Thread: How come every single european nation prospered by but only 1 african nation prospered.

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

That's seriously inane. You are saying that the more animals that can be shown doing this, then the less proof there is? It is opposite day?

I'm saying it's less proof of conceptualising and planning, because those sorts of behaviours CAN be automatic. And if something changes it a little bit, the animal doing it automatically
would have no fucking idea what to do. A whole group CAN be proof, IF they can show ability to adapt to changing circumstances.
But in this case, one crow, is, in fact, better proof than a whole group doing the same thing. Because with a whole group one could easily argue they are just doing it automatically.

The point is, they clearly have the CAPACITY to conceptualise and plan, otherwise how did the crow do it? You're saying it doesn't have the capacity, did god guide it's wings?

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

Animals cannot conceptualize and do not have the ability of choosing means to achieve ends.

I first replied to this by pointing out that it's patently incorrect. However, that's beside the point.

Animals other than beavers cannot gnaw down trees with their teeth and build dams. Does that make them the center of the universe?

More the point, it is not necessary for Jared Diamond's hypothesis that humans cannot conceptualize or cannot choose a means to an ends. It is not necessary for the hypothesis that other animals be able to do these things. So, granting your incorrect statement for the sake of argument, how does this back up your claim that "philosophy of history" in any way discredits Diamond's primary points?

Originally Posted by PhilosopherStoned

I first replied to this by pointing out that it's patently incorrect. However, that's beside the point.

Animals other than beavers cannot gnaw down trees with their teeth and build dams. Does that make them the center of the universe?

More the point, it is not necessary for Jared Diamond's hypothesis that humans cannot conceptualize or cannot choose a means to an ends. It is not necessary for the hypothesis that other animals be able to do these things. So, granting your incorrect statement for the sake of argument, how does this back up your claim that "philosophy of history" in any way discredits Diamond's primary points?

Why is philosophy of history laughable? There is a philosophy behind all the disciplines. Diamond believes that environmental aspects of Europe allowed the Europeans to excel to being one of the most advanced cultures around the Age of Discovery. This is simply ludicrous. As if the temperature or humidity of a given region somehow pops forth technological ideas concerning agriculture. Diamond isn't even a historian, yet gullible readers get sucked into this deranged philosophy of environmental determinism.

Originally Posted by Xei

You're being pretty ridiculous, Laughing Man. You say that no animals other than humans are capable of planning, and then you're given several examples which unambiguously show planning. If a crow bending a wire is not planning, I have no idea what the fuck is, really. Why then did it bend the wire, exactly? And then when confronted with such unambiguous evidence, alongside pretending it doesn't exist, you also complain that it's not evidence against your claims because it doesn't show that every single animal is capable of planning. That's really just pathetic, you're trying to say that 'it is not true that there does not exist an A such that P(A)' isn't equivalent to 'there exists an A such that P(A)', but rather, 'for all A, P(A)'.

How can you seriously say without embarrassment something so trivially wrong, and without expecting anybody to call you out on it? The sweet irony of the situation is that you've actually showed yourself to be far more dogmatic, far less able at logic, and indeed far more lacking in the ability to plan and conceptualise the consequences of your actions, than your average crow.

I am saying that no animal other then humans is capable of conceptualization and the application of means to ends. First there was no expounding upon the "wire-bending" abilities of any animals. All that was shown was a raven dropping a nut in a documentary, without any context relating to how this applies to other ravens in other regions. When I asked for more evidence other then one video people start getting antsy and claim that one piece of evidence is enough, in fact it's better then several pieces of evidence because it is more powerful. Right, it is I who is doing something trivially wrong. Go back to trolling newbies to the forum Xei, you are better at that.

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

Why is philosophy of history laughable?

Because they study the wrong organism. They study magic monkeys that can domesticate any animal they see; make protein rich grains appear on any continent; and, by the pure power of their mind, accelerate the rate at which crops adapt to climatic variations.

All of those things would be necessary for Diamond's argument to not go through. Have you even read the book?

Just look at this description of the philosophy of history from your quote:

Originally Posted by Stanford Wankers

It invokes notions of human agency, change, the role of material circumstances in human affairs, and the putative meaning of historical events.

