This discussion is now closed.
Check out other Related discussions
- Campus east accommodation
- When was the last time you went to the other side of your country?
- Furthest North, South, East, West you've been.
- Which York College?
- Uni of York accommodation
- York accommodation 2023/2024
- Ask a Uni of York Student!
- Uni of York east campus or west?
- L4 and degree apprenticeship catchment area
- Are any London Universities ex-polys?
- Another binomial distribution q
- York
- Questions/Concerns about St. Andrews
- UoB accom
- Had the Ottoman Empire been Christian rather than Muslim
- How is Stratford for a single female?
- EO Work Coach (DWP)
- Bristol Accomodation - Villages
- University of York - which college? 2018/19
- What is the most social accommodation at the Uni of York?
why have th West, Middle East and Far East contributed the most to human advancement?
Scroll to see replies
RyanT
This isn't true.
Ever heard of Pax Britannica? 100 years of peace in europe because of the sheer power of the British Empire.
This was before most of europe had benefited from the industrial revolution.
Colonialism has nothing to do with it - USA was a colony. Australia was a colony. Hell Hong Kong was a colony. Hell South Africa was a colony and was the most developed part of Africa. Your colonialism theory is just a heart-throb sob story. European colonisers built roads where they had been none, ports where there had been fishing villages.
Ever heard of Pax Britannica? 100 years of peace in europe because of the sheer power of the British Empire.
This was before most of europe had benefited from the industrial revolution.Colonialism has nothing to do with it - USA was a colony. Australia was a colony. Hell Hong Kong was a colony. Hell South Africa was a colony and was the most developed part of Africa. Your colonialism theory is just a heart-throb sob story. European colonisers built roads where they had been none, ports where there had been fishing villages.
Agreed. Colonialism was beneficial in terms of technological advancement. Rome did it, the European powers did it. You can say "Oh no that's wrong, Imperialism destroyed their cultures and subjugated them to oppression! What did they have before they were made colonial subjects? Huts, spears? Not very technologically advanced, and their culture probably stood in the way of that. Thus, whilst Europeans and Asians had muskets, the rest of the world fought with spears, bows, and arrows.
Why was African, South-East Asian, and Native American advancement so slow, or even nil in comparison to the rest of the world?
Well, Central and South American cultures can be seen as something of an exception, as they did advance. The Aztec, Maya, and Inca were on a bright track, largely. However, Europeans were probably to blame for bringing disease, at the very least. However, it is true that they were still behind the rest of the world by centuries.
I don't know if advancement can be attributed to intelligence, but the endeavours, intelligence, and inspiration of individuals was certainly one of the most important factors behind the advancement and prosperity of Europe and Asia above other continents. Egypt had a chance, but Rome got the better of it.
Perhaps climate and culture can be attributed to advancement, as well. Some cultures were and are stagnant, and do not allow for or encourage technological advancement. Some temperatures, and famine also hamper thought. Can't think when you're struggling to survive and keep cool, can you?
In fact, if the Romans had not colonialised the rest of Europe, we might have been in the dark for many years to come. Thank the Romans and Greeks.
Liquidus Zeromus
Agreed. Colonialism was beneficial in terms of technological advancement. Rome did it, the European powers did it. You can say "Oh no that's wrong, Imperialism destroyed their cultures and subjugated them to oppression! What did they have before they were made colonial subjects? Huts, spears? Not very technologically advanced, and their culture probably stood in the way of that.
I disagree with that. Their culture did not "hold" them back. If anything their culture was suited to the environment. Try having a large scale technologically advanced civilisation in an area with little water or natural resources beyond some wood and where large livestock would be killed by flies with parasitic diseases and these flies still can't be eradicated. No large livestock no ploughs. Even in areas where large livestock can be kept the plough is harmful to the delicate soil and makes it useless for growing things on, yet still people managed to adapt to this environment through pastoralism because not much else other than grass grew in the area and people can't eat grass.
If anything people's lives were a lot more flexible and "safer" before colonisation. If one method of subsistence failed because of a change in the environment people would switch to another. Now people can't do that because of property laws and such. You have to be pretty clever to be able to survive in a country that has such harsh environments.
