Welcome to Atheist Discussion, a new community created by former members of The Thinking Atheist forum.

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Where We Have Gone Wrong
#1

Where We Have Gone Wrong
I've had this concern brushing/bashing/burning around in my mind for a few years. Maybe decades, you never know when ideas start. So with a pack of cigs and a bottle of cheap Zinfandel, I have decided to take a shot at it. Dom, if this is the wrong place, move it...

In one sense, it is just world history, but in another, it is about the failure of the US in modern terms and mostly about that.

The history of world civilization is about a combination of trade routes and human movement. The former is determined by goods that are currently valuable according to technology and decoration. Few civilizations NEED foreign goods or they wouldn't exist. Trade is for "improvements" to life.

The "Silk Road" didn't exist because silk was required for daily life. It was a show of wealth for the powerful. And of course, trade has to go both ways. For every square yard of silk in one direction, there had to be equally-desired soft animal furs or delicate carving going the other. It is doubtful that any Roman merchant ever met a Chinese merchant; things of perceived value passed through many hands.

Later, more functional goods were traded when they became valuable enough to be hauled around or the ideas traded and different cultures took advantage of technology to different degrees. There became some discrepancies between true value and perceived value.

At one time, the Chinese were the most technically advanced people. And this is not any sort of culture-comparison. Indeed, it is the opposite. No culture or people are superior. We are all Homo Sapiens sapiens. But in some places and in some times, some of us discover things that give advantage.

Don't worry, I AM getting to a point here... Wink

The Chinese once had good reason to think they were the center of the world. They controlled a lot of old world trade and for good reason. But they locked themselves (withdrew) into an internally-controlled powerful world of their own making.

Trade routes and inventiveness moved to SW Asia. Indian Asin and Middle Eastern cultures (somewhat isolated from China's withdrawal) developed new ideas. Fewer symbols for writing. Better concepts of math (zero). Simplified counting and accounting systems. They took what they had learned from the Chinese and improved it.

There was warfare, and many developments came from that. Horse-riding, stirrups, better bows for a few. Warfare always forces technology improvements.

But the SW Asian and Middle Eastern cultures declined as they fell into routines of buying what they desired from others rather than creating what they wanted.

Other cultures were developing at that time. European "small-states" were attacked from the north by Vikings, and from the est, and south by newly energized Islamic tribes and converts. No historical surprise there, just a fact. Religions do what religions do. But yes, the Islamists attacked Europe first.

A consequence was that the remnants of the Romans were little city-states and were forced into cooperation against both threats. Over a century or 2, they became either nations or some sort of mutual-aid principalities (hence "Princes"). And became the world's most talented thugs. It was all in self-defense (and I mean that). If you couldn't finally fight off Vikings and Islamist warriors, you died.

And what do you do with an army of thugs? You attack back. And they did. But what happened after the thugs (crusaders) returned to Europe? They brought their new trade goods with them. Spices, art, and knowledge of math.

Based on that, Europe became the new hub of trade. Western Europe was best positioned to sail around and find new goods. They were on the shores of the Atlantic. I am not making any value judgements here.

When the Western Europeans discovered and colonized the New World (not that it was empty), new trade goods became available. After a couple hundred years (give or take some decades), new nations emerged (Canada, the US, Mexico, South American nations, etc.

And the focus of trade routes changed from Europe to those places. There was nothing really special about those peoples, they were just sitting on top of world-wide useful resources. The US was best resources, so it developed faster and grew stronger. In that regard, the US Civil War is mostly a blip on the trading screen.

Otto Bismark once said that (basically) The US is lucky to have weak neighbors north and south and oceans east and west. And we thrived on that.

So, to the gist of my rant...

There was a time when the US manufactured most of what it needed. We were a Middle Class nation. We needed no one else. We fought in WWII, but not like the Soviets or Western Europe, Yeah maybe we are why The Soviets didn't accomplish what Hitler tried to do, but we came out of it intact. And The US enjoyed an economic advantage for decades.

But that was a temporary thing. The "Pax Americana" was good for decades, but it wasn't by any "superiority" of culture.

Here's the rub (and my point). It could have lasted longer, to the general benefit of the world. But we did what most all major trade powers have done as far back as there is civilization...

We eased back. We enjoyed our position. We became luxurialists. We went for pleasure at the expense of maintenance. Screw the collapsing bridge, lower my taxes so I can have a backyard swimming pool... We grabbed today...

Our infrastructure is crumbling. We are no longer a Middle Class people who build things; we are trying to get by with the falling-downs, hoping they will outlast us... We are living on our past and the past is catching up. Things are falling apart.

When everyone is out for joy in the short term, where does the long-term go?

There isn't a long path from being in a new house to it falling down. But that is what we are doing. You can party in a new place, but where do you go when the roof starts to leak? We have been doing that.