It forgets to consider environmental influence on humans. This is rooted in certain fundamentally religious assumptions which the "scientific" model has the unfortunate fate of having inherited from its European origins. So long as the historians refuse to look at the real world; separate facts from assumptions; and acknowledge that we are, at least in principle, part of an integrated whole with causal connections flowing both ways, I must consider them to be intellectual amateurs needing to step aside and let the big boys come in and solve the problem. That's not to say that they're amateur historians, just that they specialize in the collection of facts and the local application of a myriad of specialized principles. They can not, or do not want to, derive these specialized principles from general ones, that is to say that they are intellectual amateurs. They get paid to write down facts, not to think.

Originally Posted by LaughingMan

Diamond believes that environmental aspects of Europe allowed the Europeans to excel to being one of the most advanced cultures around the Age of Discovery. This is simply ludicrous. As if the temperature or humidity of a given region somehow pops forth technological ideas concerning agriculture.

No it doesn't "pop forth technological ideas concerning agriculture" and that's not Diamond's argument in the least. And it wasn't entirely the Europeans that benefited from the Mediterranean climate of the middle east. It had nothing to do with technological ideas in fact because agriculture was found pretty much everywhere except Australia and even they had the technological ability to do it. They routinely harvested root crops and replaced the tops so they would re grow. It would have been too much work to irrigate them so they let them grow where there was already water. This was all pointed out in Diamond's book specifically to negate the claim that ideas come from weather.

Eurasia had large stretches of land at similar latitudes. This allowed crops that were developed to take off in rapid east-west travel. It allowed Turks to grow crops first domesticated by Indians and vice versa. It allowed meaningful trade. This couldn't really happen in the Americas or Africa because of their north-south axis. Corn moved very slowly.

Eurasians also had the overwhelming majority of large domesticated animals to do work for them. Africa had none other than cattle in the north east section which is far more in line with Eurasia than the rest of Africa. They had the Llama in south America. What large animals have been domesticated in recent times? Every peoples all over the world domesticated pretty much every large animal that they had access too, thousands of years ago.

So with animals for work, milk and food and by far the densest and most expansive concentration of grains and beans, of course agriculture came with it. Then you had separation of labor and leisure time. This gave some people a chance to sit back and think. And invent.

Frankly, you sound like a spoiled rich intellectual who, never having actually had to work for money, looks down on those with less because they didn't win the lottery at birth. People of Eurasian ancestry would have faired about the same in Australia as the Aborigines did. It was the luck of the draw.

Originally Posted by LaughingMan

Diamond isn't even a historian, yet gullible readers get sucked into this deranged philosophy of environmental determinism.

It's too his credit that he's not a historian.

He's an evolutionary biologist so he has a pretty clear view of what shapes a species. He's traveled all over the world collecting birds with indigenous peoples and has gotten to know them. So whereas historians seem content to consider agriculture to be some technological invention, Diamond knows that plants are just something that people do. All over the world, indigenous peoples know every plant that they run across in their home domain and if they can eat it or use it for other purposes such as fiber or shelter. When they find themselves out of their home domain and seeing new plants, they try to ask about them. If they don't participate in agriculture of some sort, they know another tribe that does and trade with them. Humans have extracted pretty much every resource they could from their environment at every point in history.

So he can see past the cultural assumptions that our culture makes about others. A least a lot off them.

A "properly trained" historian could never have figured it out. Sometimes an outsider is best. Especially for soft stuff like history.

Originally Posted by PhilosopherStoned

It was the luck of the draw.

Is this also why you oppose Laughing Man?

Originally Posted by PhilosopherStoned

It is only the very modes of abstract representation which would make it appear that way. If we define "physical law" as "that which governs the universe" then of course the universe is governed my physical law.

Frankly, I find karma and dependant co-origination to be a much more useful model of reality for day to day living.

Which is "right"?

What kind of karma does planet Mars have?

Originally Posted by PhilosopherStoned

Because they study the wrong organism. They study magic monkeys that can domesticate any animal they see; make protein rich grains appear on any continent; and, by the pure power of their mind, accelerate the rate at which crops adapt to climatic variations.

