Indigenous Technological Advancement Re: Indigenous fire management 'ancient wisdom' (Australian bus

[Shibboleth]

*For example, an advanced society has to live in stone-built cities because Europeans do, it has to use steel because Europeans do or it has to rely on animal-drawn carts for transportation because Europeans do. No different approaches, goals or outcomes are acceptable. There is only one way forward.

To me this is a little like saying that the 2,000BC Egyptians were as technologically advanced as 1600's Europe. There are so many things that can be made by iron that cannot be made out of rock effectively. Just think about things such as hinges and nails. Yes you can make them out of wood and stone an iron hinge and nail is vastly superior. The metal pulley is a fantastic invention.

So yes the Egyptians did amazing things with rock and bronze. They did amazing things with crop domestication. They had amazing social structures, but they weren't as technologically advanced as 15th century Europe.

[gmalivuk]

Two cultures where one learned directly from the other, earlier culture are a lot more straightforward to compare than two contemporaneous, independently developed cultures.

[Shibboleth]

Two cultures where one learned directly from the other, earlier culture are a lot more straightforward to compare than two contemporaneous, independently developed cultures.

Well then let us compare Egyptians with Aztecs. Do you believe that the Aztecs were more technologically advanced than the Egyptians?

[seamas]

To me this is a little like saying that the 2,000BC Egyptians were as technologically advanced as 1600's Europe. There are so many things that can be made by iron that cannot be made out of rock effectively. Just think about things such as hinges and nails. Yes you can make them out of wood and stone an iron hinge and nail is vastly superior. The metal pulley is a fantastic invention.

Combination of the usefulness of both the wheel and metal.

[John Albert]

But you guys don't get it... they didn't invent the pulley because they didn't need them!

Have you clarified it or have you changed it?

Go back and read what I said. I'm not explaining myself again.

[gmalivuk]

Two cultures where one learned directly from the other, earlier culture are a lot more straightforward to compare than two contemporaneous, independently developed cultures.

Well then let us compare Egyptians with Aztecs. Do you believe that the Aztecs were more technologically advanced than the Egyptians?

Why would that be an easier comparison? They're still independently developed sets of technologies.

Have you clarified it or have you changed it?

Go back and read what I said. I'm not explaining myself again.

Okay, fine, but will you at least provide evidence for your position on the historical consensus?

[Shibboleth]

Why would that be an easier comparison? They're still independently developed sets of technologies.

So you are saying that it is impossible to compare the level of technological advancements of independently developed sets? So if aliens came here in a spacecraft we wouldn't be able to asses who was more technologically advanced?

I also want to make it clear that "technology != good". Being able to split the atom is a huge technological advancement. It doesn't necessarily mean it is good for society. Just because one society is more technologically advanced than another doesn't mean that it is better than another and it certainly doesn't mean that it is more morally advanced.

[gmalivuk]

Why would that be an easier comparison? They're still independently developed sets of technologies.

So you are saying that it is impossible to compare the level of technological advancements of independently developed sets? So if aliens came here in a spacecraft we wouldn't be able to asses who was more technologically advanced?

No, I'm not saying it's always impossible, I'm saying it's not always possible, and at the very least it's not always straightforward. In particular, it's not a straightforward comparison when each culture has some technologies the other lacks.

If modern humans have technologies {a, b}, and aliens showed up with technologies {a, b, c}, we could reasonably call them more technologically advanced. But my point is that a culture with technologies {a, c} is possible, and that comparing {a, b} and {a, c} is not straightforward. We could say both are less advanced than {a, b, c}, and that both are more advanced than {a}, but that doesn't imply a possible comparison between them.

I know it's a simplification to treat a whole technological system as a simple collection of distinct elements, but it's an illustrative example. "Technological advancement" isn't a total order on the set of societies.

I also want to make it clear that "technology != good". Being able to split the atom is a huge technological advancement. It doesn't necessarily mean it is good for society. Just because one society is more technologically advanced than another doesn't mean that it is better than another and it certainly doesn't mean that it is more morally advanced.

Yes, this is clear to everyone in this conversation. I don't believe anyone in this thread thinks that anyone else in this thread is saying that "more technologically advanced" means "objectively better". Y'all can stop constantly reassuring us that you don't think Europeans were morally superior to Native Americans.

(And no, calling something Eurocentric doesn't mean I think it presents Europe as better, it means I think it presents Europe as a standard or default.)

[Quetzalcoatl]

*For example, an advanced society has to live in stone-built cities because Europeans do, it has to use steel because Europeans do or it has to rely on animal-drawn carts for transportation because Europeans do. No different approaches, goals or outcomes are acceptable. There is only one way forward.

To me this is a little like saying that the 2,000BC Egyptians were as technologically advanced as 1600's Europe. There are so many things that can be made by iron that cannot be made out of rock effectively. Just think about things such as hinges and nails. Yes you can make them out of wood and stone an iron hinge and nail is vastly superior. The metal pulley is a fantastic invention.

So yes the Egyptians did amazing things with rock and bronze. They did amazing things with crop domestication. They had amazing social structures, but they weren't as technologically advanced as 15th century Europe.

Hmm, I don't know about that. Absolute monarchy with a presumed god-king at the top.

I think ancient Egypt is a very interesting culture. But wouldn't call their social structures "amazing".

[gmalivuk]

Hmm, I don't know about that. Absolute monarchy with a presumed god-king at the top.

I think ancient Egypt is a very interesting culture. But wouldn't call their social structures "amazing".

You do know that "social structures" include a hell of a lot more than "who's the head of state?", right?

For example, legal gender equality is a pretty great social structure to have regardless of the system of government.

[Shibboleth]

It includes a hell of a lot more than government also. I wouldn't call it an ideal social structure but amazing in its own right especially in comparison to the others at the time.

What I don't understand is the idea that the eastern hemisphere didn't engage in cultivation. Rice, olives, hell even watermelons were domesticated and through selection changed over time to have more desirable qualities.

[gmalivuk]

What I don't understand is the idea that the eastern hemisphere didn't engage in cultivation.

Who expressed that idea?

[John Albert]

What I don't understand is the idea that the eastern hemisphere didn't engage in cultivation.

Who expressed that idea?

Tech superiority is not a quantitative either-or comparison of who has it and who doesn't. Just because one culture has developed a particular tech, that doesn't mean theirs is equally advanced as some other culture's application.

For example, it's not that the Native Americans didn't have dogs; it's that other cultures had cultivated varieties of breeds specialized to different tasks while the Native Americans had not.

It's not that nobody else specialized cultivars, it's that the Native Americans transformed grasses with a few tiny seed pods into humongous ears bursting with golden, delicious, nutritious maize kernels.

calling something Eurocentric doesn't mean I think it presents Europe as better, it means I think it presents Europe as a standard or default.

OK then, let's compare the Native Mesomerican tech to that of some other highly advanced contemporaneous culture. How about China?

[Rai]

For example, it's not that the Native Americans didn't have dogs; it's that other cultures had cultivated varieties of breeds specialized to different tasks while the Native Americans had not.

Bear hunting, canoe hunting, general hunting, guarding, sled-pulling, llama herding, rituals, pets or food are not specialisations. Not at all. Nope.

Or maybe someone is pontificating about things beyond their knowledge.