And we are divided more than any time since 1860. Then, it was about slavery. Read the various Southern Articles of Confederation if you doubt me. We made some progress for a while, but we are falling back.

If I have explained this clearly enough, you understand that no nation is in power for good or ill forever. Some "world powers" are better than others, but all fail in favor of some "new world order". And some can be good. Or not. "Goodness" is not required of a "world power".

I fear we are fading. There may be some temporary good times of positive influence world responsibility ahead worth noting. But I think it will be "the last hurrah" unless we get our act together and stop the current nonsense.

Lincoln said "A house divided against itself cannot stand". We are so very divided today. If we don't fix ourselves and become renewed, we will fall as the house in Lincoln's analogy.

I don't want that. I fight against it. But what is one person against a Wall of anger and hatred.

I read of a woman who said she got her news about "that fake virus", on Fox News "but they are too leftist for me now". She watches a more "rightist" channel these days.

What on Earth have we become? Are people drinking from lead pipes? Are they taking arsenic or mercury pills? What is happening to us?

I'm beginning to be glad I'm old and getting older... Maybe dementia at 90 will be a kindness.

Cavebear
Never try to catch a dropped kitchen knife!
The following 1 user Likes Cavebear's post:
  • Dom
Reply
#2

Where We Have Gone Wrong
The people who made the manufacturing decisions didn't have any loyalty to the US, just the US$. They put profit ahead of country or people.
[Image: M-Spr20-Weapons-FEATURED-1-1200x350-c-default.jpg]
The following 1 user Likes Gawdzilla Sama's post:
  • tomilay
Reply
#3

Where We Have Gone Wrong
The first thing to disappear under a Democracy is democracy itself.

We only have the illusion left today.      Sadsmiley
I'm a creationist;   I believe that man created God.
Reply
#4

Where We Have Gone Wrong
(08-29-2020, 06:09 PM)Cavebear Wrote: I've had this concern brushing/bashing/burning around in my mind for a few years.  Maybe decades, you never know when ideas start.  So with a pack of cigs and a bottle of cheap Zinfandel, I have decided to take a shot at it.  Dom, if this is the wrong place, move it...

In one sense, it is just world history, but in another, it is about the failure of the US in modern terms and mostly about that.

The history of world civilization is about a combination of trade routes and human movement.  The former is determined by goods that are currently valuable according to technology and decoration.  Few civilizations NEED foreign goods or they wouldn't exist.  Trade is for "improvements" to life.

The "Silk Road" didn't exist because silk was required for daily life.  It was a show of wealth for the powerful.  And of course, trade has to go both ways.  For every square yard of silk in one direction, there had to be equally-desired soft animal furs or delicate carving going the other.  It is doubtful that any Roman merchant ever met a Chinese merchant; things of perceived value passed through many hands.

Later, more functional goods were traded when they became valuable enough to be hauled around or the ideas traded and different cultures took advantage of technology to different degrees.  There became some discrepancies between true value and perceived value.  

At one time, the Chinese were the most technically advanced people.  And this is not any sort of culture-comparison.  Indeed, it is the opposite.  No culture or people are superior.  We are all Homo Sapiens sapiens.  But in some places and in some times, some of us discover things that give advantage.

Don't worry, I AM getting to a point here...  Wink

The Chinese once had good reason to think they were the center of the world.  They controlled a lot of old world trade and for good reason.  But they locked themselves (withdrew) into an internally-controlled powerful world of their own making.

Trade routes and inventiveness moved to SW Asia.  Indian Asin and Middle Eastern cultures (somewhat isolated from China's withdrawal) developed new ideas.  Fewer symbols for writing.  Better concepts of math (zero).  Simplified counting and accounting systems.  They took what they had learned from the Chinese and improved it.

There was warfare, and many developments came from that.  Horse-riding, stirrups, better bows for a few.  Warfare always forces technology improvements.

But the SW Asian and Middle Eastern cultures declined as they fell into routines of buying what they desired from others rather than creating what they wanted.  

Other cultures were developing at that time.  European "small-states" were attacked from the north by Vikings, and from the est, and south by newly energized Islamic tribes and converts.  No historical surprise there, just a fact.  Religions do what religions do.  But yes, the Islamists attacked Europe first.

A consequence was that the remnants of the Romans were little city-states and were forced into cooperation against both threats.  Over a century or 2, they became either nations or some sort of mutual-aid principalities (hence "Princes").   And became the world's most talented thugs.  It was all in self-defense (and I mean that).   If you couldn't finally fight off Vikings and Islamist warriors, you died.

And what do you do with an army of thugs?  You attack back.  And they did.  But what happened after the thugs (crusaders) returned to Europe?  They brought their new trade goods with them.  Spices, art, and knowledge of math.