Captain Crash
Perhaps but it may have been better to draw the lines along tribe areas. The same problem's happened in Iraq with essentially 3 different countries lumped together.
I think that ethnically homogenous (or near enough) nations are the key to a unified and ultimately peaceful country. It seems to have worked well enough in europe and across the world there is a trend towards ethnic groups establishing their own countries. Take the former yugoslavia, the republics of the former USSR, East Timor, the Caucusus, bits of africa.
Of course it is not as simple as "one tribe - one country". Balances of power come into play (survival of the fittest) and also factors such as religion and ideology can be just as important as ethnicity.
With Iraq you are right that ethnicaly it would make sense to have three seperate countries, but then that would enormously benefit the kurds and shia who have the lions share of the oil.... so its a tricky situation. Africa is similar in that if you divide up countries by tribe you will inevitably give one country (by luck) a huge oil field, or mineral resources whilst the other will get a patch of worthless sand. The long term consequences of such inequality will then lead to violence.
Well huge empires like the Mali empire and Zululand were in the process of establishing something when they were conquered by the french and British respectively. Great Zimbabwe was also flourishing with huge cities before it was conquered by the Portuguese.
I'm to be convinced tbh, the "oh... they were just about to achieve something special but those evil colonialists ruined it all" just seems like a poor excuse to me. Also i would be very interested to see more on these "huge cities" which presumably worked without writing, mathematics, the wheel etc...
There is obviously no short answer, and by "short" I mean "less than thesis length", but one idea is biological.
If you think I'm going to go off on a flight of racialist fancy, please feel free to stop reading and start flaming here, and enjoy your ban.
No, it's to do with crops and beasts of burden. The reason North American civilisation never got off the ground to the same extent as it did in Europe and the rest is that they didn't have the right animals and plants to settle down in fixed farming communities. They just ran around hunting bison all day, and history teaches us that in order to develop technologically you have to stop running around hunting bison and build a town in one place. The same is arguably true of Africa - and certainly of aboriginal Australia, except without the bison - although I'm not so sure about the Central and South American civilisations. Possibly they were just unlucky, with a combination of disease and crazy millennialist views scuppering their fight against Cortez and his lot.
Similarly, the reason China has, when averaged out over the past few thousand years, been a superpower, is that its alluvial plains are so incredibly fertile. I mean, we're talking seriously fertile here. You could drop a penny there and it would probably grow into a penny tree. That's how fertile it is. Ditto Egypt; the Nile valley is not only fertile when compared to the surrounding desert, it's actually pretty fertile when compared with other agricultural areas. Certainly more than the Mediterranean.
So we're looking at a combination of fertile soil and crops/animals that push the emerging tribelets towards a static, rather than a nomadic, existence. This leads to the rise of cities and mini-nations, and at this point social (cultural/religious) factors kick in and determine each one's attitude to technology. These are far harder to predict, because they're basically pretty random, but it's known that the Roman Empire's economy and scientific progess stagnated somewhat because their preferred solution to a problem was to throw slaves at it until it went away, with innovation only starting where that failed. Similarly Central American culture was prevented by various factors from developing a tradition of technological advance.
One might almost argue that monotheism helps; Christendom and the Muslim world have, between them, carried the torch of progress for thousands of years. The big elephant in the room here, though, is of course China. Why China invented so many things so much earlier than anyone else is not really known, but I'm prepared to wager that its trade played a role. And by that I mean: Silk.
In a sense, then, we come full circle to the crops idea; if China hadn't had the resources to become a silk-producing power, then the great trade routes would never have sprung up. Without trade, ideas don't mix so much and less revenue is available for the government to give to crazy inventors who want to play around with black powder or flat, white sheets.
So in the absence of a research grant, that's my answer. The available crops and animals, with the additional randomising factor of cultural pecularities, can go quite a long way towards explaining who's hot and who's not in the last five thousand years of history.
If you think I'm going to go off on a flight of racialist fancy, please feel free to stop reading and start flaming here, and enjoy your ban.
