Posted: Thu Jan 31, 2008 7:49 pm
Don't forget Christianity's need to convert people.
Official Discussion Forum for the works of Stephen R. Donaldson
https://kevinswatch.com/phpBB3/
Cultural superiority is relative, but cultural complexity is not. A group of loosely related hunter-gatherer families is definitively, absolutely less complex than a global society of interconnected countries.Lord Mhoram wrote:I think by far the most convincing argument, whether it's from Professor Diamond or whomever, is that societal advantages are random and dictated by geography, natural conditions, and pure chance. There is no natural selection in societies, and the whole idea of "cultural superiority" - whether you believe in that fiction or not, it has no bearing on the evolution of cultures.
So, the evolution of the West over the rest was due to mountains, rivers and the luck of the draw? Well, not "luck" since you're calling the West's dominance aka cultural superiority "fiction"; but it's due to what then? Happenstance? A fluke? A flash in the history of man? That religion, philosophy and the "Golden Rule" has had as much meaning to our human spiritual evolution as it does to where some chap grew up around the Alps vs the Himalayas, the Mississippi vs the Nile or the Steppes vs Rhine Valley? I give man and the human spirit for freedom much more credit than you appear to give, if I understand you correctly.Lord Mhoram wrote:I think by far the most convincing argument, whether it's from Professor Diamond or whomever, is that societal advantages are random and dictated by geography, natural conditions, and pure chance. There is no natural selection in societies, and the whole idea of "cultural superiority" - whether you believe in that fiction or not, it has no bearing on the evolution of cultures.
Yes, that's the book. Pretty good read, and interesting proposals, I think though, that in some part the theory suggested is harder to apply from about the 18th century on. I think it is a good guideline though.Malik23 wrote:Are you talking about Nonzero, by Robert Wright? This is one of my favorite books (Bill Clinton was a big fan, too, so it's not conservative propaganda).Tjol wrote:Well, I've read a couple books that make a few suggestions.
One called Zerosum I think, says that the west cross pollinated ideas during the renaissance, while other cultures shut themselves in and deliberately fought off such cross pollination to their long term disadvantage.
Another I'm just starting suggests that other cultures did not explore and imagine the possible applications of gun powder in the way that the west did, and as a result, fireworks were all that one culture used gunpowder for, while the other redefined entirely the way warfare was practiced.
Freedom of ideas in general, as well as exponential learning have brought the west to where it is quicker than others as well I think. However, as the west forgets the foundations it built upon, it's possible that they might fall back in with the rest of the pack in a century or two. You need to know Athens and Sparta and Macedonia and Rome and France and England and Spain and Germany and the USA and the USSR and see the lessons from each, otherwise the whole house of cards falls down I think.
He makes the case that China was poised to do what the West did, but for quirks of their culture, didn't. He looks at three key technologies which transformed the world and elevated the West to dominance: the printing press, gunpowder, and oceanic ships. China invented all these first. But their alphabet was too large to take advantage of movable type. Gunpowder was looked upon as a toy for fireworks. And there was one particular Chinese leader who (because of his philosophy or religion, I forget) decided that China wasn't going to be a seafaring empire.
Yes, I started to think density (within it's psychological social boundaries of course) is as important, or possibly more important than some semblance of free speech/ expression.A more interesting question is why the Old World developed faster than the New World. We have here two separate petri dishes of cultural evolution, so there was no (or extremely little) possibility of mutual influence (including everything from sharing ideas to war). The "American Indians" did indeed invent many of the social structures which Old World societies invented, too. Yet, they still moved slower.
Wright concludes that the most important factor was population density.
After reading 'A Distant Mirror', the inverse might also be true. The Black Death and roaving bands of unemployed knights trimmed the population substantially in the 14th and 15th centuries, and for the most part things did decline as a consequence.For the "Invisible Hand" to work (in Adam Smith's terms), there must be a means of exchanging information between members of society. The rate of invention of new ideas is directly tied to how quickly and easily people within a population can communicate (which is why things like the printing press and the Internet are so important). In dense populations, ideas spread and evolve faster than in sparse populations. So all other things being equal--cultural differences, geography differences, means of production difference--population density is the largest factor in facilitating the cultural evolution of a society (especially in an era without telecommunications).