Based on that, Europe became the new hub of trade.  Western Europe was best positioned to sail around and find new goods.  They were on the shores of the Atlantic.  I am not making any value judgements here.

When the Western Europeans discovered and colonized the New World (not that it was empty), new trade goods became available.  After  a couple hundred years (give or take some decades), new nations emerged (Canada, the US, Mexico, South American nations, etc.

And the focus of trade routes changed from Europe to those places.  There was nothing really special about those peoples, they were just sitting on top of world-wide useful resources.  The US was best resources, so it developed faster and grew stronger.  In that regard, the US Civil War is mostly a blip on the trading screen.  

Otto Bismark once said that (basically) The US is lucky to have weak neighbors north and south and oceans east and west.  And we thrived on that.  

So, to the gist of my rant...

There was a time when the US manufactured most of what it needed.  We were a Middle Class nation.  We needed no one else.  We fought in WWII, but not like the Soviets or Western Europe, Yeah maybe we are why The Soviets didn't accomplish what Hitler tried to do, but we came out of it intact. And The US enjoyed an economic advantage for decades.

But that was a temporary thing.  The "Pax Americana" was good for decades, but it wasn't by any "superiority" of culture.  

Here's the rub (and my point).  It could have lasted longer, to the general benefit of the world.  But we did what most all major trade powers have done as far back as there is civilization...

We eased back.  We enjoyed our position.  We became luxurialists.  We went for pleasure at the expense of maintenance.  Screw the collapsing bridge, lower my taxes so I can have a backyard swimming pool...  We grabbed today...

Our infrastructure is crumbling.  We are no longer a Middle Class people who build things; we are trying to get by with the falling-downs, hoping they will outlast us...  We are living on our past and the past is catching up.  Things are falling apart.  

When everyone is out for joy in the short term, where does the long-term go?  

There isn't a long path from being in a new house to it falling down.  But that is what we are doing.  You can party in a new place, but where do you go when the roof starts to leak?  We have been doing that.

And we are divided more than any time since 1860.  Then, it was about slavery. Read the various Southern Articles of Confederation if you doubt me.  We made some progress  for a while, but we are falling back.

If I have explained this clearly enough, you understand that no nation is in power for good or ill forever.  Some "world powers" are better than others, but all fail in favor of some "new world order".  And some can be good.  Or not.  "Goodness" is not required of a "world power".  

I fear we are fading.  There may be some temporary good times of positive influence world responsibility ahead worth noting.  But I think it will be "the last hurrah" unless we get our act together and stop the  current nonsense.  

Lincoln said "A house divided against itself cannot stand".  We are so very divided today.  If we don't fix ourselves and become renewed, we will fall as the house in Lincoln's analogy.  

I don't want that.  I fight against it.  But what is one person against a Wall of anger and hatred.  

I read of a woman who said she got her news about "that fake virus", on Fox News "but they are too leftist for me now".  She watches a more "rightist" channel these days.  

What on Earth have we become?  Are people drinking from lead pipes?  Are they taking arsenic or mercury pills?  What is happening to us?

I'm beginning to be glad I'm old and getting older...  Maybe dementia at 90 will be a kindness.

Cavebear

While Western Europe and most other developed countries took care of theirs by providing health care and schooling to everyone, we continued along a path that declares such government measures to be a loss of freedom. Very dumb really, not having to worry about doctor's bills or student loans is liberating, not enslaving.

By now we are 5 decades behind. The gap between rich and poor has grown to be so huge that civil unrest has begun. 

We have no common purpose to unite us. No call to action that unifies the response. That is probably why trump supporters cling to him, he gives a rag tag group of societal fringe elements a reason to unite and a common purpose.
[Image: color%5D%5Bcolor=#333333%5D%5Bsize=small%5D%5Bfont=T...ans-Serif%5D]
The following 6 users Like Dom's post:
  • Cavebear, M.Linoge, GenesisNemesis, skyking, Mark, trdsf
Reply
#5

Where We Have Gone Wrong
TL/DR 

I'm gonna say Albuquerque.
Being told you're delusional does not necessarily mean you're mental. 
The following 1 user Likes brewerb's post:
  • Dānu
Reply
#6

Where We Have Gone Wrong
(08-29-2020, 07:04 PM)brewerb Wrote: TL/DR 

I'm gonna say Albuquerque.

There are Bugs in your theory. Consider
[Image: M-Spr20-Weapons-FEATURED-1-1200x350-c-default.jpg]
The following 2 users Like Gawdzilla Sama's post:
  • brewerb, Cavebear
Reply
#7

Where We Have Gone Wrong
(08-29-2020, 07:49 PM)Gawdzilla Sama Wrote:
(08-29-2020, 07:04 PM)brewerb Wrote: TL/DR 

I'm gonna say Albuquerque.

