Is it wrong to believe the western civilization is superior to the rest ?
Are civilizations equals ?
Apparently the latest trend is that civilisations don't even exist.
According to Spengler, each civilisation is the reflection of its particular world view (what he calls its soul). The first and most obvious such reflection is religion, but everything else is also a product of it, be it its art, its science, its philosophy, or its politics. All of those are always "true", for this particular civilisation, since they reflect its soul. They are often "false" for other civilisations, but they were never meant for those.
Our civilisation is no different. Our world view and its reflections like Catholicism or the scientific method are certainly true for us, but objectively they only reflect our specific world view. However the Western soul does have a certain characteristics that have made it extremely successful at producing technology and at massive expansion.
![1429493914150[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/GvvjmJh.jpg "1429493914150[1].jpg")
>>380885
>Is it wrong to believe the western civilization is superior to the rest ?
Yes, especially if you dont take the time to define what "western civilization" and "the rest" mean in this context.
>Are civilizations equals ?
No, they arent. Some are better suited for the time and some are more successful.
>>380948
Even if all of this is true only for our civilization, what is wrong about believing our criteras are superior to those of the other civilizations ?
Civilizations aren't equal but none of them last forever and they rise and fall in different places.
>>381012
Define "superior" or "better".
>>381012
They are for us, that is to say by our standards. So you're perfectly justified in saying they are. You just can't expect to always find that view reflected in other civilisations, for which this isn't true, and only becomes true proportionally to their Westernisation.
>>381015
Technologically, artistically, even morally. For exemple, how medieval Europe, able to build gothic cathedral, was clearly superior to the Aztecs who were still practising human sacrifices.
>>381027
Gothic cathedrals > than Aztec pyramids =/= subjective, what are you implying
>>381027
Thats subjective.
Without a doubt yes. East Asian civilization is catching up and a close second but still hasn't surpassed us.
>>381070
lol what?
Chinese civilisation is 3000 years old and essentially completely gone today.
>>381027
>i love living in my hut
>you burn down my hut
>build fancy church on its place
how is this superior, i liked my hut?
>>381041
You can't deny the gothic cathedral were much harder to make and thus more impressive. They are the product of a much more advanced civilization. As for the human sacrifices, you can understand them within the Aztec cosmology, it doesn't mean it wasn't a barbarian practice. There is a reason most of the civilizations banned this practice progressively.
>>381083
Subjective: the post.
>>381074
The Chinese may be using western technology but whether their government admits it or not Confucian ideas and more still permeate Chinese society at all levels and the Chinese are still morally, politically and socially very much out of lockstep with the rest of the world and committed to a Han identity.
Meanwhile the Japanese aren't truly western either, especially when you take a look at religion, morality and societal values. We've influenced them to be sure, but they aren't 100% westernized by any means.
>>381170
Irrelevant, as a civilisation they have been dead for millennia. It hasn't produced anything new in that time. It's about as likely to "catch up" with us as a corpse to win a race.
Words like "equal" and "superior", when regarding qualitative statements, reflect personal opinion rather than anything objective. Western civilization is certainly more powerful and affluent, but we'll see how long that lasts.
>>381213
>Europe has been dead since the fall of Rome, there's no way they'll catch up to the East!
>>381083
>As for the human sacrifices, you can understand them within the Aztec cosmology, it doesn't mean it wasn't a barbarian practice.
The only thing "barbarian" about it is that it's foreign to the dominant culture. If the Aztecs had conquered Europe, we would have said not-sacrificing-people is selfish and degenerate. And really, it was only because of disease that they were able to take down the Americans.
>>381226
There is no "Europe". Do you mean Greco-Roman civilisation? Yes that has been dead for even longer than that.
If you're implying that a new civilisation is about to be born in East Asia like Western civilisation was born in Western Europe a thousand years ago, I see absolutely no evidence of that. All there is in East Asia is the dusty corpse of Chinese civilisation being taken over by the West.
>>381213
They are a huge country, with a lot of ressource, huge population, and a relatively strong identity. They aren't slowed down by an outdated ideology like religion or communism anymore.
They have all means to do a comeback.
>>381248
Why would you enter the thread to randomly quote a few unrelated posts and call someone a retard? What does that achieve? Whats your point? What the fuck are you doing? Who are you?
>>381242
You seem to be confusing the People's Republic of China with Chinese civilisation.
If the Arab Republic of Egypt becomes a superpower, this will not somehow mean that ancient Egyptian civilisation has risen from the dead and is "catching up" with ours.
>>381237
>If the Aztecs had conquered Europe
Impossible in the first place. No advanced civilization practiced human sacrifices. All around the world, it had been abandonned. The Aztecs were technologically inferior, that's a fact, but that inferiority also reflected in their morality and their customs.