All of those things would be necessary for Diamond's argument to not go through. Have you even read the book?

Explain what you are trying to say further because it is nonsensical. Yes, I have read Diamond's book. All history students do because it serves as a nice, laughable example of how not to do history.

Originally Posted by PhilosopherStoned

Just look at this description of the philosophy of history from your quote:


It forgets to consider environmental influence on humans. This is rooted in certain fundamentally religious assumptions which the "scientific" model has the unfortunate fate of having inherited from its European origins. So long as the historians refuse to look at the real world; separate facts from assumptions; and acknowledge that we are, at least in principle, part of an integrated whole with causal connections flowing both ways, I must consider them to be intellectual amateurs needing to step aside and let the big boys come in and solve the problem. That's not to say that they're amateur historians, just that they specialize in the collection of facts and the local application of a myriad of specialized principles. They can not, or do not want to, derive these specialized principles from general ones, that is to say that they are intellectual amateurs. They get paid to write down facts, not to think.

What a wonderful grade school attitude toward history in thinking historians just write down facts and dates. Historians determine the causes of historical events. What brought them about and what the effects were on human civilizations. There are no specialized principles from "general ones" because there are no general dialectical laws to history. History has no laws, no currents, no determinations.

Originally Posted by PhilosopherStoned

No it doesn't "pop forth technological ideas concerning agriculture" and that's not Diamond's argument in the least. And it wasn't entirely the Europeans that benefited from the Mediterranean climate of the middle east. It had nothing to do with technological ideas in fact because agriculture was found pretty much everywhere except Australia and even they had the technological ability to do it. They routinely harvested root crops and replaced the tops so they would re grow. It would have been too much work to irrigate them so they let them grow where there was already water. This was all pointed out in Diamond's book specifically to negate the claim that ideas come from weather.

Diamond's argument is that environmental conditions along the east-west axis were more hospital to the development of agriculture which in turn creates more food which increases the population which increases the ability for intellectualism to solve domestic issues and create inventions which allows for the development of society which according to Diamond happened faster in Europe which is why they supposedly prospered over the Mesoamericans.

"Environment molds history" pg. 352

So yes...Diamond's argument basically is that the environment popped forth ideas concerning technology because the environment enabled population increase which caused greater idea "manufacturing" or whatever you wish to label it.

Originally Posted by PhilosopherStoned

It's too his credit that he's not a historian.

He's an evolutionary biologist so he has a pretty clear view of what shapes a species. He's traveled all over the world collecting birds with indigenous peoples and has gotten to know them. So whereas historians seem content to consider agriculture to be some technological invention, Diamond knows that plants are just something that people do. All over the world, indigenous peoples know every plant that they run across in their home domain and if they can eat it or use it for other purposes such as fiber or shelter. When they find themselves out of their home domain and seeing new plants, they try to ask about them. If they don't participate in agriculture of some sort, they know another tribe that does and trade with them. Humans have extracted pretty much every resource they could from their environment at every point in history.

So he can see past the cultural assumptions that our culture makes about others. A least a lot off them.

A "properly trained" historian could never have figured it out. Sometimes an outsider is best. Especially for soft stuff like history.

Right, he certainly get past those cultural assumptions by believing that Europe was ahead of the curve because of its cultural values in terms of proximate factors:

"proximate factors behind Europe's rise [are] its development of a merchant class, capitalism, and patent protection for inventions, its failure to develop absolute despots and crushing taxation, and its Graeco-Judeo-Christian tradition of empirical inquiry." pg 410

Yea...certainly getting past those cultural assumptions alright. I have to ask, did you read the book?


And what "historians" are seeing agriculture as a mere technological invention? Agriculture is a big deal but most, not all, historians do not believe in monocasual history because it is ridiculous to assume that one sole casual can lead to great events.

And really, humans have extracted every resource? Tell me, when were the Incas using crude oil? The concept of resources and its uses is dependent upon the time period.