I agree with others above that Guns, Germs, and Steel is a good book, and I think Kil Tyme is onto something as well. I would add only two elements in relation to your query. The first is an argument advanced in Race And Culture (by Thomas Sowell, anathema no doubt to many here -- but hear me out). In that book Sowell contrasts the geographical situations of Africa and Europe as an example of the geopolitical importance of cultural exchange. Basically most of the European "innovations" are merely transmitted and assimilated innovations of other cultures, put into a single package and used in a competitive environment. Contiguous rolling plains and an abundance of navigable rivers placed Europe in an ideal setting for cross-cultural pollination. On the other side of it Sowell discusses how sometimes hundreds of different languages are found in relatively small areas of Africa, which is only one aspect of the much more difficult transportation problem on that continent -- which becomes a problem that is self-reinforcing (limited transportation causes cultural isolation, which creates a language problem that is an additional barrier to cultural exchange).Gil galad wrote:The thing which I have trouble fitting in is why in the west the conditions arose for power competition. The only reason which I can think of is that the climate and geography in Europe and later, America is more suited with supporting and high population density with lower technology. There are lots of places in the african continent where this could have happened though, but it didn't. There must be some social conditions historically which prevented competitive development from starting in Africa, or capped its grwoth. And by historically I mean 2000 years ago +.
The fact remains that Europeans, for geographical and historical reasons, have had access to a much larger toolbox of cultural elements than did, say, the pygmies. (Indeed, "Western culture" is in many ways world culture in a fundamental rather than simply modern sense.) Not sure that makes European culture "superior," but it does confer numerous advantages towards achieving your ends.Lord Mhoram wrote:I think by far the most convincing argument, whether it's from Professor Diamond or whomever, is that societal advantages are random and dictated by geography, natural conditions, and pure chance. There is no natural selection in societies, and the whole idea of "cultural superiority" - whether you believe in that fiction or not, it has no bearing on the evolution of cultures.
Yes, actually. Consider this: how different do you think the history of the United States would be if we weren't protected on both shores by the world's two largest oceans. Or consider how Britain would have turned out if it had not been an island nation which developed the strongest navy in the world (the "Mahan thesis" comes into play). Or consider how China would have turned out if it hadn't been a geographically and therefore culturally insular society. I could go on and on.So, the evolution of the West over the rest was due to mountains, rivers and the luck of the draw?
Absolutely. I'm just emphasizing why we've had access to that "toolbox," and just because we have access to it, does not make us, in my view, inherently superior. By the way, I haven't read The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers yet but I am currently Kennedy's The Parliament of Man. Good book.The fact remains that Europeans, for geographical and historical reasons, have had access to a much larger toolbox of cultural elements than did, say, the pygmies.
Sure it's a loaded phrase, which is why I was stressing "complexity" rather than superiority. However, I think in pragmatic terms (not absolute), humans are better off in modern societies than in hunter-gatherer societies. And I define better off as: increased lifespans, lower infant mortality rates, greater access to healthcare, greater leisure time, more comfortable and safe housing, more entertainment opportunities, greater access to education, art, literature, etc., and less authoritarian leadership.Lord Mhoram wrote:Malik,
But I think "superiority" is a loaded phrase. I don't think natural selection is an appropriate way to describe the evolution (not Darwinian evolution, but "evolution" as "transformation") of cultures because unlike species, cultures "regress," or return to an earlier state and can thrive nevertheless.
Setbacks do occur. But in terms of competing in a world stage, authoritarian governments are less productive than democratic ones. Freedom is inherently more productive than top-down regulation. Therefore, I believe that democratic trend will only increase (and we've seen this happening in places like China, where people were grudgingly given more access to things like information via the Internet).Western liberal democracy will not survive forever. Authoritarianism will probably set in again. I'm a firm believer in the Schlesingerian cyclical view of history.
But the barbarians didn't succeed in the long run. What you're describing is the zero-sum component of this cycle. There is always zero-sum competition within non-zero-sum games. For instance, buying a car is a non-zero-sum game because both seller and buyer benefit from the exchange. However, within the negotiable range where they both benefit, there is wiggle room in which either direction of price benefits one party more than the other. That's the zero-sum component of this transaction. We'll never get rid of it. People will always seek their own benefit. But the net balance tends towards blending their personal interests with the interest of others, because they tend to maximize their personal benefit in doing so. I whole-heartedly encourage you to read this book, and anything about game theory which you can get your hands on. I sincerely believe it will appeal to your scholarly interests.Hence I don't think Darwinism is an appropriate lens through which to view the transformations of societies. Describing history in Darwinian terms also places a kind of value judgment on random events. The steady overwhelming of the western Roman empire by the "barbarians" utterly transformed Europe. If we thought of history in terms of Darwinian evolution, we'd be forced to conclude that barbarian culture was inherently superior - in that it was more advantageous to the welfare of European culture - to Roman culture. Now I sure don't believe that, but someone else might; but we can't empirically prove it either way.