>>381253
Not the same person but I can see why because I was actually hoping to read something worthwhile.
>>381266
Just because they has been a radical twist with Mao doesn't mean ALL influence from ancient China has disappeared.
Most Chinese are still very confucian in their way to think. Which is studied for example in the goldfish experiment.
Saying that Chinese society today has nothing to do with what they were 200 years ago, is like saying the western world isn't Christian anymore just because most of them are secular or irreligious. Our values are still deeply influenced by christdom. So is China by Confucianism.
Old chinese influence, also reflects in their foreign policy, which is relatively isolationistic for such a huge power.
>>381276
>Europe burning heretics alive
>Aztecs sacrificing POWs and criminals
Yeah, big differences
>>381289
I didn't say Chinese civilisation no longer had any influence in China, I said it's dead. It's not going to "catch up" because it only exists as a frozen image. Is Chinese civilisation creating any new styles of art or architecture, or new philosophies, or new sciences, or new modes of political organisation? No, because those are the things that a civilisation does while it's still alive. And today the only one that still is alive is the West.
>>381276
>Impossible in the first place.
I don't think you understand what "impossible" means.
>No advanced civilization practiced human sacrifices.
The Romans and Greeks did. Even then, Medieval European penal codes were often so brutal and arbitrary that they were hardly better than straight up human sacrifice, which was not purely religious for the Aztecs, but served a political purpose of subordinating smaller states.
>The Aztecs were technologically inferior, that's a fact
Mexico was deficient in iron, so of course they didn't have steel, but the native americans developed innovative agricultural techniques that europeans had never dreamed of in the absence of large domestic animals. The Inca were farming on mountains, for Christ's sake. The aztecs were farming on rivers.
Their technologically inferior weapons did quite well in battle. The macuahuitl had an edge sharper than steel and could nearly decapitate a horse in one swing. Their slings and bows didn't fuck up in the humid jungles and swamps like Spanish matchlocks did, nor did heavy armor impede their movement. Cortes noted atlatl wounds were indistinguishable from muskets.
>that's a fact, but that inferiority also reflected in their morality and their customs.
Again, this is subjective, and it's quite clear your perception of mesoamericans is more based on pop culture than history. They had universal education, including education for women, and a justice system that imposed greater punishments on the powerful nobles than commoners to hold them to a higher standard. Not to mention their treatment of slaves was much less barbaric than Europeans. The children of aztec slaves were free, slaves could own possessions, buy their liberty, could be freed upon mistreatment or the death of the owner, and would also be freed if they gave a daring escape. Compare this to the "noble" Europeans, who conscripted surrounding Indian tribes to fight against the Aztecs and enslaved them afterwards.
>>381311
Not to mention human sacrifice was often voluntary in Aztec culture.
>>381310
Their current political structure is a pretty unique style of political organisation desu.
New Sciences ? Probably not, don't think you can somehow perfection rationalism and empirism. But you never know.
New philosophies ? Pretty sure they have their own philosophers and that they aren't exactly the same as in the west, even if their political repression is slowing that down.
New styles of Art ? I hate weebism etc. But chinese have their own style of this stuff, and also their own degenerate musiic. You might consider this is degenerate but it's becoming part of their culture.
>>381341
>Their current political structure is a pretty unique style of political organisation desu.
Neither socialism nor state capitalism are Chinese concepts, in fact they're both extremely Western.
>Pretty sure they have their own philosophers
Never heard of them, but basically Chinese philosophy settled on Confucianism two millennia ago and hasn't evolved since beyond slightly oscillating between equally ancient schools.
>But chinese have their own style of this stuff, and also their own degenerate musiic.
Cartoons and pop music are just Western forms with a local flavour.
>>381015
Conquering the fucking world for one. Military and cultural might that manages to assimilate other civilizations into its collective or outright destroy them completely.
>>381276
>No advanced civilization practiced human sacrifices.
The implications of this is that countries still using the death penalty can't be called advanced civilizations, that for all intent and purposes are human sacrifices to appeal to victims of a crime. And it seems silly that a nation, the US, who landed on the moon, in some way wouldn't be considered an "advanced civilization", whatever shitty definitions you want to put under that umbrella.
>>381311
Yeah but remind me who got their asses kicked to the curb and conquered.
>>381399
Their asses were "kicked" by smallpox, which caused over 90% of deaths. Having guns barely did shit in an early modern intercontinental conquest, and the Indians ended up adopting them anyway. Not to mention they only defeated the Aztecs by enlisting and later betraying other Indian tribes.
>>381392
>Conquering the fucking world for one.
