Notice: Forums will be shutdown by June 2019

To focus on better serving our members, we've decided to shut down the POF forums.

While regular posting is now disabled, you can continue to view all threads until the end of June 2019. Event Hosts can still create and promote events while we work on a new and improved event creation service for you.

Thank you!

Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  >      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 cedar77
Joined: 7/17/2006
Msg: 67
view profile
History
Why did some societies advance and other not?Page 3 of 8    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8)
Why did some societies advance and other not?

Genetics? I beg to differ:
Because of internal systemics within those societies and/or external dynamics of various kinds.

Ok...
Why did some societies develop the internal systemics and control the external dynamics in order to advance, while others did not?
That's an easy one....it's because of genetics.
 cedar77
Joined: 7/17/2006
Msg: 68
view profile
History
Why did some societies advance and other not?
Posted: 4/8/2007 5:49:43 PM
much of it was pure dumb luck, as much as some of the posters here would like to think it was about being genetically superior.
I've just spent a year in a country that most would consider third world yet I've never before met so many happy, contented and helpful people (even in dirt-poor subsistence type villages). Makes you wonder if some of those 'lesser' civilizations may not have a lesson or two for the superpowers.

I highly doubt it had anything to do with luck ......and it depends on what you value if you want to term it "genetically superior".....this is where I find political correctness always seems to jump to conclusions.
How about ....genetically predisposed towards development , as we know it.
I agree that being happy and content is much superior to being "highly developed" and miserable ...that is for sure.
However , I think that ever increasing development along with happy and content should be the ideal.
I guess we have to decide what are values are.

 cedar77
Joined: 7/17/2006
Msg: 69
view profile
History
Why did some societies advance and other not?
Posted: 4/8/2007 6:02:59 PM
I was hoping for more of an arguement .lol
 cedar77
Joined: 7/17/2006
Msg: 70
view profile
History
Why did some societies advance and other not?
Posted: 4/8/2007 6:19:48 PM
advanced societies are those which maximize the welfare/utility of all people will providing the maximum possible degree of personal choice and freedom. Because it is the people, all people, that count in "advanced societies".

I agree , but , I think that we are along a path of technological development and we should continue that way ....there is no turning back.
I believe that there is no limit to our advancement, there is no problem that can't be solved... if we value what it is that advances us in the first place and support science and technology , knowledge , individuality , free speech and free thought and free enterprise . I think we should shun what we know stagnates development in all areas and creates misery for all ...which is repressive collectivism and centralization.
I think we need to stop our self loathing (guilt) due to the fact that we are "advanced" and also we should see advancement as something that should benefit all peoples of the world...we're all in this together.
 cedar77
Joined: 7/17/2006
Msg: 71
view profile
History
Why did some societies advance and other not?
Posted: 4/8/2007 6:51:11 PM
Despite the hugely repressive pressures of political correctness....
Science is finding that genetics is the very basis of many aspects of human behaviour....it might go against what the media and establishment has made fashionable and "politically correct" ....but anyone who wants to gain knowledge and understanding cannot be prejudiced against the truth just because it doesn't suit the fashionable politics of the day .....genetics certainly has to be considered in an open minded manner...it's undeniable...and truth and knowledge can only be good for all of humanity.
 cedar77
Joined: 7/17/2006
Msg: 75
view profile
History
Why did some societies advance and other not?
Posted: 4/9/2007 11:01:39 AM
Live in grass huts and be happier....or ....be constantly stoned and be happier ....or both? lol


Perhaps, as mentioned by some other posters here, there is even some debate as to what exactly constitutes an 'advanced society'. I suppose that it would be 'politically correct' to take for granted that it is the one to which the majority here seem to belong. I suppose the Greeks thought that, then the Romans, and a whole host of other 'advanced' societies that have fallen by the wayside. Would that include the post-industrial British Empire too?

Yeah the west is on the decline .....decadent and corrupted , having lost it's spirit and pride.
Actually ...I think it is politically correct to value the "virtues" of less advanced societies and to bash modern advanced society.....don't you?
 cedar77
Joined: 7/17/2006
Msg: 76
view profile
History
Why did some societies advance and other not?
Posted: 4/9/2007 11:38:47 AM
Oh, I entirely agree. I was just pointing to well presented, published evidence related to the development of the different societies discussed here. Can you do the same in support of a 'genetic hypothesis'? I don't deny genetics plays a role, but there aren't too many who seem to have applied it wisely to entire populations.