There are Bugs in your theory.  Consider

Swipe left.
Being told you're delusional does not necessarily mean you're mental. 
Reply
#8

Where We Have Gone Wrong
Quote:Where We Have Gone Wrong


Long ago and far far away.....   some idiot who was a third rate hunter said:  "Enough of this roaming around shit.  Let's settle down, build houses and grow grain.  Of course, then we need a class of people to protect us from marauders who want to steal our stuff, we'll call them warriors.  And then we need someone to tell the gods when we need rain because the gods are too stupid to know that by themselves, we'll call those people priests.  And then we need someone to oversee the whole shebang so we'll call him the king."

It has been down the shitter ever since.
Robert G. Ingersoll : “No man with a sense of humor ever founded a religion.”
The following 3 users Like Minimalist's post:
  • Little Lunch, Cavebear, GenesisNemesis
Reply
#9

Where We Have Gone Wrong
(08-29-2020, 07:58 PM)Minimalist Wrote:
Quote:Where We Have Gone Wrong


Long ago and far far away.....   some idiot who was a third rate hunter said:  "Enough of this roaming around shit.  Let's settle down, build houses and grow grain.  Of course, then we need a class of people to protect us from marauders who want to steal our stuff, we'll call them warriors.  And then we need someone to tell the gods when we need rain because the gods are too stupid to know that by themselves, we'll call those people priests.  And then we need someone to oversee the whole shebang so we'll call him the king."

It has been down the shitter ever since.

At some various times, some people have gotten together for long enough to push the scammers and priests out of the way. I think we might want to try that again. It doesn't last forever, but life is pretty decent between dictators.

"A Republic, if you can keep it"...

Let's try that again for a while.
Never try to catch a dropped kitchen knife!
Reply
#10

Where We Have Gone Wrong
Empires have continually come and gone, throughout history. The American illusion is that we are exempt from this pattern. A couple of good books which address some of the issues you bring up are Guns, Germs, and Steel, from Jared Diamond, and The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers, by Paul Kennedy.

Both are somewhat dated, but still have interesting insights into why power concentrated and diminished in the various parts of the world.
On hiatus.
The following 1 user Likes Thumpalumpacus's post:
  • Cavebear
Reply
#11

Where We Have Gone Wrong
(08-29-2020, 09:18 PM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: Empires have continually come and gone, throughout history. The American illusion is that we are exempt from this pattern. A couple of good books which address some of the issues you bring up are Guns, Germas, and Steel, from Jared Diamond, and The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers, by Paul Kennedy.

Both are somewhat dated, but still have interesting insights into why power concentrated and diminished in the various parts of the world.

I would give you 3 LIKES if I could for this! Jared Diamond illuminated my life when I read 'Guns, Germs, and Steel'. I have kept up with evolution theory since I was a teen, but until I read Diamond's book, I never connected domesticality of animals, specific plants, and the effects of diseases all at once to explain where human civilizations rose or did not. It was jaw-dropping.

I would have to write pages to explain the effect his book had on my understanding of human development, but just let it be that "it was almost the human universe explained".
Never try to catch a dropped kitchen knife!
The following 1 user Likes Cavebear's post:
  • Thumpalumpacus
Reply
#12

Where We Have Gone Wrong
Then you should read this one, too.

https://www.npr.org/2011/08/08/138924127...orld-to-be

Quote:But it was Columbus' activities in the years that followed, says writer Charles C. Mann, that really created the New World. When Columbus crossed the Atlantic in 1492, his journey prompted the exchange of not only information but also food, animals, insects, plants and viruses between the continents.

"It was a tremendous ecological convulsion — the greatest event in the history of life since the death of the dinosaurs," says Mann. "And this underlies a huge amount of history learned in schools: the Industrial Revolution, the Agricultural Revolution, the rise of the West — all of these are tied up in what's been called the 'Columbian exchange.' "
Robert G. Ingersoll : “No man with a sense of humor ever founded a religion.”
The following 2 users Like Minimalist's post:
  • Cavebear, Thumpalumpacus
Reply
#13

Where We Have Gone Wrong
Humans went wrong several thousand years ago.
The following 2 users Like no one's post:
  • Bcat, GenesisNemesis
Reply
#14

Where We Have Gone Wrong
(08-29-2020, 09:30 PM)Cavebear Wrote:
(08-29-2020, 09:18 PM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: Empires have continually come and gone, throughout history. The American illusion is that we are exempt from this pattern. A couple of good books which address some of the issues you bring up are Guns, Germas, and Steel, from Jared Diamond, and The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers, by Paul Kennedy.

Both are somewhat dated, but still have interesting insights into why power concentrated and diminished in the various parts of the world.

