5 ms·

OK, so indigenous civilizations in the Americas go back at least 20-30 kyr before European invasion. And it seems that they had more or less reached equilibrium

OK, so indigenous civilizations in the Americas go back at least 20-30 kyr before European invasion. And it seems that they had more or less reached equilibrium with their environment. Sure, they used fire to modify the environment. In the Midwest, for example, they pushed the prairie-forest boundary several hundred miles north. And in the East, they burned to keep down forest undergrowth. And sure, mammoths disappeared. But the buffalo did OK, until the Europeans. More prairie arguably benefited them. So it all sounds quite idyllic, in a way. But, conversely, they didn't invent wheels. Or glass. And only some metalworking. And mostly for decoration, not weapons. I wonder why that was. I've read Jared Diamond, but it all seems so contrived. Maybe it was just that they didn't trade a lot with China ;)

paradoxparalax 8y ago
"I wonder why that was" Maybe the old cliché: Necessity oversimplified: when you already live in Heavens, you don't need to invent the Bible. I have always Hated cliches since a very early age. At 40, I realized they are underestimated. As Confucius maybe said ( I wasn't there) : "The Man stops crawling and stand up to start walking at around age 40" Confucius
- mirimir 8y ago
  Were the Americas really that idyllic?
  - paradoxparalax 8y ago
    good point. Thanks for noting. So probably or surely there are other factors too. Europe , for what I saw in Asterix comics, at least, looked pretty nice too. And was probably wonderful and beautiful and not that hostile, in real life. But necessity is strong, very strong, in many situations. There is the old Sufi tale ( if I recall, it is sufi ) "The old man came and killed the only cow the poor family relied to survived, for years of poverty. The family cried. Years later, the family said thank you to the old man, they are rich now" Just a story, not trying to make any strong point. Weather is the key, I think off course, the world in my opinion, is better without swords and bullets and hypersonic gliders that burns to death thousands at a time. But some people think all tech are good things. each to their own. and Comments, as paper, accepts anything you put on them. And words can be used to support anything.
    - mirimir 8y ago
      Yeah, I totally agree. I mean, 20-30 kyr of ~stability is amazing. And here we are, after maybe 10 kyr of technology, pushing atmospheric CO2 to arguably dire levels. And the anthropgenic extinction event. Not to mention those hypersonic gliders. Although they are damn cool, you gotta admit. And so is the Internet :) "Live fast, die young.", as they say.
      - paradoxparalax 8y ago
        I confess I feel guilty to admit that Proton rockets and Avangarde devices are indeed cool. But far from me, like the snow. I like the snow in movies.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
saalweachter 8y ago
Why do you find the lack of domesticatable animals an unsatisfactory explanation? You don't need an oxcart without an ox.
- mirimir 8y ago
  That is a good point. But people can also pull carts, and often have. And there were wolves, from which Europeans bred dogs. Maybe deer and buffalo aren't amenable to domestication. But I don't recall Diamond's arguments and evidence about that. And what about iron weapons? I presume that there was meteoric iron lying about, as in Europe. And glass. Why didn't they independently discover glass? I suspect that there was something generally about indigenous American culture that favored peaceful coexistence. Notwithstanding some ritual warfare, of course. But they just didn't seem as driven as Old World cultures were.
  - saalweachter 8y ago
    You might also be interested in another pop-history book, _Paper_. What I'd call its central thesis is that society changes technology, rather than technology changing society. It explores this thesis through the history of the adoption of paper, trying to substantiate the claim that paper was available for centuries before it was adopted by civilizations, and it was only adopted after those civilizations developed a pressing need for massive amounts of cheap, high-quality writing material -- prior to that, people persisted in using more expensive, difficult to produce parchment despite having the option of cheaper paper. Another thing to consider is any technology you might mention, like glass and iron, are relatively recent as developed technologies, about 2-3000 years old, with some older precursors. Moreover, they were developed and spread over the course of hundreds or a thousand or more years. Different parts of the Eurasia entered the Iron Age ~3000 years ago, while other parts -- parts connected by trade and separated by a few hundred miles -- didn't enter the Iron Age until ~2000 years ago. So the other question is, to what extent is it meaningful that the Americas, which did not have the benefit of Eurasian trade, had not independently entered the Iron Age ~500 years ago? Is that a meaningful delay that needs to be explained, or is it just the variation that should be expected to occur by the accumulation of chance factors? Re: domestication, there were domesticated dogs in the pre-Columbian Americas, but it was not an independent domestication. Deer and buffalo are not regarded as domesticatable; there were llamas and alpacas as large domesticated animals, but their range was limited and mountainous.