If , in fact , I couldn't support the "genetic hypothesis" ....this would be the reason why....


Ideology and Censorship in Behavior Genetics
Glayde Whitney's Presidential address to the Behavior Genetics Association
The Mankind Quarterly, vol. 35, number 4, pp. 327-342
Scott-Townsend Publishers, Washington DC., Summer 1995

Presented below is the entire text of my presidential address presented to the Behavior Genetics Association (BGA) on the occasion of its 25th annual meeting at Richmond, VA on the second of June, 1995. Since the journal Behavior Genetics is sponsored by the BGA, some explanation is required as to why this presidential address is not published in the Association's own journal.


The primary topic of the address was ideologically-based dogma and taboo hampering the pursuit of knowledge in the science of behavior genetics. The response to the address has been such a parody of political correctness that it might appear to be an instance of collusion between the perpetrator and the detractors for the purpose of exposing an absurdity of our times. However sadly, there is no collusion. Both the author and the detractors appear to be sincere.
 cedar77
Joined: 7/17/2006
Msg: 78
view profile
History
Why did some societies advance and other not?
Posted: 4/9/2007 2:41:47 PM
I find it ironic that the industrial revolution, which supposedly advanced western and European culture/society, will most likely also spell its doom. I personally don't feel we can adapt quickly enough to survive the mess we've made of things on this planet, and I'm speaking of genetic adaptation as well as a physical response to the crisis.

It's always a pleasure to reply to some posts....(-;
I think that there is no limit to what we (humanity) can achieve or problems we can solve , just as one very small current example .... hybrid cars .

You're right , all of humanity is in it together...
I think that we are on a track towards ever increasing knowledge and advancement ,
for every problem that arises out of technology there will be a solution and all the while quality of life will improve..(unless we enter into a period of collectivist , centralized, dark age )....to try to somehow turn back now, is not possible . People seem to run down modern society , but , what is the alternative? ....grass huts and stoned? ....sometimes that may sound enticing , but I don't think it's very practical .....although maybe some of the more anti-development set could form a community in the jungle and try things out....
 johnny prophet
Joined: 5/16/2006
Msg: 79
view profile
History
Why did some societies advance and other not?
Posted: 4/10/2007 8:11:20 AM

People seem to run down modern society , but , what is the alternative? ....grass huts and stoned


I don't think that there are very many people who think that a tribal lifestyle is a "better" lifestyle. However....

Birds have been building nests for (presumably) millions of years. Building nests is not the "best" or "right" way for birds to live - it's simply the way that has tested out and worked for millions of years. It was a practice that evolved and has allowed birds to survive and flourish without overpopulating or extinction. It works.

Humans and our ancestors, where they have been allowed to continue doing so, have been living in small tribes for approximately 3-4 million years. The tribal lifestyle evolved and was stable. It works for humans the same way nests work for birds. It tested out. It allowed mankind to survive and flourish without overpopulating or extinction. It works.

However, in the short 10,000 years or so since ONE CULTURE started a NEW way of living, the experiment has been: Increased food production to feed a growing population. The laws of ecology state that in the absence of predation and with an abundance of food, any feeder population will continue to grow. For the last 10,000 years, our response each year to increased population has been to place more land under cultivation for human food - we increase the food supply, this leads to more people, so we branch out, place more lands under our culture's control, make more people, do it again, year in and year out.

What seemed like progress 10,000 years ago (and then, it was progress. The repurcussions were still centuries down the line...) looks like global catastrophe and possible human extinction today.