I would give you 3 LIKES if I could for this!  Jared Diamond illuminated my life when I read 'Guns, Germs, and Steel'.  I have kept up with evolution theory since I was a teen, but until I read Diamond's book, I never connected domesticality of animals, specific plants, and the effects of diseases all at once to explain where human civilizations rose or did not.  It was jaw-dropping.  

I would have to write pages to explain the effect his book had on my understanding of human development, but just let it be that "it was almost the human universe explained".

Yeah, that book took me from understanding the nuts-and-bolts of biological evolution to understanding how it interacted with cultural evolution.

Check out Kennedy's book too if you haven't already. It reviews the history of a few empires from the past, analyzes (in his outlook) why they faded, and then applies the insights of that study to modern America. His central thesis is the idea that "imperial overstretch" -- his term, not mine -- is what does empires in.

Quote:Paul Kennedy did not argue that a great nation must pull back completely, retreat from international affairs, or become isolationist when assessing the cost of international commitments. Nor did he did claim that the decline of a great global power, such as the United States, is inevitable. He stressed, rather, that national leaders should be aware of the interaction between strategy and economics. If leaders extend a country’s reach beyond the capacity of its material resources, wrote Kennedy, “the nation will be less secure in the long term.” That message is as relevant today as it was back in 1987, when many Americans found The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers a thoughtful commentary on the lessons of history.

http://hnn.us/article/124000
On hiatus.
Reply
#15

Where We Have Gone Wrong
(08-29-2020, 09:40 PM)Minimalist Wrote: Then you should read this one, too.

https://www.npr.org/2011/08/08/138924127...orld-to-be

Quote:But it was Columbus' activities in the years that followed, says writer Charles C. Mann, that really created the New World. When Columbus crossed the Atlantic in 1492, his journey prompted the exchange of not only information but also food, animals, insects, plants and viruses between the continents.

"It was a tremendous ecological convulsion — the greatest event in the history of life since the death of the dinosaurs," says Mann. "And this underlies a huge amount of history learned in schools: the Industrial Revolution, the Agricultural Revolution, the rise of the West — all of these are tied up in what's been called the 'Columbian exchange.' "

I understand. European germs especially were brutal to New World inhabitants. But most of Diamond's book involves older times before that. It's about why horses were domesticated and llamas and zebras were not. It is about why Eurasians an North Africans had wheat and barley (mutatabiity) and Americans had corn and potatoes. It is about why metalurgy developed in some places and not others.

EuroAsians developed a resistance to animal diseases because they lived with them. The deaths were the same over time, but not sudden. I have a genetic resistance to influenza because some of my ancestors died from it generations ago and some didn't and I'm from them... Same with measles, mumps, etc. The "common cold" (a standard rhinovirus) was once lethal but not to some ancient Celtic parent. It was only when people not weeded out genetically over generations exposed Native Americans and other First People that some bacteria and viruses went rampant.

"They" didn't give the newcomers much in the way of diseases because they had fewer domesticated animals to provide exposure and develop resistance to.

Human migration has always been cruel. Jared Diamond asked why Incas didn't land in Spain. His answer was basically horses, wheat and smallpox...
Never try to catch a dropped kitchen knife!
The following 1 user Likes Cavebear's post:
  • Thumpalumpacus
Reply
#16

Where We Have Gone Wrong
(08-29-2020, 09:40 PM)Minimalist Wrote: Then you should read this one, too.

https://www.npr.org/2011/08/08/138924127...orld-to-be

Quote:But it was Columbus' activities in the years that followed, says writer Charles C. Mann, that really created the New World. When Columbus crossed the Atlantic in 1492, his journey prompted the exchange of not only information but also food, animals, insects, plants and viruses between the continents.

"It was a tremendous ecological convulsion — the greatest event in the history of life since the death of the dinosaurs," says Mann. "And this underlies a huge amount of history learned in schools: the Industrial Revolution, the Agricultural Revolution, the rise of the West — all of these are tied up in what's been called the 'Columbian exchange.' "

Surely. The conjunction of invasive species, invasive diseases, and invasive technology had native Americans on the short end of the stick.

What Diamond addresses is why European powers were able to mount exploration while other major civilizations weren't. He argues that the geography of Europe, broken by mountains and rivers, gave rise to smaller fiefdoms in direct competition with each other, protected by barriers, which fueled an "arms race" of sorts.

We know in biological evolution that speciation happens fastest when selection pressures are highest. His thesis, at its core, is that cultural evolution as well speeds up when pressures from outside force it.
On hiatus.
The following 2 users Like Thumpalumpacus's post:
  • Cavebear, Chas
Reply
#17

Where We Have Gone Wrong
(08-29-2020, 10:28 PM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:
(08-29-2020, 09:40 PM)Minimalist Wrote: Then you should read this one, too.

https://www.npr.org/2011/08/08/138924127...orld-to-be

Quote:But it was Columbus' activities in the years that followed, says writer Charles C. Mann, that really created the New World. When Columbus crossed the Atlantic in 1492, his journey prompted the exchange of not only information but also food, animals, insects, plants and viruses between the continents.

