Diamond himself admits that part of his motivation for writting, "Guns, Germs and Steel" was to attack racism and the believe that some races are superior to others. I have nothing wrong with that conclusion at it's face. Where I emphatically disagree is that idea that abstract human concepts, like philosophy, science, technology, have absolutely nothing to do with a societies success or failure. I find the argument ludicrous. I also believe that morality has no place in the discussion, open or veiled. 




			
				Marginal said:
			
		

> Right's only relative when your ideas aren't universally correct.


 I'm not sure what your'e suggesting is universally correct. Perhaps you could expound. 

None of this argument is about right or wrong, it's about a basic understanding of the function of societies, ideas, technology, environment, and how they interact to determine what cultures succeed and fail. A morality play is a redherring issue, it's a purely emotional argument which has absolutely nothing to do with the whole discussion. I have to question your motive in making this about morality at all.





			
				Marginal said:
			
		

> Actually, I'm more interested in pointing out the absurdity of hiding behind a relativist shield while attacking relativism.


 I have not attacked relativism, since I never once took a moral stand. So you might want to ask that question to someone it applies to. I'm concerned with logical conclusions that can be arrived at by the evidence, and it is that which Northkyosa has failed to support.





			
				Marginal said:
			
		

> It's not a morality question/discussion. It's just reducing the rhetoric to its essence. If we're just folks that happened across greatness through geographic location, then we're not that one glimmering speck that matters in God's eye. Hence the overemotional rhetoric attacking the notion.


 I have reduced the rhetoric to it's essence, a fact that annoyed Northkyosa. Further, god is irrelavent in this discussion. 

What is your main flaw is the belief that I have any interest in proving that any group is "special". In fact, you may have answered your own question about the motive I referred to earlier...i.e., the goal of showing that "no one is special and everyone is special" by showing that everyone is where they are by accident, is irrelavent. I could care less that we all arrived, ultimately, by accident. In truth, i'm more interested in learning what cultural mechanisms were effective in giving a group advantage. If that's your position, fine, but accept it for what it is, a philosophical world view and don't go to the disingenuous extent of calling it "science" when it is clearly not supported by the evidence. 

I could care less that we all arrived, ultimately, by accident. In truth, i'm more interested in learning what cultural mechanisms were effective in giving a group advantage. I am concerned with ideas, and which ones are better than others. I have an interest in fighting the idiotic idea that no group has adaptive cultural characteristics that can be emulated for success. I actually believe the core of Northkyosa's arguments is: 

"Western Culture is bad, bad, bad, and Diamond and I have proven scientifically that there is nothing there to emulate, so we should just alter our culture to reflect my moral point of view since Diamond and I have proven that Western Culture has only been successful by accident, and that nothing cultural is irrelavent, so there's no reason to try and take anything useful from it, we can just start over." That is not a scientific argument. 





			
				Marginal said:
			
		

> Nothing except that the theory advanced REMOVES the issue of morality from the equation. Cultural development's mainly reduced to a blind algorhythmic process under the theory's view.


 Actually, that's a bogus claim, because it does just the opposite. It attempts to set the stage for incertaining morality in to the equation. It was not a moral issue to begin with, so there is no need to remove morality. What Northkyosa's argument attempts to do is insert morality IN TO the equation, for the purposes of advancing a humanistic philosophy. If you want to spout humanistic philosophical perspectives, fine, but don't try and disguise it as science. Science should only be concerned with objective truth. A pursuit that is tainted when coupled with an agenda. 




			
				Marginal said:
			
		

> Gunpowder is concrete. It exists. It is not merely an idea. (Same thing with most technology) How it is put to use (rockets, fireworks, propellant for hunks of lead etc) is up to the culture that develops/encounters it.