Oh this is so fulfilling because you are like Jarod Diamond. You step into the world of history a neophyte thinking you are "bucking the system" and taking historians to town and yet you have no idea what is transpiring behind your gullible grade school notions of history. There is a part of me that does not blame you though because high school history is rather atrocious but when you sashay around these forums calling people plebeians and intellectual amateurs then it is difficult for me not to be somewhat joyous. I am not vexed that you are condensing. I am just surprised that you are so, well, amateurish about it.

Originally Posted by InvisibleWoman

Is this also why you oppose Laughing Man?

No, I oppose LaughingMan because he's seriously wrong about this.

What kind of karma does planet Mars have?

I don't find ascribing Mars karma to be a useful thing to do. What does Mars have to do with day to day living though? Different models for different contexts. It is an awesome planet regardless of if that means "weird light moving apart from the stars" or "big thing orbiting the sun and having cleared its neighborhood."

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

Explain what you are trying to say further because it is nonsensical.

PhilosopherStoned doesn't believe in magic.

Originally Posted by InvisibleWoman

PhilosopherStoned doesn't believe in magic.

I don't either....hooray?

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

Explain what you are trying to say further because it is nonsensical. Yes, I have read Diamond's book. All history students do because it serves as a nice, laughable example of how not to do history.

I am saying the historians, economists and other liberal arts wankers study the human animal as it would have been conceived of by a seventeenth century preacher.

I really don't see what's so hard to understand here.

What a wonderful grade school attitude toward history in thinking historians just write down facts and dates. Historians determine the causes of historical events. What brought them about and what the effects were on human civilizations. There are no specialized principles from "general ones" because there are no general dialectical laws to history. History has no laws, no currents, no determinations.

I specified that they do determine local causes. But real thinkers go into science. History has no laws, no currents and no determinations as historians conceive of those words.

Maximal resource extraction within technological means is a good example of a general principle. Why must a general principle be dialectical? This is just another assumption that religious philosophers make. That a sufficiently large group of people will extract every resource for which they have a use from the environment given sufficient time is just a specialization of the even more general rule that any sufficiently large group of organisms will do the same thing.

Diamond's argument is that environmental conditions along the east-west axis were more hospital to the development of agriculture which in turn creates more food which increases the population which increases the ability for intellectualism to solve domestic issues and create inventions which allows for the development of society which according to Diamond happened faster in Europe which is why they supposedly prospered over the Mesoamericans.

"Environment molds history" pg. 352

It's not purely the orientation of the continents. That just allowed specific crops to spread faster. This allowed a much vaster range from which crops could arise and hence a greater number of crops in total. It was the basic presence of the raw stuff of agriculture that allowed it to get started. Wheat almost couldn't have been domesticated anywhere but in the mideast.

Also, as an evolutionary biologist, he wouldn't say that our society evolved any faster than any other. Each society adapted to the environment in which it found itself.

Finally, to say that "environment molds history" is perhaps too strong depending on what you mean by mold. That's like saying that environment molds species. It doesn't. It has undeniable influence though. Whereas species are molded by the environment interacting with variation on the species, history is molded by the environment creating the opportunity and necessity for ideas. So it's not that ideas don't play a part, it's just that original ideas are not the central actor. Keep in mind that one of the cool things about humans is that our environment is largely made out of ideas.

So yes...Diamond's argument basically is that the environment popped forth ideas concerning technology because the environment enabled population increase which caused greater idea "manufacturing" or whatever you wish to label it.

To say "popped forth" makes it sound as if the environment is pregnant with ideas and gave birth to them. I'm picturing some pretty white people kneeling down in front Europe on its back, legs spread and in the agony of labor, just waiting for agriculture to occur.

In fact, he's postulating almost exactly the same kind of positive feedback loop that we see in evolution and that should be well understood.

Historians don't want to understand.

Right, he certainly get past those cultural assumptions by believing that Europe was ahead of the curve because of its cultural values in terms of proximate factors:

"proximate factors behind Europe's rise [are] its development of a merchant class, capitalism, and patent protection for inventions, its failure to develop absolute despots and crushing taxation, and its Graeco-Judeo-Christian tradition of empirical inquiry." pg 410

Yea...certainly getting past those cultural assumptions alright. I have to ask, did you read the book?

