Quote:
|
Originally Posted by DeepIron
Quote:
|
Besides, just because European and Asian explorers found Africa fairly primitive it doesn't prove that had Africans been left unmolested they wouldn't have had their own industrial revolution at some point. One might make an argument that harsh environments retard advancement but I see no evidence that it would stop altogether.
|
No not at all. Tougher environments would compel the people to devote more time to practical survival skills and less to other intellectual pursuits like writing and art. So exercises leading to the development of greater intellect would be lacking and neglected.
But, it still begs the question; Has Man's superior intellect (at least when measured against the rest of the organisms on this planet) really proven to be a "be all , end all" tool for survival. Or, will it just be more the matter of time running out and finding that "being smarter" than the sharks eventually led to his demise after all (barring supernovas, large asteroid impacts or global natural cataclysms).
Is Man really as superior as he thinks he is? Only time will tell... |
It has been argued by historians that europe'S historical lead in developing technoloigy and science, diversity of arts, etc, came from geographical facts that separated the diffreent ribes and people inEurope for long, and then led them to trading with different things while needing to compete at the same time. the mixture of being confronted with foreign, new things while at the same time needing to compete with these, led to a climate that helped to increase creativity, original thinking, self-questioning.
I think if you have a hgarden Eden where no effort and no challenge is laid in man'S shoulder and he gets what he needs without needing to worry with how to get it, there would be little or no developement, but instead just stagnation. That'S why I am against utopias like communism and socialism that want a guarantee for everybody being seen as of the same value like any other, and getting all what he needs/wants for free. To a certain level, needing to compete is helpful in creating creativity and originality. It just shall not be allowed to go completley unregulated and unlimited in scope and reach. totally liberal free market that are run by total self-regulation only I oppose as much as I oppose socialistic utopias. the truth lies in between, and I would label it as capitalistic competition with a strong sense of social responsibility and a strong link to the social community in which it is embedded; and as a materialistic ideology that capitalism is, it must also be counterbalanced by a general awareness for the non-material value of life and non-material qualities, that can best be supoorted in the population by a general education for all that does not focus on the technical needs of the busienss world, but that trains young minds in what in the West we call the humanistic tradition of culture and education.