"It was a tremendous ecological convulsion — the greatest event in the history of life since the death of the dinosaurs," says Mann. "And this underlies a huge amount of history learned in schools: the Industrial Revolution, the Agricultural Revolution, the rise of the West — all of these are tied up in what's been called the 'Columbian exchange.' "

Surely. The conjunction of invasive species, invasive diseases, and invasive technology had native Americans on the short end of the stick.

What Diamond addresses is why European powers were able to mount exploration while other major civilizations weren't. He argues that the geography of Europe, broken by mountains and rivers, gave rise to smaller fiefdoms in direct competition with each other, protected by barriers, which fueled an "arms race" of sorts.

We know in biological evolution that speciation happens fastest when selection pressures are highest. His thesis, at its core, is that cultural evolution as well speeds up when pressures from outside force it.

I agree fully, but look back a bit further. The resistance to smallpox etc didn't happen overnight. I read a study once that suggested that survivors of The Plague are genetically resistant to Influenza virus. But because European humans lived with their pigs and chickens in close quarters starting around 5,000 BCE some died and some didn't; we whose ancestors didn't die stayed around to infect people unused to those germs.

I think the fiefdom idea is good, but a consequence rather than a cause. It does explain the Crusades though, and that led to colonialism.
Never try to catch a dropped kitchen knife!
Reply
#18

Where We Have Gone Wrong
(08-29-2020, 10:45 PM)Cavebear Wrote:
(08-29-2020, 10:28 PM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:
(08-29-2020, 09:40 PM)Minimalist Wrote: Then you should read this one, too.

https://www.npr.org/2011/08/08/138924127...orld-to-be

Surely. The conjunction of invasive species, invasive diseases, and invasive technology had native Americans on the short end of the stick.

What Diamond addresses is why European powers were able to mount exploration while other major civilizations weren't. He argues that the geography of Europe, broken by mountains and rivers, gave rise to smaller fiefdoms in direct competition with each other, protected by barriers, which fueled an "arms race" of sorts.

We know in biological evolution that speciation happens fastest when selection pressures are highest. His thesis, at its core, is that cultural evolution as well speeds up when pressures from outside force it.

I agree fully, but look back a bit further.  The resistance to smallpox etc didn't happen overnight.  I read a study once that suggested that survivors of The Plague are genetically resistant to Influenza virus.  But because European humans lived with their pigs and chickens in close quarters starting around 5,000 BCE some died and some didn't; we whose ancestors didn't die stayed around to infect people unused to those germs.

Of course. Native Americans weren't amid many domesticable species, so weren't exposed to trans-species viruses like Europeans were. They didn't have the opportunity to build resistance.

(08-29-2020, 10:45 PM)Cavebear Wrote: I think the fiefdom idea is good, but a consequence rather than a cause.  It does explain the Crusades though, and that led to colonialism.

Not sure it was a good idea, but feudalism was a human response to disputes over resources.

I'm not sure how feudalism led to the Crusades, though. That was more engendered by the Catholic Church.

It's true that the Church justified the settlement of the Americas, but that wasn't in order to expand feudalism, but to expand the Church's power.
On hiatus.
The following 2 users Like Thumpalumpacus's post:
  • Cavebear, Gwaithmir
Reply
#19

Where We Have Gone Wrong
(08-29-2020, 10:54 PM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:
(08-29-2020, 10:45 PM)Cavebear Wrote:
(08-29-2020, 10:28 PM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: Surely. The conjunction of invasive species, invasive diseases, and invasive technology had native Americans on the short end of the stick.

What Diamond addresses is why European powers were able to mount exploration while other major civilizations weren't. He argues that the geography of Europe, broken by mountains and rivers, gave rise to smaller fiefdoms in direct competition with each other, protected by barriers, which fueled an "arms race" of sorts.

We know in biological evolution that speciation happens fastest when selection pressures are highest. His thesis, at its core, is that cultural evolution as well speeds up when pressures from outside force it.

I agree fully, but look back a bit further.  The resistance to smallpox etc didn't happen overnight.  I read a study once that suggested that survivors of The Plague are genetically resistant to Influenza virus.  But because European humans lived with their pigs and chickens in close quarters starting around 5,000 BCE some died and some didn't; we whose ancestors didn't die stayed around to infect people unused to those germs.

Of course. Native Americans weren't amid many domesticable species, so weren't exposed to trans-species viruses like Europeans were. They didn't have the opportunity to build resistance.