I'm afraid that you're going to have to explain to me how that's making an assumption about another culture?

And what "historians" are seeing agriculture as a mere technological invention? Agriculture is a big deal but most, not all, historians do not believe in monocasual history because it is ridiculous to assume that one sole casual can lead to great events.

Nobody every said that one cause is at the root of history. That would be childish. The environment in which we find our selves contains more than one cause though.

And really, humans have extracted every resource? Tell me, when were the Incas using crude oil? The concept of resources and its uses is dependent upon the time period.

Crude oil was not part of the Inca's environment because they didn't have the technological means to bring it to the surface. It's part of our environment and we extract as much of it as we possibly can.

Oh this is so fulfilling because you are like Jarod Diamond. You step into the world of history a neophyte thinking you are "bucking the system" and taking historians to town and yet you have no idea what is transpiring behind your gullible grade school notions of history.

I'd already specified that historians write down facts and attempt to apply specialized principles in local situations. I decided to, partly for literary purposes and partly to emphasize my feelings towards that methodology, refer to it going forth as "writing down facts". That's ok. You assert that Diamond's hypothesis is that the environments "popped" out the idea of agriculture.

There is a part of me that does not blame you though because high school history is rather atrocious but when you sashay around these forums calling people plebeians and intellectual amateurs then it is difficult for me not to be somewhat joyous. I am not vexed that you are condensing. I am just surprised that you are so, well, amateurish about it.

I am condescending towards the liberal arts. It's the last bastion of the magic monkey myth in the academy. I am also condescending towards people that don't know how to think but assert that they do.

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

I don't either....hooray?

You must if you want to deny that the human environment has had an incredible role in shaping history.

Almost all of the places early civilizations started was around rivers and lakes. The reason is obvious, if you want to have a large population you need water. That is not even including if you want to try to farm, which then requires even more water. That is even true today. You can't really find any large population centers far away from water, and one of the reason places in Africa and the middle east are unstable is because of water issues.

As for temperature or humidity they play a huge impact on the advancement of agriculture because those are related to how you grow things. Try farming in the middle of a desert then try farming on a tropical island. Your results will not be even remotely similar.

I wouldn't say it is the only factor but environment has had a huge impact in history.

The answer might have something to do with this...


The rulers of those nations were not interested in advancing them. They were interested in oppressing them and taking their resources.

Also, what is holding Africa back now is what held Europe back for so long-- tribal rivalry. The social climate in Africa primarily involves dedication to one's tribe and not to one's nation. That prevents national unity. Democrats and Republicans are kind of like rival tribes in the U.S., but fortunately, they are willing to go to work together and even be friends.

UM, we're part of rival tribes but I normally respect your intelligence.

However I have to ask.

What does that have to do with the question? That is a post colonization map of Africa. The question pertains to why we separate post-colonization maps of Africa from per-colonization maps but do not do the same with maps of Europe. Why did Europeans take African slaves and conquer the Americas rather than Africans taking European slaves and conquering the Americas or Americans taking European slaves and conquering Africa or ....

Originally Posted by PhilosopherStoned

UM, we're part of rival tribes but I normally respect your intelligence.

However I have to ask.

What does that have to do with the question? That is a post colonization map of Africa. The question pertains to why we separate post-colonization maps of Africa from per-colonization maps but do not do the same with maps of Europe. Why did Europeans take African slaves and conquer the Americas rather than Africans taking European slaves and conquering the Americas or Americans taking European slaves and conquering Africa or ....

I haven't read this whole thread, but what I have read of it, especially the first post, is about the topic I discussed. The original post did not specify pre-colonization. It asked a simple question, and I answered it.

We do separate post-colonization maps of Europe from pre-colonization maps. Check out this video...

2000 Years of Europe.wmv - YouTube

How are you and I in rival tribes? I'm not a Democrat or a Republican, if that is what you were addressing. I'm not a member of any such tribe. I think most members of those tribes act like tribal morons. Politically, I am loyal only to what makes sense. The majority of tribal members let that take a back seat to tribal warfare, and it is disgusting.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

I haven't read this whole thread, but what I have read of it, especially the first post, is about the topic I discussed. The original post did not specify pre-colonization. It asked a simple question, and I answered it.

