A bit late to come into this thread but I
found it intriguing enough to mention Jared Diamond's excellent book, "Guns,
Germs and Steel", on just this topic. The sub-title is "A Short
History of Everybody for the last 13,000 Years". Diamond is an interesting
character, formerly Prof. of Physiology at UCLA Medical School he later made
major contributions to ecology and the study of evolutionary biology and
is currently Prof. of Geography and Environmental Health Sciences
at UCLA.
He addresses the question of why certain
populations appear to achieve while others don't, including the
very pertinent point that the term "achievement" is value loaded.
It would be nonsensical to attempt a synopsis of
his book in a sentence or two but he builds a good case for the
determinants of achievement in terms of climate, soil conditions,
availability of water, fauna and flora plus a few accidents of history
and sheer bad luck such as the thriving colony of early Norsemen in Greenland
who got wiped out by a mini Ice Age that nobody saw coming, and the
Australian aborigines who got stuck for 40,000 years in an environment
trap.
First published in 1997 the book is
available at Amazon in second-hand paperback for a dollar or two. It
may not change your life but it will certainly alter your view of how
we got from there to here.
Regards,
Bob
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Thursday, August 24, 2006 1:34
AM
Subject: Re: [Biofuel] What the bleep
-was galloway
"Yes, a Calivinist nation - all claiming exceptionalism - but this is a
collective thing, not really individual."
That reminds me of Max Weber's The Protestant Ethic and the
Spirit of Capitalism. I started on it but was distracted.
From what I read, It seems worth mentioning in this thread.
- Redler
A
warm bath hath charms to soothe the savage list member ;-) For you, Don
Kemple, remember: Incomprehesibility is a gift, son, use it
wisely. "A Nation of Shopkeepers, all selling local-produced goods?"
Forgive me, my Schumacher is pretty rusty.
Yes, a Calivinist
nation - all claiming exceptionalism - but this is a collective thing,
not really individual.
But I think that we are now at a stage where,
under the leadership of GW, we're mouthing "all nations are equal," but,
we're just equalerer than the other equal ones. 4 legs good, 2 legs
bad. 4 legs good, 2 legs bad. 4 legs good, 2 legs bad.
Mike
Redler wrote:
> Kind sir, > > Thank your for your
gratitude. However, I find myself entirely outdone > by your short
but profound response. I shall now follow the advice of > my esteemed
virtual colleague, Mr. Weaver and retire to the loo for a >
bath. > > Ta ta, > > - Redler > > Martin
Kemple wrote: > >> Thanks Mike! >> Intriguing
perspective. >> >> Though I'm preternaturally suspicious
of our (Westerners') proclivity >> for exceptionalism (from the
creed of Manifest Destiny on the one >> extreme, to its opposite -
that we're inveterate >> "predator-imperialists," on the other),
it's a hard box to escape from. >> Adam Smith / E.F. Schumacher -
two sides of the came coin? >> Know what I mean? >> That
is: Not only are we moderns "different", we're more different >>
than anybody else has ever been. >> What's up with
that? >> I recoil at the idea, yet can't get away from it. Like a
dark magnet : o >>
-MK >> >> >> >> >> On Aug 22,
2006, at 10:36 AM, Michael Redler wrote: >> >>
Martin, >> >> Necessity can be broadly defined by what is
popularly needed in a >> civilization. Since "Necessity is the
Mother of invention", it >> stands to reason that the path to any
invention is paved by the >> civilization from which it
came. >> >> The civilizations you mentioned were content
with technical >> developments that required only what was
immediately available to >> them from their environment. In my
opinion that's something which >> our ambitious culture hasn't yet
been able to appreciate. >> >> As E. F. Schuhmacher
explained so effectively in his writing, the >> so called "modern
world" and it's technology has often taken us >> in directions
which does more harm than good. >> >> It's presumptuous
to quantify the progress of civilization by a >> hand full of great
inventors and assume that they have made the >> world a better
place. I say this as someone who has two >> engineering degrees, a
patent of my own and a wife who is a >> research scientist and a
PhD. in Chemistry. >> >> I admire all the people
mentioned in this thread plus many who >> have yet to be mentioned.
However, to put things in >> perspective, one needs to ask if the
work of particular >> inventors are a measure of progress in a
civilization >> (irrespective of politics): >>
>> Could any of these people have been able to do what they
did >> without the work of their predecessors and the civilization
from >> which they came? Should we be thankful for a passion which
was >> beyond their control and grew from their own natural
curiosity? >> >> Tesla and Edison represent two
fundamental ideologies and a broad >> range of innovative thinking.
Tesla, a theorist, would have not >> made the progress he did,
without the work of people born (as >> much as four hundred years)
before him like Newton, Pascal, >> Fourier, etc. Edison's assets
surrounded him every hour of every >> day. He was inspired by and
built upon every technology to which >> he was exposed,
representative of every inventor which came >> before
him. >> >> I think it's also important to mention that
technology evolves >> with the priorities of our civilization. By
that, I mean you >> can't judge people like Jonas Salk, J. Robert
Oppenheimer, the >> Wright Brothers or Richard Gatling until you've
also judged those >> who used their inventions and examined the
inventor's >> justification for it's development. >>
>> If I boiled all this down to a single question, it would
be: >> >> If we were able to measure the
"success","progress",etc. of "the >> modern world", who would get
the credit? >> >> Similar questions include: >>
>> How high is up? >> >> How dark is
gray? >> >> -Redler >> >> >>
*/Martin Kemple <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>/* wrote: >> >>
Question: >> Why didn't most Native Americans, for example, master
the >> wheel for >> transportation on their
own? >> Why didn't the Chinese, for starters, invent
internal >> combustion much >> earlier than the
opportunists who did? >> And why didn't the Arabs, for instance,
harness electricity >> much sooner >> than the nitwits who
stumbled onto it? >> In other words: Why did it all take so dang
long, and then >> all happen >> seemingly at
once? >> -Martin K.
_______________________________________________ Biofuel mailing
list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org
Biofuel
at Journey to
Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
Search the
combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000
messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
|