There is no objective reason this constitutes "superiority". It shows an objective standard of power and dominance, yes, but superiority is a vague and abstract concept separate from this.
>>381617
The spanish won the battle of Otumba with little help from their allies. the spanish armies were better armed, better organized and defeated the Aztecs every time they met. The fact the aztec empire was so shitty the other tribes were willing to ally with the spanish to defeat them say something about its decaying state.
Stop trying to find excuses. Aztec were a shitty civilization, there is a reason europeans managed to take over an empire populated by millions with just a few force. On the other hand, they never managed to control China, or Japan who were much more advanced.
>>381654
if the whole world blanda up against any 1 solo country you could slice it up
>country was a shitty civilization i tell you! the whole world united to demolish it!
go away kid
>>381663
That still doesn't explain how a large Aztec force was defeated by the Spanish at Otumba. Steel and horses were very effective against peoples who couldn't adapt their fighting styles to them.
This is Cortes' armor. How was anyone actually even supposed to hurt him?
>>381687
Nearly a hundred spanish wearing that exact same armor were hurt bad, and half of them died.
Apparently there was a way to hurt him.
The cavalry charge and killing the aztec leader at the start of the fight is what won the battle, and it helped that the spanish had local allies with them, and werent alone against the aztec army.
>>381687
They ran out of ammo quickly and didn't have the grazing space to sustain the horses well. In a long term war without the help of other Indians, they would have been slaughtered.
>>381627
>all continents engage in empire building and civilization (organized religion, economy, standing army, centralized power, imperialism, agriculture, technology, etc) and thus subject themselves to the same standards
>vague
Except the mongols roflmao
>>381743
>didn't have the grazing space to sustain the horses well
They had like ~100 horses. A football field is enough to sustain them.
>>380885
Europe civilization is bad
Aztec and Indians had better civilization
/Thread
Also mongols had better civilization than west
>>381654
Clearly you have no idea what you're talking about.
The Aztecs had no steel and no horses true, but instead they had arguably some of the most well developed philosophy of any civilization (probably on par with the Greeks). They had advanced agricultural techniques, architecture, art etc. All this while being a civilization only a couple centuries old.
They lost to the Spanish mostly because of diseases AND the numerous other native americans that allied with the Spaniards.
>>381784
>Aztec and Indians had better civilization
explains why they got their shit pushed in by a hand full of conqusitadors and nature
>/threadding yourself
shameful
>>381831
You do realize by the time of the siege of Tenochtitlan that smallpox had killed most of the Aztec army, and left the survivors weak, as well as killing an estimated 25% of their entire population...right?
>>381842
hence "nature" right there in the middle of my very small post
>...right?
gb2tumblr you smug cunt
>>381842
>their civilization can't even handle a plague
>>381740
That's my point, that the Aztec were horribly unprepared for the tactical advantage European armies had over them. It wasn't even that big of a cavalry charge.
>>381743
As other anon said, not many horses, so not much grazing space needed.
The Spanish were, at this point, well-aware of the wealth of the Aztec Empire (I assume from Cortes' letters) so, even if Cortes' small expeditionary force was defeated, a larger one probably would have arrived capable of sweeping the Aztec away. 10,000 men and 1000 horses, that would have sufficient for such a task, assuming good equipment and supply.
>>381865
I wouldn't be so confident that 10k men could conquer them by themselves, had the Aztec had time to prepare and recover from the epidemics.
Look at how much difficulty the Spanish had with the Chichimeca War. Keep in mind that that war was against small, semi nomadic tribes.
>>381820
>but instead they had arguably some of the most well developed philosophy of any civilization
Stopped reading. Scholasticism was way ahead anything the Aztecs produced. Even chinese philosophy was better.
>>381887
>Chichimeca War
It was precisely that they were semi-nomadic that allowed them to resist for so long. The Aztec were heavily urbanized and had central authority & organized armies. They would have fared much worse. In the Chichimeca war, the Spanish army had vague objectives whereas in a war with the Aztec, there would have been very clear strategic goals (e.g. take this city, seal off this passage of supplies, see this army off, etc.)
Europeans were lucky as all hell since they had plenty of resource rich lands and the influence of the Roman Empire. They didn't get fukd back to the stone age like the Chinese and Muslims by the Mongols. The native Americans are primitive due to lack of domesticatable animals.
>>380919
I'm not so sure trends really exist.
>>381276
Simply out of curiosity, are you a Christian?
>/his/ will argue that both buildings are equally beautiful
>/his/ will claim this comparisson is subjective
>>382045
>a comparison isn't inherently subjective
;)
>>381986
That's not really true. Eastern Europe was fucked a lot by the Mongols, Rome always got into wars, Europeans always got into wars, but always in the end they won regardless. China, South America, India, also had a lot of resources (even more than Europe).