It didn't help the Indians. Once that divide was crossed, the more competitive technology and social structures of Europeans was the primary deciding factor in which group of people thrived. If the Indians had kept pace with the Old World, crossing the oceans wouldn't have mattered; they would have repulsed the European invasion.Yes, actually. Consider this: how different do you think the history of the United States would be if we weren't protected on both shores by the world's two largest oceans.
That's my point exactly: no single race of people is any better or more superior than any other. If the Indians had achieved a population density of the Old World, they would have developed just as quickly. Applying game theory to cultural evolution actually reinforces that humans everywhere are the same. It's not that Europeans had better brains . . . it's that as a society, they constituted a better "brain" because the "neurons" of individual people could communicate better, faster, and with more feedback than the more loosely connected "neurons" of the New World "brain."Absolutely. I'm just emphasizing why we've had access to that "toolbox," and just because we have access to it, does not make us, in my view, inherently superior.
Again, I agree, but we don't know for sure. Some catastrophic event could occur that could increase state power and therefore increase authoritarianism. Even 9-11 increased authoritarianism everywhere from the halls of the US Congress (the USA PATRIOT Act), to the Gaza Strip, to Chechnya. What if there was some sort of nuclear attack? The aftermath in non-affected areas (assuming the affected areas don't for our purposes exist) would not be social democratic initiatives, I'll tell you that much.Therefore, I believe that democratic trend will only increase (and we've seen this happening in places like China, where people were grudgingly given more access to things like information via the Internet).
Like hell they didn't! The fragmentation of Europe even to this day is entirely their legacy, and their monarchical, localized style of governance transformed Western Europe and influences us, again, to this day. Their influence is a testament to their successes.But the barbarians didn't succeed in the long run.
None of which addresses my point: that geography influences history, profoundly. This is a virtual truism. The very existence of Indian civilizations alongside oversea European civilizations - so very dramatically different cultures - is a testament to that. And again, China, Britain, and the US are all examples of cultures affected by their relative geographic isolation.It didn't help the Indians. Once that divide was crossed, the more competitive technology and social structures of Europeans was the primary deciding factor in which group of people thrived. If the Indians had kept pace with the Old World, crossing the oceans wouldn't have mattered; they would have repulsed the European invasion.
But why is geography important? For the example I gave, the geography was a factor in how it affected population density. Europe filled up faster. Therefore, it had more people per square mile, which allowed inventions to spread and mutate faster.Lord Mhoram wrote:None of which addresses my point: that geography influences history, profoundly. This is a virtual truism. The very existence of Indian civilizations alongside oversea European civilizations - so very dramatically different cultures - is a testament to that. And again, China, Britain, and the US are all examples of cultures affected by their relative geographic isolation.It didn't help the Indians. Once that divide was crossed, the more competitive technology and social structures of Europeans was the primary deciding factor in which group of people thrived. If the Indians had kept pace with the Old World, crossing the oceans wouldn't have mattered; they would have repulsed the European invasion.
But that's a total idealization. To use his metaphor, these poppy seeds are almost never given the time and proper circumstances to grow "naturally." Events always intercede. What's the point of some universalist historical theory if it doesn't take into account real situations? That's the danger in these trendy explanations.He compares it to the "destiny" of a poppy seed. If given the right conditions, it will turn into a poppy.
Game theory is "exceedingly obvious?" Have you ever heard of Jon von Neumann? If you haven't read about him, maybe you saw the movie A Beautiful Mind? We're talking about the theory of the one of the greatest mathematical minds of the 20th century. This is a branch of mathematics which came into being 1944. It's no mere "trendy explanation," like you said.Lord Mhoram wrote:Malik,
Geography is important because since we are self-interested as you note, the tools which we are given are extremely important in determining our fate. If the point of this theory by this writer that you like is that humans act in such a way as to maximize their own success, I don't see what's particularly interesting or original about such a theory. It's exceedingly obvious. What's more interesting to me is how humans act with the tools they are given, and comparing cultures and their tools.But that's a total idealization. To use his metaphor, these poppy seeds are almost never given the time and proper circumstances to grow "naturally." Events always intercede. What's the point of some universalist historical theory if it doesn't take into account real situations? That's the danger in these trendy explanations.He compares it to the "destiny" of a poppy seed. If given the right conditions, it will turn into a poppy.
I agree. It should be in the history forum.Murrin wrote:You know, Doriendor Corishev could really use good topics like this, before it stagnates entirely. What's it doing in the Tank?
(I understand people are really talking up the Tank as "the debate forum" lately, but I don't think that should entirely overwrite the topic-based forum structure we have: this topic is perfect for the history forum.)