A great book by Jared Diamond covering 13,000 yrs of human history.
I had read posts mentioning this book on the board. I saw it in a goodwill store for 50 cents…a great buy.
As to the debate.
In his book Mr Diamond posits that man’s advancement come from envioronmental pressures rather than intelligence. While I tend to go along with that I also keep hearing the old saying…“necessity is the mother of invention”
Why should a people move from stone to metal tools if stone tools do the job well for them?
Is it not possible to never really need to advance above the basic needs of life?
If stone tools and loin cloths are all you really need does that somehow make you less a people than much more advanced people?
A wonderful book! Read it twice and have been forcing it on people ever since.
If I read him correctly, you missing his point but slightly. Advancements like metals, he is suggesting, come about in semi-hostile environments precisely because they are needed to make such environments habitable. Plus, if you can thrive where other people can’t, they are much less likely to try and take it away from you.
Just as you say, a friendly environment does not encourage “advancements” because they are not necessary. No anthropoid ape is going to go to all the trouble of learning to smelt metal just for the hell of it. He does it to impress some female…
No, seriously, folks… If you are smart, and you haven’t read this book, do so at once. Step away from the keyboard. Find your car keys. Drive to the bookstore. Now. At once.
I remember taking an Antro class in college where we talked about all these different cultures of the African continent. There was this one group whose name escapes me (anyone?) but they lived just advanced of the stone age (this was through the 70s anyway) - women basically gathered roots and berries and the men hunted for something like 3 days a week (I’m simplifying here I know).
These people were very communal, they didn’t even have a word for “mine”, everything was shared. A hunter was proud to share his kill with everyone in the village.
So for my point; Anthropologists figured that these people worked on average 15 to 20 hours A WEEK to gather all the necessary means for survival.
How many hours have you spent at the office lately?
Realy? It’s been a few years since I read this book, but I don’t remember it being an either/or environment/intelligence issue but rather that environmental factors drive the evolution of more intelligence.
I haven’t read that book but one of the points (the ‘germs’ part) deals with what is called the arrow of disease. Europeans were very lucky that their diseases (e.g. smallpox) were more deadly than the diseases the new worlders were immune to (e.g., syphilis). It could easily have gone the other way, so that Europeans landing in the New World were wiped out by mysterious plagues and never gained a foothold. What is responsible for the arrow of disease? One theory has to do with zoonotic diseases. Europeans were filty and slept with their animals, so they became immune to zoonotic diseases like the poxes. New Worlders led more pristine lifestyles and did not have immunity to zoonotic diseases.
I think I took the same Anthropology course in college. My response (which the prof found less than amusing) was to ask if the people in that society spent the remainder of the week casting spells to ward off diseases that could otherwise be cured by penicillin, which they presumably had not yet discovered. My prof responded by stating that studies showed that people in emerging societies tended to rate themselves as more happy than people in developed countries. I never saw those studies, though, so I can’t comment on them.
Technology certainly isn’t the end-all of society. But having x-rays and a working knowledge of nutrition and air conditioning are benefits that i wouldn’t trade for a shorter work week.
Interesting book. It’s lying next to my bed right now.
I haven’t finished the book yet, but I think one of his main points was that people in emerging societies are no less intelligent than people in developed countries. In fact, he posits that people in emerging socieities may even be more intelligent in some ways. In the prologue, he posits the question: if people in emerging countries are just as intelligent as people in developing countries, then why haven’t they developed technologies at the same rate, and why were the emerging societies conquered by the Europeans?
Well, if your neighbors (in a broad sense) are murderous and larcenous, advances above the basic needs of life can be helpful. Particularly if you desire to murder and steal from your neighbors rather than vice versa.
**
Depends on the advances and what you mean by “better” of course.
I’ve been unclear in making my point. Very little technology is actually needed. I don’t need to have taken health classes in public schools to be able to survive. I don’t need air conditioning to be able to deal with the heat.
I was responding to the question about which society is “better.” I, personally, would rather live in a society that has lots of technology – from the internet and THX-DDS to icemakers and packaged bologna. While being largely ignorant of nutrition may not kill me, being knowledgable about it will likely maximize my health. And while I could survive without air conditioning, “adapting” to extreme heat usually just involves sitting or sleeping in the shade during the hottest part of the day, and I’d rather be able to spend that time surfing the internet. Thus, according to my own personal criteria, technologically advanced societies are better.
You should read the book again. Or a different book I’m thinking of (I’ve read Diamond’s book three times but it was over the course of several years and I get it confused with other ones). He talks about the malnourishment common in native societies in New Zealand (or New Guinea - something in that general Pacific area). In fact, he posits that one of the main reasons for cannibalism is a lack of other sources of protein in many native diets.
It was a long time ago. It’s not anymore, for the most part. Too many people, except for certain areas.
Do advancements make people better? Better how? Morally better? No, probably not. But I like my life how it is and I really like modern conveniences like getting produce from all over the place, baseball, airplanes, books and other stuff. Good times in modern society.
You mean like the Girls Gone Wild series? Or when people videotape themselves beating up a homeless guy? Or when guys jump from the stands to beat up a 1B coach so they can get on TV?
I think that videocameras have made people better behaved in certain situations, in others it just encourages it.
I read the book once only, but I’ve forgotten this part. What I fuzzily remember is that it was an abundance of resources that allowed for agriculture and livestock and metallurgy which all allowed early civilizations to advance. That and geographic issues such as a broad east-west geography where agricultural products can be shared across a broad population, proximitely to other populations, and so on. Certain areas just didn’t have the resources to replace the hunter gathering diet with an agricultural diet.
Although I suppose if the natural hunter gatherer resources in an area were particularly abundant, then the agricultural resources would have to be that much better to make a population to . So maybe that is where an environment hostile to hunting and gathering would be an inducement to move toward agriculture. Is that where it came up?
Well, around the shop we like to say, “Laziness is the mother of invention.” If metal implements last longer than stone implements, that’s less time you have to spend knapping tools and more time to watch your daughter’s rock-ball game.
I read the book and enjoyed it. I think he errs a couple of times to make his point consistent across cultures, but all in all a terrific read.
Ok… what’s the gag here? How does this figure into the naughty things that Bush does every waking minute?
Seriously, I should point out that it isn’t just better health that comes as an advantage with technological society, but also worse health. By that I mean that you can do more things that damage your health (things that, presumably, you enjoy) with less repercussions. Even if a tribesman can live just as long as me, I can live that long even while sucking in polluted air, abusing my body with all sorts of recreational drugs, and wolfing down twinkies. I can have my health and degrade it too.
