- #1
- 3,401
- 3
In the thread Why this is still Amerikkka, there is 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.
I think it would be useful to have a discussion of the general topic of how Homo sapiens came to be socially organised into permanent settlements, how agriculture began, and what the factors behind the development of sedentary animal husbandry were.
First though, some of the existing posts. This is where it seems to have begun:
I think it would be useful to have a discussion of the general topic of how Homo sapiens came to be socially organised into permanent settlements, how agriculture began, and what the factors behind the development of sedentary animal husbandry were.
First though, some of the existing posts. This is where it seems to have begun:
Then it rolled along ...bobf said:How does the lack of advancement in technology in Africa play into this? Why is it that Africa lags so far behind in technology then other countries? Anyone have any in-depth knowledge of the history of the African countries? I hear that the blacks in Africa never advanced to a written language. How true is this?chroot said:Just keep in mind, as Evo is trying to point out, that literally hundreds of socioeconomic factors come into play when you try to figure out why blacks score lower on average than asians -- everything from the way black children are treated in kindergarten classes to the schools, neighborhoods, and occupations black people choose in order to minimize their social burden. The disparity in scores is probably not because blacks are inherently less intelligent than asians. All the SAT score disparity shows is that there's an SAT score disparity. Last I checked, SATs were not a reliable indicator of raw intelligence, and I doubt any such test really exists.
bobf said:How does intelligence play into the advancement of technology? Are you suggesting that it doesn't? Why do you think white europeans stumbled into the Industrial Revolution?chroot said:I'm no anthropologist, but, to the best of my knowledge, raw human intelligence has not really changed much over the last 10,000 to 50,000 years. Certainly we now have better technology, and have figured out more of the world (math, science, etc.) than our ancestors, but that doesn't mean we are inherently, individually, more intelligent than them.
Although white Europeans happened to be the first to stumble into the Industrial Revolution, black Africans are certainly not necessarily less intelligent.
bobf said:All societies were hunters and gathers at one time. Most had to hide from predators, etc. Do you have any proof that white Europeans had it easier? How did the inventions of the Europeans play into their ability to prosper into industrious societies? How was it that whites were able to go to Africa and build modern cities, etc, if they lacked the resources in Africa?
bobf said:How were whites able to come into the area and build if predation was such a problem? What resources did the europeans have that the Africans didn't that allowed them to become more advanced?
Why havn't the tribes in Africa advanced exponentially like most of the world? Why are the majority of Africans still in tribal garb? What resources exactly are needed in your opinion for infrastructure? I am sure we can find out what resources are both plentiful and scarce in Africa.
chroot said:I don't know why you continue to ask me questions upon questions, even when I've already explained that I have no formal education on this topic. I don't know if you think this is somehow "debunking" me, but I don't feel it is.bobf said:I don't pretend to have the answers either, but I don't know how one can say intelligence does not play a role.
My basic assertion (resource availability, both physical and intellectual, enables civilization advancement) seems plausible enough; do you have any evidence that it cannot be at least partially true?
bobf said:I have many questions on the topic and find it very interesting. I am just looking for answers myself. My goal is not to debunk your argument, but rather to learn.
bobf said:Can you provide any evidence that is was chance? What information do you have on the topic? Can you define what you mean by the word chance? Wasn't China very advance at one time in history?jammieg said:"How were whites able to come into the area and build if predation was such a problem? What resources did the europeans have that the Africans didn't that allowed them to become more advanced?"-bobf
My guess is it was mostly chance, I mean one area of the world had to in all probability start flowering before others although the affects would spread outward, who is to say it was certainly due to anyone thing, it may have mostly been chance
Then it went off into the role of intelligence, and the rise of technology; these are topics for different threads. More contributions next.chroot said:{replying to jammieg} 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.