No, it's to do with crops and beasts of burden. The reason North American civilisation never got off the ground to the same extent as it did in Europe and the rest is that they didn't have the right animals and plants to settle down in fixed farming communities. They just ran around hunting bison all day, and history teaches us that in order to develop technologically you have to stop running around hunting bison and build a town in one place. The same is arguably true of Africa - and certainly of aboriginal Australia, except without the bison - although I'm not so sure about the Central and South American civilisations. Possibly they were just unlucky, with a combination of disease and crazy millennialist views scuppering their fight against Cortez and his lot.
Similarly, the reason China has, when averaged out over the past few thousand years, been a superpower, is that its alluvial plains are so incredibly fertile. I mean, we're talking seriously fertile here. You could drop a penny there and it would probably grow into a penny tree. That's how fertile it is. Ditto Egypt; the Nile valley is not only fertile when compared to the surrounding desert, it's actually pretty fertile when compared with other agricultural areas. Certainly more than the Mediterranean.
So we're looking at a combination of fertile soil and crops/animals that push the emerging tribelets towards a static, rather than a nomadic, existence. This leads to the rise of cities and mini-nations, and at this point social (cultural/religious) factors kick in and determine each one's attitude to technology. These are far harder to predict, because they're basically pretty random, but it's known that the Roman Empire's economy and scientific progess stagnated somewhat because their preferred solution to a problem was to throw slaves at it until it went away, with innovation only starting where that failed. Similarly Central American culture was prevented by various factors from developing a tradition of technological advance.
One might almost argue that monotheism helps; Christendom and the Muslim world have, between them, carried the torch of progress for thousands of years. The big elephant in the room here, though, is of course China. Why China invented so many things so much earlier than anyone else is not really known, but I'm prepared to wager that its trade played a role. And by that I mean: Silk.
In a sense, then, we come full circle to the crops idea; if China hadn't had the resources to become a silk-producing power, then the great trade routes would never have sprung up. Without trade, ideas don't mix so much and less revenue is available for the government to give to crazy inventors who want to play around with black powder or flat, white sheets.
So in the absence of a research grant, that's my answer. The available crops and animals, with the additional randomising factor of cultural pecularities, can go quite a long way towards explaining who's hot and who's not in the last five thousand years of history.
Arminius
I'm to be convinced tbh, the "oh... they were just about to achieve something special but those evil colonialists ruined it all" just seems like a poor excuse to me. Also i would be very interested to see more on these "huge cities" which presumably worked without writing, mathematics, the wheel etc...
I'm to be convinced tbh, the "oh... they were just about to achieve something special but those evil colonialists ruined it all" just seems like a poor excuse to me. Also i would be very interested to see more on these "huge cities" which presumably worked without writing, mathematics, the wheel etc...
Great Zimbabwe is particularly famous for it's huge cities (huge relative to the time that is) - see here. As for the Mali empire, I assume you've heard of Timbuktu? Western Africa has a plethora of cities founded and built by since destroyed civilisations.
Arminius
Ok, but they were also brought into the modern world. In the sense they had access to much more advanced knowledge, a strong society would have been able to take advantage of this much like most of asia has adopted western knowledge of science and industry. So here asia caught and opportunity but african societies just descended into chaos... why?
Ok, but they were also brought into the modern world. In the sense they had access to much more advanced knowledge, a strong society would have been able to take advantage of this much like most of asia has adopted western knowledge of science and industry. So here asia caught and opportunity but african societies just descended into chaos... why?
The difference is that Asia always was, throughout history, an economic and scientific powerhouse by virtue of being fertile (fertile far east and the fertile crescent etc)as I mentioned eariler and AS elaborated above. Colonialism was a blip, mostly because european powers were the first to develop techology to kill people quickly and efficiently i.e. guns, and subsequently conquered all those who didn't have them, creating the eurocentric ascendency that only ended relatively recently.
Africa on the other hand didn't have this base. It wasn't particularly fertile (save for N Africa) so there wasn't the surplus to develop as quickly as the rest of the world.