paradoxparalax 8y ago

"I wonder why that was" Maybe the old cliché: Necessity oversimplified: when you already live in Heavens, you don't need to invent the Bible. I have always Hated cliches since a very early age. At 40, I realized they are underestimated. As Confucius maybe said ( I wasn't there) : "The Man stops crawling and stand up to start walking at around age 40" Confucius

mirimir 8y ago
Were the Americas really that idyllic?
- paradoxparalax 8y ago
  good point. Thanks for noting. So probably or surely there are other factors too. Europe , for what I saw in Asterix comics, at least, looked pretty nice too. And was probably wonderful and beautiful and not that hostile, in real life. But necessity is strong, very strong, in many situations. There is the old Sufi tale ( if I recall, it is sufi ) "The old man came and killed the only cow the poor family relied to survived, for years of poverty. The family cried. Years later, the family said thank you to the old man, they are rich now" Just a story, not trying to make any strong point. Weather is the key, I think off course, the world in my opinion, is better without swords and bullets and hypersonic gliders that burns to death thousands at a time. But some people think all tech are good things. each to their own. and Comments, as paper, accepts anything you put on them. And words can be used to support anything.
  - mirimir 8y ago
    Yeah, I totally agree. I mean, 20-30 kyr of ~stability is amazing. And here we are, after maybe 10 kyr of technology, pushing atmospheric CO2 to arguably dire levels. And the anthropgenic extinction event. Not to mention those hypersonic gliders. Although they are damn cool, you gotta admit. And so is the Internet :) "Live fast, die young.", as they say.
    - paradoxparalax 8y ago
      I confess I feel guilty to admit that Proton rockets and Avangarde devices are indeed cool. But far from me, like the snow. I like the snow in movies.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

saalweachter 8y ago

Why do you find the lack of domesticatable animals an unsatisfactory explanation? You don't need an oxcart without an ox.

mirimir 8y ago
That is a good point. But people can also pull carts, and often have. And there were wolves, from which Europeans bred dogs. Maybe deer and buffalo aren't amenable to domestication. But I don't recall Diamond's arguments and evidence about that. And what about iron weapons? I presume that there was meteoric iron lying about, as in Europe. And glass. Why didn't they independently discover glass? I suspect that there was something generally about indigenous American culture that favored peaceful coexistence. Notwithstanding some ritual warfare, of course. But they just didn't seem as driven as Old World cultures were.
- saalweachter 8y ago
  You might also be interested in another pop-history book, _Paper_. What I'd call its central thesis is that society changes technology, rather than technology changing society. It explores this thesis through the history of the adoption of paper, trying to substantiate the claim that paper was available for centuries before it was adopted by civilizations, and it was only adopted after those civilizations developed a pressing need for massive amounts of cheap, high-quality writing material -- prior to that, people persisted in using more expensive, difficult to produce parchment despite having the option of cheaper paper. Another thing to consider is any technology you might mention, like glass and iron, are relatively recent as developed technologies, about 2-3000 years old, with some older precursors. Moreover, they were developed and spread over the course of hundreds or a thousand or more years. Different parts of the Eurasia entered the Iron Age ~3000 years ago, while other parts -- parts connected by trade and separated by a few hundred miles -- didn't enter the Iron Age until ~2000 years ago. So the other question is, to what extent is it meaningful that the Americas, which did not have the benefit of Eurasian trade, had not independently entered the Iron Age ~500 years ago? Is that a meaningful delay that needs to be explained, or is it just the variation that should be expected to occur by the accumulation of chance factors? Re: domestication, there were domesticated dogs in the pre-Columbian Americas, but it was not an independent domestication. Deer and buffalo are not regarded as domesticatable; there were llamas and alpacas as large domesticated animals, but their range was limited and mountainous.