(08-29-2020, 10:45 PM)Cavebear Wrote: I think the fiefdom idea is good, but a consequence rather than a cause.  It does explain the Crusades though, and that led to colonialism.

Not sure they were a good idea, but they were a human response to disputes over resources.

I'm not sure how feudalism led to the Crusades, though. That was more engendered by the Catholic Church.

It's true that the Church justified the settlement of the Americas, but that wasn't in order to expand feudalism, but to expand the Church's power.

To answer: The disorganized Europeans were attacked from the North, East, and South. The people who did not fall to invaders organized. The survivors organized and learned to kill very effciently. Eventually, the Eurapeons very the very baddest most brutal warriors at the time.

Basically they killed off the Vikings from the North, the Moors from the South (Spain) and (generally) beat back the Islamists from the East. Vlad The Impaler was a typical brutal thug in The Balkans and stopped the Islamists there.

So there was a small continent (Europe) full of people who were really good at killing enemies, and guided by religious fanaticism decided to get revenge (who knew where the Vikings came from anyway?). They RESPONDED to the Islamist assaults on Europe by attacking back.

Let me mention that they were ALL insane crazed gangers. Any gang/mobster group that faced THOSE guys today would have fled in terror.

It may have had a religious coating on it, but basically, there was a large population of bored military nuts with nothing better to do than rape and loot.

VIOLA! The Crusades. And not exactly unjustified, though Islamists like to play the victims. Well, they started it. They got more than they bargained for, though they did win locally.
Never try to catch a dropped kitchen knife!
Reply
#20

Where We Have Gone Wrong
(08-29-2020, 11:20 PM)Cavebear Wrote: To answer:  The disorganized Europeans were attacked from the North, East, and South.  The people who did not fall to invaders organized.  The survivors organized and learned to kill very effciently.  Eventually, the Eurapeons very the very baddest most brutal warriors at the time.

Basically they killed off the Vikings from the North, the Moors from the South (Spain) and (generally) beat back the Islamists from the East.  Vlad The Impaler was a typical brutal thug in The Balkans and stopped the Islamists there.

So there was a small continent (Europe) full of people who were really good at killing enemies, and guided by religious fanaticism decided to get revenge (who knew where the Vikings came from anyway?).  They RESPONDED to the Islamist assaults on Europe by attacking back.  

Let me mention that they were ALL insane crazed gangers.  Any gang/mobster group that faced THOSE guys today would have fled in terror.

It may have had a religious coating on it, but basically, there was a large population of bored military nuts with nothing better to do than rape and loot.

VIOLA!  The Crusades.  And not exactly unjustified, though Islamists like to play the victims.  Well, they started it.  They got more than they bargained for, though they did win locally.

Okay. I'm not sure I agree with that reading, but I can see at least why you think that way. Certainly there was a bit of pent-up energy better expended overseas through Crusades than at home; a ducal lord would probably prefer the young bucks to be sent abroad to fight and perhaps die in a cause given blessing from Rome, rather than stay at home tilling the fields and getting angry at the Guv'nor, and perhaps mounting yet another revolt.

There was also internecine warfare between the petty European powers, which drove technological and tactical advances (star-forts, metallurgy, ship-building) that shouldn't be overlooked. Portugal, a relatively poor land, carved out a decent empire by looking to the sea and colonizing. England did the same thing on a larger scale. I think the European infighting did much to accelerate European technology. Such infighting was not so possible in, say, Russia, where command of large tracts of territory was more easily defended due to geography.
On hiatus.
The following 1 user Likes Thumpalumpacus's post:
  • Cavebear
Reply
#21

Where We Have Gone Wrong
(08-29-2020, 11:32 PM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:
(08-29-2020, 11:20 PM)Cavebear Wrote: To answer:  The disorganized Europeans were attacked from the North, East, and South.  The people who did not fall to invaders organized.  The survivors organized and learned to kill very effciently.  Eventually, the Eurapeons very the very baddest most brutal warriors at the time.

Basically they killed off the Vikings from the North, the Moors from the South (Spain) and (generally) beat back the Islamists from the East.  Vlad The Impaler was a typical brutal thug in The Balkans and stopped the Islamists there.

So there was a small continent (Europe) full of people who were really good at killing enemies, and guided by religious fanaticism decided to get revenge (who knew where the Vikings came from anyway?).  They RESPONDED to the Islamist assaults on Europe by attacking back.  

Let me mention that they were ALL insane crazed gangers.  Any gang/mobster group that faced THOSE guys today would have fled in terror.

It may have had a religious coating on it, but basically, there was a large population of bored military nuts with nothing better to do than rape and loot.

VIOLA!  The Crusades.  And not exactly unjustified, though Islamists like to play the victims.  Well, they started it.  They got more than they bargained for, though they did win locally.

