- #1
- 3,401
- 3
The genesis of this thread is Why this is still Amerikkka, where there was a lively discussion of the extent to which many sub-Saharan countries are still economically undeveloped as a result of the genes of their inhabitants, the extent to which those genes are responsible for agriculture and sedantry animal husbandry not having developed independently there, and other nonsenses.
This one is somewhat out of sequence, (being #3) and I would like to split it into two parts - pre-Industrial Revolution and post.
The first in this series Why agriculture and animal husbandry? also contains the general background, extracted from the Amerikkka thread.
Some additional, relevant posts in that thread:
This one is somewhat out of sequence, (being #3) and I would like to split it into two parts - pre-Industrial Revolution and post.
The first in this series Why agriculture and animal husbandry? also contains the general background, extracted from the Amerikkka thread.
Some additional, relevant posts in that thread:
bobf said:Why were these people the first to come up with these concepts? Was it purely by chance or was it due to intelligence? Could someone who is mentally disabled with the mind of a 2 year old be able to stumble onto these inventions?chroot said:Look at it simply: the first person or people to come up with the concept of agriculture radically changed his/her civilization, and gave that civilization a huge advantage over others. The first person to come up with an internal combustion engine did so, as well. Look around you -- there are hundreds of different techniques, materials, processes, and concepts all around you that someone had to invent or stumble across -- everything from number systems to financial systems to government structures to metal-working techniques to building techniques to industrial machines, each building on earlier successes.
chroot said:No, because it's unlikely that one individual in every such civilization would come up with civilization-changing ideas like agriculture, money, the place system, the loom, etc. at the same time. The first culture to gain a slight advantage over the others, even by pure chance, would have rapidly advanced over the others. The people who caused such advancement were particularly gifted, and particularly gifted people certainly occur in every culture.BlackVision said:What impact would the intelligence level of that group have in their technological development?chroot said:That's essentially what I'm trying to say -- what began as a very small advantage ten thousand years ago, achieved via sheer chance, would bloom into a tremendous advantage today.
And when thrown into the same atmosphere, the same society, assuming every race was equal in every single way, shouldn't it mean that every race should succeed equality in every single way as well?
bobf said:Are you suggesting that intelligence does play a role in technological advancements? Would you suggest that some groups (races) of people have more intelligent people then others?chroot said:Certainly civilization-changing concepts and inventions are due to exceptionally bright people. That doesn't mean that person's entire culture is more intelligent than the others on average, however. The majority of inventions that changed history can be attributed to either an individual, or a very small number of people.
BlackVision said:While it is true that advancements are made by the elite rather than the average, a higher median level for intelligence by a random group, would also likely mean there would be more elites.
(to be continued)chroot said:Of course, it would be asinine to say it didn't. Technological advancement requires intelligent individuals. What I don't feel is important is some notion of the intelligence of an entire group or race of people -- since most important inventions, again, were invented by particularly gifted individuals or small groups of people, and particularly gifted people exist in every group.bobf said:Are you suggesting that intelligence does play a role in technological advancements?No, that's entirely my point. You don't need to invoke some generalization about Europeans being smarter than Africans to explain their present-day lead in technology. It can be explained neatly, I think, by exponential technological growth seeded by largely chance events that happened a very long time ago.Would you suggest that some groups (races) of people have more intelligent people then others?