I'll take stoned in a grass hut over the destruction of the planet and the killing of major portions of its ecology, any day.
 cedar77
Joined: 7/17/2006
Msg: 83
view profile
History
Why did some societies advance and other not?
Posted: 4/11/2007 6:20:31 PM
And there is no limit to the corruption of humanity. Big business and government has effectively garroted the development of alternate energy sources, so, we stay dependant on oil. This is disastrous for the future of our planet. I know government is saying they will pump more money into alternate sources, but this is just not happening in reality beyond Bandaid status.

imho...there is no limit to the corruption of the control freak elitist socialists who indoctrinate people with guilt and negativity about humanity in regards to the earth and nature.
It is the same greedy elite who run government, media and corporations that monopolize and repress development and then lay guilt and self hate on regular people in order to get people to hand them over more power ..meanwhile regular people are actually quite environmentally responsible and given the chance and free enterprise ... society would develop the solutions to these environmental problems....e.g. alternate fuels and technologies.
 johnny prophet
Joined: 5/16/2006
Msg: 85
view profile
History
Why did some societies advance and other not?
Posted: 4/12/2007 2:17:11 PM
you talk about population growth....population decline from which no other culture has ever recovered.. think about that... are we witnessing the death of a culture before our very eyes?


Yes. That's exactly my point. Our culture is dying and intends to take the rest of the humanity (not to mention the planet) with it.

Or were you trying to use this data to suggest that our global culture did not reach 6,525,170,264 as of last July? Where the babies are born does not seem to me to be the point.


and if you want to be stoned and live in a grass hut you CAN do that. you can go and learn to live off the land without electricity and such if you like. noone is stopping you. there are people that do this.


The 'stoned in a grass hut' was a humorous rebuttle of a previous post.

I point out the problem in our current way of thinking, not to suggest that we return to the cave, but rather to alert people to the blindspot in their reality.

I do this in the hope that, once awakened from this sleepwalk toward the cliff, the people of obvious intelligence (like yourself) might band together to come up with a solution that's better than "we'll walk slower, and try to gather sticks to build a bridge with."

I admit that I have no real desire to live in a hut because, like you, I am comfortable with technology and I believe that if there were a culture EMPHASIS on "green" technology and well-adjusted individuals, we'd have better results. Our current cultural imperative is to subjugate the earth and all of its resources because our big daddy in the sky said we could.

Our current cultural imperative is to PROFIT and PRODUCTION rather than PEOPLE and PEACE. There are ways that could be implimented that would encourage healthy relationships between individuals, communities and nations. These changes would not likely be to the gain of shareholders, however.

If we re-write our myths and teach our children new songs, we have a chance to save the world and still take showers. Or we can shrug our shoulders and get as rich as possible before the world dies.

If I honestly felt that my removing myself from the system in order to do as you suggest (go and live in a hut) would make a difference in and of itself, I'd do it. I think that I might have slightly more chance of affecting society by remaining connected to it.
 cedar77
Joined: 7/17/2006
Msg: 86
view profile
History
Why did some societies advance and other not?
Posted: 4/12/2007 4:23:41 PM


The Earth Summit's Socialist Agenda

An important document called the Heidelberg Appeal was signed by hundreds of scientists worldwide and issued on the 1st of June. It has been, with the exception, at least to my knowledge, with the single exception of The Wall Street Journal, totally ignored by the media. The Appeal states, in part, "... We are worried, at the dawn of the 21st century, at the emergence of an irrational ideology which is opposed to scientific and industrial progress and which implies that economic and social progress should not continue. We contend that a 'Natural State,' sometimes idealized by movements with a tendency to look toward the past, does not exist and probably never has existed since man's first appearance in the biosphere, and insofar as humanity has always progressed by increasingly harnessing Nature to its needs and not the reverse." But this does not reflect the theme of the Earth Summit, which is embodied in the so-called Agenda 21, which was adopted by the 178 nations present in Brazil without any fanfare on the last day of the conference.

Now Agenda 21 deserves study. It consists of 115 different and very specific programs designed to facilitate, or to force, the transition to "sustainable development." The objective, clearly enunciated by the leaders of the conference, is to bring about a change in the present system of independent nations. The future is to be World Government with central planning by the United Nations.

Fear of environmental crises, whether such crises are real or contrived, is expected to lead to total compliance. If force is needed, it is to be provided by a new U.N. Green Helmeted police force recommended to be 500,000 men. Already the U.N. Security Council has expanded the definition of their charter to "threats to peace and security" to include "non-military sources of instability in the economic, social, humanitarian and ecological fields." That constitutes a very broad charter for intervention.