 Not an extremely clever argument. Find me a gunpowder mine. Not only how it is used, but THAT it exists, is up to the human mind and the culture that carries the knowledge. Gunpowder did not just spring out of the ground. It's much like claiming that the Space Shuttle is just a product of the environment. We just go to the Space Shuttle mine and find one. Inventions do not occur naturally, they are products of abstract thoughts. Do you wish to advance an argument otherwise. That would be the most argument of this whole topic. 



			
				Marginal said:
			
		

> For example, if you are first in developing gunpowder, but shrink away from using it on the battlefield due to how drastically it alters how a battle progresses. It doesn't matter much if you have it or not. If that idea doesn't change until faced with foe that does use the technology effectively, it's hard to justify the claim that all ideas are ever changing. That doesn't disqualify the notion that geography and resources will fuel or enable cultural change. China couldn't have retreated into itself if it was easy for Europe to influence it for example.


The interesting thing about both arguments that you made there is this...both of them point to cultural factors determine success or failure of a society, rather than purely geography and resources. That has been my argument all along, that declaring cultural factors are irrelavent has no scientific validity and is only designed to serve an agenda. 

The argument has never been simply that "geography and resources" fuel or enable cultural change. If that were the case I wouldn't have bothered to argue. North's argument was that they were the only source of change. I have advanced the argument that the very idea is extremely reductionist and does not even come close to explaining the complex variables present in human cultures. Geography and concrete resources are far from THE agent of cultural success or failure. The fact that ideas and ideology were relegated to irrelavent status is what really baffles me the most, given that all the evidence suggests otherwise. Moreover, it has become obvious that the argument is fueled by ulterior philosophical motives. 



			
				Marginal said:
			
		

> Matching "logic" with "logic" doesn't generate a valid argument. It generates a similar "logical" argument.


 So you're suggesting that you utilize another process other than logic to come to logical conclusions? I'd be very interested in hearing you explain this other method of arriving at understanding.

Bottom line, if you're looking for an argument about the fundamental moral superiority of western culture, you're barking up the wrong tree.  I believe that it is the myriad of ideas and concepts that western culture was exposed to that made it successful.  

But if you're trying to claim that cultural characteristics and abstract thoughts and ideas are irrelavent to our survival as a species, then i'll engage in that argument.


----------



## Marginal (Jun 19, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> Based on many of Northkyosa's other posts, the argument seems designed to pave the way for a philosophical egalitarian view. In other words, the goal is to try and make egalitarian philosophy, somehow, scientific. I already outlined how it's merely a continuation of Marx did when he declared Marxism a science. It's designed to avoid any questioning of the philosophy by convincing people it is unassailable truth.



Ah. So what then, is the unassailable truth? 




> I'm not sure what your'e suggesting is universally correct. Perhaps you could expound.



It's dependent on how you approach the argument. Sharp Phil for example seems to be taking a Kant angle, which involves setting up a bunch of universal ideals in an attempt to eradicate relativism. (Since nothing's ever accomplished while attempting to discuss a relativistic issue.) 



> I have to question your motive in making this about morality at all.



Attacking the person. (Thought you wanted to move away from this....)



> I have reduced the rhetoric to it's essence, a fact that annoyed Northkyosa. Further, god is irrelavent in this discussion.



Just a metaphor. 



> What is your main flaw is the belief that I have any interest in proving that any group is "special".



You do have multiple groups that you blatantly consider not special. Would seem to follow that you're elevating _something_ while busily attacking those groups.



> could care less that we all arrived, ultimately, by accident. In truth, i'm more interested in learning what cultural mechanisms were effective in giving a group advantage.



Even if those mechanisms were dictated largely by a culture's reaction to an environment rather than culture?



> If that's your position, fine, but accept it for what it is, a philosophical world view and don't go to the disingenuous extent of calling it "science" when it is clearly not supported by the evidence.



Still don't see a lot of support for the "not science" aspect. 



> "Western Culture is bad, bad, bad, and Diamond and I have proven scientifically that there is nothing there to emulate, so we should just alter our culture to reflect my moral point of view since Diamond and I have proven that Western Culture has only been successful by accident, and that nothing cultural is irrelavent, so there's no reason to try and take anything useful from it, we can just start over." That is not a scientific argument.