Captain Crash
Great Zimbabwe is particularly famous for it's huge cities (huge relative to the time that is) - see here. As for the Mali empire, I assume you've heard of Timbuktu? Western Africa has a plethora of cities founded and built by since destroyed civilisations.
The difference is that Asia always was, throughout history, an economic and scientific powerhouse by virtue of being fertile (fertile far east and the fertile crescent etc)as I mentioned eariler and AS elaborated above. Colonialism was a blip, mostly because european powers were the first to develop techology to kill people quickly and efficiently i.e. guns, and subsequently conquered all those who didn't have them, creating the eurocentric ascendency that only ended relatively recently.
Africa on the other hand didn't have this base. It wasn't particularly fertile (save for N Africa) so there wasn't the surplus to develop as quickly as the rest of the world.
The difference is that Asia always was, throughout history, an economic and scientific powerhouse by virtue of being fertile (fertile far east and the fertile crescent etc)as I mentioned eariler and AS elaborated above. Colonialism was a blip, mostly because european powers were the first to develop techology to kill people quickly and efficiently i.e. guns, and subsequently conquered all those who didn't have them, creating the eurocentric ascendency that only ended relatively recently.
Africa on the other hand didn't have this base. It wasn't particularly fertile (save for N Africa) so there wasn't the surplus to develop as quickly as the rest of the world.
IQ is a result of nurture at least as much as nature. Moreover, it is not an objective quality but a subjective measurement, and as a measurement it is inherently prejudiced towards those who set the tests, just as the entrance exams for Oxbridge used to be biased towards those who had had a Classical education. Lynn and Vanhanen's research demonstrates the effect, not the cause, of what we're discussing. Too bad for them they didn't realise that before they published!
Agent Smith
IQ is a result of nature at least as much as nurture. Moreover, it is not an objective quality but a subjective measurement, and as a measurement it is inherently prejudiced towards those who set the tests, just as the entrance exams for Oxbridge used to be biased towards those who had had a Classical education. Lynn and Vanhanen's research demonstrates the effect, not the cause, of what we're discussing. Too bad for them they didn't realise that before they published!
To add to that, it is difficult to standardise an IQ test across different languages and nigh on impossible to standardise for cultural differences (some IQ tests usually use odd one out tests, usually using western items bizarrely....).
Moreover, IQ is more a measure of one's education and lifestyle (nutrition etc) rather than anything so simple as genetics. Therefore it isn't surprising that IQ in food-deprived and education starved third world countries is lower than western societies.
Again it all boils down to how well fed you are and how much free time you have to work on technology, both of which are scarce in infertile Africa.
Captain Crash
To add to that, it is difficult to standardise an IQ test across different languages and nigh on impossible to standardise for cultural differences (some IQ tests usually use odd one out tests, usually using western items bizarrely....).
Moreover, IQ is more a measure of one's education and lifestyle (nutrition etc) rather than anything so simple as genetics. Therefore it isn't surprising that IQ in food-deprived and education starved third world countries is lower than western societies.
Again it all boils down to how well fed you are and how much free time you have to work on technology, both of which are scarce in infertile Africa.
Moreover, IQ is more a measure of one's education and lifestyle (nutrition etc) rather than anything so simple as genetics. Therefore it isn't surprising that IQ in food-deprived and education starved third world countries is lower than western societies.
Again it all boils down to how well fed you are and how much free time you have to work on technology, both of which are scarce in infertile Africa.
Related discussions
- Campus east accommodation
- When was the last time you went to the other side of your country?
- Furthest North, South, East, West you've been.
- Which York College?
- Uni of York accommodation
- York accommodation 2023/2024
- Ask a Uni of York Student!
- Uni of York east campus or west?
- L4 and degree apprenticeship catchment area
- Are any London Universities ex-polys?
- Another binomial distribution q
- York
- Questions/Concerns about St. Andrews
- UoB accom
- Had the Ottoman Empire been Christian rather than Muslim
- How is Stratford for a single female?
- EO Work Coach (DWP)
- Bristol Accomodation - Villages
- University of York - which college? 2018/19
- What is the most social accommodation at the Uni of York?
Latest
Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 2 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 2 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
