2 ms·
There is nothing colonialist about the fact that less complex societies don't develop as quickly as more complex ones. It is not even about ethnicity. For exam
by inglor_cz 4y ago
There is nothing colonialist about the fact that less complex societies don't develop as quickly as more complex ones.
It is not even about ethnicity. For example, the Incan empire developed very fast and reached Roman-like levels of complexity and political power in mere decades after its founding, in fact much faster than the Romans themselves once did.
In the meantime, hunters and gatherer's way of life in other parts of the world, including Europe (such as the Sami in Lappland), barely changed over centuries.
- wahnfrieden 4y agoyou’re still repeating outdated histories
- dredmorbius 4y agoYou might care to demonstrate more substantive discussion by detailing your reasoning and linking and citing sources.
- wahnfrieden 4y agoI gave one
- dredmorbius 4y agoSorry, I missed that. Dawn of Everything, or something other?
- wahnfrieden 4y agoyes or their papers
- wizofaus 4y agoIs it a "fact" though? Human civilization now is arguably more complex than it's ever been in the past, yet I'm not sure we could argue the pace of change in the last few decades is the most rapid/transformative it's ever been (which Tainter would presumably see as evidence of the reducing gains of increased complexity). Or perhaps like in politics, there are decades where nothing happens and weeks (well, years at least) where decades happen... And we should definitely question the assumption that a faster pace of technological change is actually a good thing.