As Michel Rocard, the former Prime Minister of France and a leader at the Earth Summit, said, "Let us not deceive ourselves. It is necessary that the community of nations exert pressure, even using coercion, against countries that have installations that threaten the environment. International instruments must be transformed into instruments of coercion, of sanctions, of boycotts, and even outright confiscation."

In a stunning acknowledgment, also totally overlooked by the press, the Norwegian Prime Minister and vice chairman of Earth Summit, Gro Harlem Bruntland, publicly stated at a press conference that much of the agenda of the Earth Summit was derived from the goals of the Socialist International Party, of which he is, incidentally, vice president. One would have thought that such an admission was newsworthy; surely a socialist agenda should interest economists.

Human-caused environmental problems such as waste management and pollution are amenable to solution and great strides have already been made. But so-called environmental issues like climate change and the destruction of ozone are natural phenomena. The charges and accusations relating to them are not based upon scientific knowledge. It is the economic results of ill-advised, hasty, and costly solutions for problems that may not even exist that pose significant risks for modern society. Only if these realities are publicized can we maintain a healthy economy.

Only if we maintain a strong economy, can we also protect our freedom. "When one loses one's liberty one is correct to blame, not so much the man who puts the fetters on -- as he who had the power to prevent it but did not use it." Who said that? It was the Corinthian representative to Sparta -- and the year was 426 B.C. It is still true today -- and it is the profession of economics that bears the heavy burden of explaining to the public at large what are the extraordinary costs of embracing, without healthy skepticism, the agendas of extreme environmentalism. There are still some issues that are worth fighting for - and liberty through progress is one of them.
 cedar77
Joined: 7/17/2006
Msg: 87
view profile
History
Why did some societies advance and other not?
Posted: 4/12/2007 6:12:32 PM
Your point being??

lol...nevermind...if you have to ask ..what's the point . Believe it or not , there are "radicals" who like the idea of freedom and nationhood and are a just a little bit leary of these sorts of things.
 cedar77
Joined: 7/17/2006
Msg: 89
view profile
History
Why did some societies advance and other not?
Posted: 4/12/2007 9:19:29 PM
(there are thinkers who seriously think that "nations" are the best level of organisation/division of the humankind in the 21st century?????),

Definately ....there are many many people who are still "old fashioned"....history and human nature have proven it the best system...to disregard heritage and mix 'em all up has proven time and time again to be disasterous ..but ...it's somewhat fashionable at the presnt to be "new age" and a one worlder ...I'm not so sure how long that will last...unless a global tyranny becomes reality.
You seem to feel the sky is falling in terms of the earth and the environment ...that is your right .
....you certainly are free to voice your opinion ....but , do you think environmentalism has become a religion?..and you're preaching?
 2findU
Joined: 11/19/2005
Msg: 91
view profile
History
Why did some societies advance and other not?
Posted: 4/16/2007 8:54:05 AM
I say its their culture and belief system. For a long time Christianity held Europe back too. It was their belief that Man was the center of the universe and that the Earth was in the center of it. Then Galileo came along and said we rovolve around the Sun. Well that was a big no-no. So there are still cultures and belief systems that will keep some people in the Dark Ages.
 cedar77
Joined: 7/17/2006
Msg: 92
view profile
History
Why did some societies advance and other not?
Posted: 4/16/2007 7:59:21 PM
There is only ONE "Society", humankind. Why some "sub-groups" of this Society have advanced/evolved/survived and others not? For different reasons.

...sub- groups?


society

• noun (pl. societies) 1 the aggregate of people living together in a more or less ordered community. 2 a particular community of people living in a country or region, and having shared customs, laws, and organizations.


There may be presently a very strong push by some very powerful ultra rich elitists to create just one global society.....but I think that it would not be a good idea for anyone . We should value the diversity seperate nations afford, for it is the spice of life and trying to make the entire world "the same" would simply be h*ll on earth ..not to mention it's totally and completely impracticle.