It's implicit. The difference happened before colonization. The greed of modern African dictators has nothing to do with it.

We do separate post-colonization maps of Europe from pre-colonization maps. Check out this video...

So who colonized Europe? I lost my headphones recently and can't watch video. Can you summarize?

How are you and I in rival tribes? I'm not a Democrat or a Republican, if that is what you were addressing. I'm not a member of any such tribe. I think most members of those tribes act like tribal morons. Politically, I am loyal only to what makes sense. The majority of tribal members let that take a back seat to tribal warfare, and it is disgusting.

You're a patriot and I'm not. We disagree about all sorts of things and, fairly reliably, sit on different sides of the AmericaLovingConservative vs. AmericaHatingLiberal line. At least that's how it seems to me.

Originally Posted by PhilosopherStoned

It's implicit. The difference happened before colonization. The greed of modern African dictators has nothing to do with it.

There has been a great deal of time since colonization, and the issue has pertained ever since. Also...

Original post:

Originally Posted by Thatperson

How come every single european nation has prospered yet only a single african nation every propered, that being south africa. What caused this?

Post #6:

Originally Posted by Supernova

Ironically, European nations.

No, really. Colonialism pretty well fucked Africa.

Post #7:

Originally Posted by IndieAnthias

Isn't the colonial period pretty largely attributed to the state of affairs in Africa? I tend to think they had their own version of prosperity before that, but it just looked quite a bit different.

edit: Supernova ninja'd me I see.

Post #13, from the original poster:

Originally Posted by Thatperson

I very much doubt melanin alone contributed.

Is there any evidence of a prosperous pre-colonial africa? While colonialism was immoral, It did anything but harm their properity. It wasn't like sudan was some powerhouse that was destroyed by colonists.

Etc.

Originally Posted by PhilosopherStoned

So who colonized Europe? I lost my headphones recently and can't watch video. Can you summarize?

You don't have to hear anything. It's about the visuals. It shows how the map of Europe has changed over the last 2000 years. It also answers your question about who colonized Europe. Lots of tribes colonized Europe. The video is really short.

Originally Posted by PhilosopherStoned

You're a patriot and I'm not. We disagree about all sorts of things and, fairly reliably, sit on different sides of the AmericaLovingConservative vs. AmericaHatingLiberal line. At least that's how it seems to me.

I don't think that puts us in rival tribes. Most of the political debates you have seen me in have concerned our foreign policy, and specifically issues where I agree with what our government has done. There are also foreign policy issues where I disagree with our government, and if all of these political debates had been almost exclusively about drug legalization, gay rights, prostitution legalization, abortion rights, flag burning rights, whether our national anthem sounds like shit, the Pledge of Allegience, prayer in public schools, Ten Commandments on courthouse walls or pretty much anything church and state related, you would think I am one of the most unpatriotic, extreme liberals you have ever come across. I want to mention that liberals are generally patriotic when it comes to wars fought under Democrat presidents. I don't know if you are or not. We might disagree on certain things, but we are not in rival tribes. Like I said, I am not in a tribe. I am a hodge podge misfit. Conservatives often call me a liberal, and liberals often call me a conservative. That is often the result of tribal thinking.

first of all.when africa had prosperity western europe had cavemen.second maybe its the fact that europeans slaughtered africa and still do.propably because european ascention came with slave tradery warfare crusades and vampirism till today.but it is african's community fault of course because they didn't drink anybody's blood first.

if you're really interested, Jared Diamond's "guns germs and steel" is a great book that examines why nations in certain parts of the world seem to have had enormous advantages throughout history.

Stop necroposting. This thread is shit and should stay dead.

Oh come on, you know this thread is absolutely glorious

Tons of internal and external causes.

Originally Posted by randosity

if you're really interested, Jared Diamond's "guns germs and steel" is a great book that examines why nations in certain parts of the world seem to have had enormous advantages throughout history.

Thank you for mentioning it. I watched the documentary based on it, and it was very interesting.

Now, Without further ado, this thread just ended. Done. Over. This is its last post. We're in agreement on this, now.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------