Okay. I'm not sure I agree with that reading, but I can see at least why you think that way. Certainly there was a bit of pent-up energy better expended overseas through Crusades than at home; a ducal lord would probably prefer the young bucks to be sent abroad to fight and perhaps die in a cause given blessing from Rome, rather than stay at home tilling the fields and getting angry at the Guv'nor, and perhaps mounting yet another revolt.

There was also internecine warfare between the petty European powers, which drove technological and tactical advances (star-forts, metallurgy, ship-building) that shouldn't be overlooked. Portugal, a relatively poor land, carved out a decent empire by looking to the sea and colonizing. England did the same thing on a larger scale. I think the European infighting did much to accelerate European technology. Such infighting was not so possible in, say, Russia, where command of large tracts of territory was more easily defended due to geography.

I can live with that. You are looking at the consequences of the Crusades and I am looking at the causes. Dividing point around 1400 maybe as the Vandals fought the Moors and became Spanish. Good job on Portugal earlier BTW. Its geographical separated. Old Roman towns maybe. But I'm too tired to pursue that now.
Never try to catch a dropped kitchen knife!
Reply
#22

Where We Have Gone Wrong
(08-29-2020, 11:44 PM)Cavebear Wrote:
(08-29-2020, 11:32 PM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: Okay. I'm not sure I agree with that reading, but I can see at least why you think that way. Certainly there was a bit of pent-up energy better expended overseas through Crusades than at home; a ducal lord would probably prefer the young bucks to be sent abroad to fight and perhaps die in a cause given blessing from Rome, rather than stay at home tilling the fields and getting angry at the Guv'nor, and perhaps mounting yet another revolt.

There was also internecine warfare between the petty European powers, which drove technological and tactical advances (star-forts, metallurgy, ship-building) that shouldn't be overlooked. Portugal, a relatively poor land, carved out a decent empire by looking to the sea and colonizing. England did the same thing on a larger scale. I think the European infighting did much to accelerate European technology. Such infighting was not so possible in, say, Russia, where command of large tracts of territory was more easily defended due to geography.

I can live with that.  You are looking at the consequences of the Crusades and I am looking at the causes.  Dividing point around 1400 maybe as the Vandals fought the Moors and became Spanish.  Good job on Portugal earlier BTW.  Its geographical separated.  Old Roman towns maybe.  But I'm too tired to pursue that now.

No, my first paragraph and first sentence of the second are devoted to what I see as principle causes.
On hiatus.
Reply
#23

Where We Have Gone Wrong
Quote: European germs especially were brutal to New World inhabitants.


Did you ever wonder why anyone went to the trouble of setting up the Triangular Trade?  It was because the damned Native Americans were dying in droves of various European diseases and thus depriving their masters of the labor needed to run their plantations.  Africans were seen as "sturdier" probably because they had traded with the West and Muslim world and been exposed to most of the diseases.

Mann's discussion of the role of malaria in the development of the new world was simply astonishing.  Far more important than George Washington, Simon Bolivar or the United Fruit Co. to the shaping of the Americas.  It's a fascinating read but the Columbian Exchange impacted, for better or worse, the entire world.


Can you imagine Italian cooking without tomatoes?
Robert G. Ingersoll : “No man with a sense of humor ever founded a religion.”
Reply
#24

Where We Have Gone Wrong
(08-30-2020, 01:21 AM)Minimalist Wrote:
Quote: European germs especially were brutal to New World inhabitants.


Did you ever wonder why anyone went to the trouble of setting up the Triangular Trade?  It was because the damned Native Americans were dying in droves of various European diseases and thus depriving their masters of the labor needed to run their plantations.  Africans were seen as "sturdier" probably because they had traded with the West and Muslim world and been exposed to most of the diseases.

Mann's discussion of the role of malaria in the development of the new world was simply astonishing.  Far more important than George Washington, Simon Bolivar or the United Fruit Co. to the shaping of the Americas.  It's a fascinating read but the Columbian Exchange impacted, for better or worse, the entire world.


Can you imagine Italian cooking without tomatoes?

Irish food without potatoes? That's another New World import. Now the 4th-largest crop in the world.

To your earlier note, "sturdier" or not, African slaves were available.
On hiatus.
The following 1 user Likes Thumpalumpacus's post:
  • Cavebear
Reply
#25

Where We Have Gone Wrong
Yes, at great cost and risk.  Sailing in a 16th-17th century merchant was not for the faint of heart.  But the profits made it worthwhile and the reason for the profits was that the Indians' failure to keep breathing created a serious labor shortage for the capitalists of the day.  And then as now, the capitalists can't stand anything that hurts the bottom line.
Robert G. Ingersoll : “No man with a sense of humor ever founded a religion.”
The following 2 users Like Minimalist's post:
  • Thumpalumpacus, Cavebear
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)