I do think that the whole world needs to live in harmony and good will (and ironically , it probably would if not for the work of the same international elitists that are now pushing for globalism) , but with the world being comprised of nations .....as history and as now, the vast majority of people and human nature itself feel is the best system.
 cedar77
Joined: 7/17/2006
Msg: 93
view profile
History
Why did some societies advance and other not?
Posted: 4/16/2007 8:34:24 PM
Larissan04....
I think you hit the nail on the head with the perils of socialism ...it just doesn't work....and it's strange that an entire "cold war" was fought and yet most westerners don't really grasp why.


what is needed is a renewal of western values... the ideas such as individual rights, equality, liberty, self determinism, et al... for it is when we don't live up to our own ideals that we end up with those who foolishly think that throwing the western civilization baby out with the bath water is a good solution... socialism, communism, and all of these occidentalist -isms have done nothing to improve the lives and livlihoods of the nations that have embraced them...

Many think these "isms" were not occidental ideas at all ...in fact they were quite the opposite.

 cedar77
Joined: 7/17/2006
Msg: 94
view profile
History
Why did some societies advance and other not?
Posted: 4/17/2007 6:05:32 AM


Editorial Reviews
From the Inside Flap
"Global warming":

the Left's last best chance to gain a stranglehold on our political system and economy

For decades, environmentalism has been the Left's best excuse for increasing government control over our actions in ways both large and small. It's for Mother Earth! It's for the children! It's for the whales! But until now, the doomsday-scenario environmental scares they've trumped up haven't been large enough to justify the lifestyle restrictions they want to impose. With global warming, however, greenhouse gasbags can argue that auto emissions in Ohio threaten people in Paris, and that only "global governance" (Jacques Chirac's words) can tackle such problems.

Now, in The Politically Incorrect Guide(tm) to Global Warming and Environmentalism, Christopher C. Horner tears the cover off the Left's manipulation of environmental issues for political purposes--and lays out incontrovertible evidence for the fact that catastrophic man-made global warming is just more Chicken-Little hysteria, not actual science. He explains why, although Al Gore and his cronies among the media elites and UN globalists endlessly bleat that "global warming" is an unprecedented global crisis, they really think of it as a dream come true. It's the ideal scare campaign for those who hate capitalism and love big government. For, as Horner explains, if global warming really were as bad as the Leftist doomsayers insist it is, then no policy imaginable could "solve" it. According to the logic of the greens' own numbers, no matter how much we sacrifice there would still be more to do. That makes global warming the bottomless well of excuses for the relentless growth of big government.

Horner (an attorney and senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute) reveals the full anti-American, anti-capitalist, and anti-human agenda of today's environmentalists, dubbing them "green on the outside, red to the core." He details how they use strong-arm legal tactics--and worse--against those who dare to point out the weakness of their arguments for global warming. Along the way, he explodes ten top global warming myths, carefully examining the evidence to determine how much warming there really is and what is actually causing it. He exposes the lies that the environmental lobby routinely tells to make its case; the ways in which it is trying to impose initiatives such as the Kyoto Protocol on an unwilling American public; and much more--including the green lobby's favorite politicians (John Kerry, John McCain, Joe Lieberman, and others).

It's time to stand up to the environmentalist industry and insist: human beings are not the enemy. In breezy, light-hearted, and always entertaining fashion, The Politically Incorrect Guide(tm) to Global Warming and Environmentalism gives you the facts you need to do so.

About the Author
Christopher C. Horner is a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, an acknowledged expert on global warming legislation and regulation, and has spoken before Senate committees and the European Parliament.
 cedar77
Joined: 7/17/2006
Msg: 95
view profile
History
Why did some societies advance and other not?
Posted: 4/17/2007 6:39:18 AM

"There may be presently a very strong push by some very powerful ultra rich elitists to create just one global society....."

lol lol lol lol lol The honorable fellow poster must be pulling our legs!! How does this comment/syllogism/theory compare with the same poster's theory in msg 128?

I don't understand your point....are you seeing a contradiction?

"but I think that it would not be a good idea for anyone "
I think the opposite!

You're allowed to.


" We should value the diversity seperate nations afford, for it is the spice of life and trying to make the entire world "the same" would simply be h*ll on earth ..not to mention it's totally and completely impracticle."

Diversity and spice can well exist with ONE world system/global village as the melting pot examples of the US, the UK and other countries at present indicate.

Those "melting pots" are beginning to boil and they are becoming balkanized.
And paradoxically a "melting pot" means homogenization...not diversity.