Ah. So you're defending western culture. 

Regardless, the core of the theory, regardless of what one takes from it isn't really diminished. Social darwinism doens't discredit evolutionary theory for example. 

Personally I don't see any real roots for it attacking western culture any more than it does say, islamic culture. (Does gut nationalism, but that's a dead end anyway, so huzzah IMO.) 



> Actually, that's a bogus claim, because it does just the opposite. It attempts to set the stage for incertaining morality in to the equation.



It's amazing how claiming amorality always makes people stand up and say, "That's an argument for morality!" Twice in one month.... Staggering.



> Science should only be concerned with objective truth. A pursuit that is tainted when coupled with an agenda.



Or when it threatens western culture. Natch. 




> Not an extremely clever argument. Find me a gunpowder mine. Not only how it is used, but THAT it exists, is up to the human mind and the culture that carries the knowledge.



Silly me. I went and used a historical argument. (China came up with gunpowder first, but western culture took it to its current state of development) Once people know how to make gunpowder, it becomes a resource. Unless you manage to purge the formula from the culture entirely, it's going to be there. At that point, it is a concrete (as in, fixed, not going away) element that will influence cultural development as much as figurting out how to mine and refine iron changed the shape of many a culture. 

You can't claim technology development is a fleeting intangible. Once it arises, it's pretty much there until something better supplants it.



> Inventions do not occur naturally, they are products of abstract thoughts.



The bronze age, the iron age etc did not occur naturally either. Abstract thoughts give rise to material goods, which are then resources to that culture. If they existed purely as ideas, then they'd have no influence on the culture. 



> That has been my argument all along, that declaring cultural factors are irrelavent has no scientific validity and is only designed to serve an agenda.



Much like nurture vs nature.



> The argument has never been simply that "geography and resources" fuel or enable cultural change. If that were the case I wouldn't have bothered to argue. North's argument was that they were the only source of change.



You're welcome to demonstrate otherwise.



> The fact that ideas and ideology were relegated to irrelavent status is what really baffles me the most, given that all the evidence suggests otherwise.



Aren't going to invent a steel sword until you've figured out how to work iron. Aren't going to do either without the proper ore.



> So you're suggesting that you utilize another process other than logic to come to logical conclusions?


There's logic and then there's "logic". Using bad logic to counter bad logic doesn't produce sound logic on its own. 



> Bottom line, if you're looking for an argument about the fundamental moral superiority of western culture, you're barking up the wrong tree.  I believe that it is the myriad of ideas and concepts that western culture was exposed to that made it successful.



Never the resources? All mentalics? This discussion would work just as well if you were arguing for free will vs destiny.



> But if you're trying to claim that cultural characteristics and abstract thoughts and ideas are irrelavent to our survival as a species, then i'll engage in that argument.



Such an argument's futile until there's some set of standard definitions. We can't do much more than quibble over what the term "resource" means at the moment...

For example, Edison was a resource. (People are definite things though their ideas may not be considered as such even though they puzzlingly persist long after the person, the actual thing is gone) He provided multiple concrete things to society which altered society. As Edison was a resource, he therefore was an environmental factor. Society didn't drive Edison to create the lightbulb, Edison directed society by inventing it. Either way, the lightbulb wasn't relevant to our survival as a species in the least, so I'm not sure what your point is.  Unless humanity's survival exclusively hinges upon creating successful forms of government and fairy tales, those resources have to figure in heavily. Especially when determining how lasting those any given idea becomes. Humanity can survive as a species without light bulbs, cars, a definite system of government, or really much more than a consistent source that fufills basic survival needs. (Doesn't mean the people involved with such a mess would be happy, but they'd go on reproducing. Which would fufill the whole survival of the species issue.)

Whether it is our ideas that define us or who has the best culture etc are other questions entirely that really have no relation to our survival as a species at all.


----------