"I do think that the whole world needs to live in harmony and good will (and ironically , it probably would if not for the work of the same international elitists"

Does the fellow poster imply that his fellow poster is one of "them"??? lol lol lol
"Internqational elitists"!!! OMG!

that's just plain silly ,

" , but with the world being comprised of nations .....as history and as now, the vast majority of people and human nature itself feel is the best system."

Supporting data, surveys. studies, facts, complete syllogisms?

I would think that a persons common sense would spell out the fact that the vast majority of people support nationhood ...but , I think it's the task of those that propose radical change to show proof of legtimacy .


So International elitists and International Socialists, together are conspiring to bring a new world order? Interesting theory (or movie scenario "2007" (aka "1984+23") lol lol lol lol

Excellent humo(u)r!

(ridiculous laughter)
..re. msg 128 , and that only "global governance" (Jacques Chirac's words) can tackle such problems.


Can we now all go back to the core topic of the thread

Certainly .....that's an easy one , it's because of genetics.
 cedar77
Joined: 7/17/2006
Msg: 96
view profile
History
Why did some societies advance and other not?
Posted: 4/17/2007 12:27:56 PM
Certainly .....that's an easy one , it's because of genetics.


I think that theory is a discussion ender! Adieu!

Exactly , if that theory is off the table ...it would be like ignoring the elephant on the coffee table ....and it is a discussion ender for some...
taboo! taboo !......blasphemy?!!....dark ages?
 cedar77
Joined: 7/17/2006
Msg: 98
view profile
History
Why did some societies advance and other not?
Posted: 4/20/2007 11:21:25 AM
but here's my two cents on the environment. if environmentalism is a new religion then call me a follower.

IMHO ...it definately is a religion and it is actually a very ancient religion.
Now , due in no small part to our government , media , establishment , it has had a massive surge in popularity.

Therefore... it is extremely important for everyone who respects individuality and freedom, that this religion is not forced on us all.....seperation of church and state?
 cedar77
Joined: 7/17/2006
Msg: 99
view profile
History
Why did some societies advance and other not?
Posted: 4/21/2007 12:29:28 AM
More like lemmings walking on to self destruction.

...who are the lemmings?..... surely any rational person would be able to see that being an "environmentalist" is very "politically correct" these days......
Surely any thinking person could see that questioning the environmental political agenda is to go against the establishment (government , media) which is leading the herd around by their noses .....no??
The "herd" is being indoctrinated into the religion of environmentalism so that the establishment can gain infinately more control ....the potential for control of the herd is infinate under the guise of "environmentalism "


 scorpiomover
Joined: 4/19/2007
Msg: 102
view profile
History
Why did some societies advance and other not?
Posted: 5/21/2007 2:49:33 PM
Necessity is the mother of invention.

Technology and science fill 2 voids: waste of resources and lack of religious belief.
Technology is a method of compensating for running out of existing resources, by establishing new types of resources. An example is nuclear power as opposed to recycling. The Romans and Greeks developed technology as a means of compensating for their massively inefficient waste of resources. When Europe was conquered by the Romans, the Romans enforced their culture and values on the Europeans, including their decadence and their waste of resources.

Science is an attempt to explain the world in means of arbitrary rules, rather than belief in a higher power. The Europeans developed science during the Renaissance as a means of explaining the world we live in, in order to remove the power the Church had on the kings, nobles and rich men.

These things were available before then, but they were extant in every country in the world. The only difference was that in these other places and times, there was necessity to develop these ideas, so they were never funded or encouraged. They recycled.
 Mani
Joined: 5/17/2004
Msg: 103
view profile
History
Why did some societies advance and other not?
Posted: 5/23/2007 8:04:07 AM
Hi to all, just join this great post.

Ghehngis Khan even declined to invade Europe because there was neither profit nor sport in it.

In fact, Batu Khan did not invade Europe because of a noze bleed! It's a funny story. But I agree with most of what your are saying.

And to the original question I answer, space. It has lot to do with competition induced by the lack of space. Plenty of books exists on this subject. Off course other factors comes into play. One of the most recent one : religion and the raise of the west. Please refer to l'ethique protestante du capitalisme. But even then, geography had done much of the work.
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  >