>>382057
>pretends to live in a nihilistic vacuum
You know it's 2015, right?
>>381237
>cutting off people's still beating hearts is not barbaric
hmmm
>>382045
well i think the sand castle is actually prettier if you think about it the africans didn't have to develop big cathedrals they settled for the simple life thats actually better they're not materialistic so africa >>>> europe and i'm not even mentioning foucault
>>382045
well both buildings serve their purpose right? just because something is more beautiful it doesn't mean its better, i mean beauty is good and it must be more comfortable and everything but what is important is that both serve they purpose, come on don't be racist. it's twenty fifteen
>>382045
Guaranteed replies
>>382071
Do we know they cut out their hearts? Do we know if the person was alive when they did this?
>>382045
well african architecture looks pretty neat desu, they look like sandcastles with sticks. i think we should respect and appreciate other cultures.
>>382045
I disagree because this comparisson hurts my personal belief and therefore it is invalid. Please don't ever bring it up again.
>>382090
We know that they cut out their hearts then proceed to skin them, but the victim was heavily drugged at that point
What kinds of crops did western sub-Saharan Africa use?
>>382066
what argument do you have for superiority other than muh feels?
>>382045
The idea of beauty is an historical construct, if you were born in Africa you would believe the African building was better.
>>382100
How would we know that though? They didn't have a written language and their civilization was destroyed before anyone thought about learning about them.
>>382106
But I'm an Algerianon
What's your argument?
>>382108
Yeah they did
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aztec_writing
And even if they didn't, there are dozens of their epics which include the sacrifice part
>>382112
Well, then it's because western civilization is controlling your thoughts, you're not really free you know. It's because of eurocentric education and media, everything.
Also please refrain from using logic and arguments, this is a board on humanities, if you want maths or logic return to /sci/ if you don't mind
>>382045
>"/his/ will argue that both buildings are equally beautiful"
They are, beauty is in the eyes of the viewer.
>"/his/ will claim this comparisson is subjective"
Of course it is. Beauty is not something concrete, it's an idea in the backside of your mind.
>>382045
this is a fuss of a post. great job throwing fire into everything anon.
>>382114
Interesting.
>>380885
If west has always been superior than why did it take england/most of the Western Europe 1200 more years than Indus valley civilization to reach bronze age?
>>382160
ye but why, while Europe, the ME and the Far East modernized, do they have designated shitting streets?
>>382160
It took advanced agricultural practices to develop to make large populations in Europe possible without the help of very long river valleys and their constant flow of silt and their regular flooding to put the silt on the shores.
If you started a farm away from a river with a lot of silt and flooding then you'll use up the nutrients in the soil rather quickly and will be forced to leave it to fallow or move on entirely.
>>380885
>is one person equal to another
legally sure, but not in a realistic sense. The same is true of collections of people.
I'm not even in a western country but I think western civilization is obviously superior. It's a dumb shaming argument, you can hold an opinion without it being simply your own identity. If I was black I'd still want to be white, I could just fool myself a lot.
>>381756
>thus subject themselves to the same standards
Except they don't. Plenty of nations have victim narratives or bad diplomatic reputations due to past "superiority". Japan is neutered because of it.
>organized religion
Isn't the same between cultures. The abstract monotheistic gods of the abrahamic religion are nothing like the worship of humanoid gods amongst decentralized priests that existed in pre-Christian Europe, and the asiatic and mesoamerican gods were blended with concepts of nature that is hard for the western mind to comprehend.
>economy
Are not, and were not, the same between cultures.
>centralized power
Has been organized a billion different ways throughout history with a variety of competitive and co-operative interactions, as well as self-assessed measures of success.
>agriculture, technology
Has usefulness that depends wildly on local environmental conditions.
>vague
You think terms like "centralized power" and "economy" with no further elaboration as to a quantifiable objective metric isn't vague?
>Except the mongols roflmao
Ah, THIS is where you shoehorn your "liberals hate white people" strawman narrative that nobody mentioned.
>>382062
>That's not really true. Eastern Europe was fucked a lot by the Mongols
And it took them until the 20th century to catch up with the West.
>Rome always got into wars, Europeans always got into wars,
Not on the level of total extermination that nomad cultures often pursue against their enemies.
>but always in the end they won regardless
Yeah, like in the Crusades :^)
>China, South America, India, also had a lot of resources (even more than Europe).
China, India and the Middle East were more advanced than Europe for a period, although social reforms were a big part of the reason China stagnated. Part of the reason Europeans discovered the New World was because they were poor in resources and Arabs controlled the trade routes to East Asia they desired, the geographical location of Europe was a big advantage in this, because on the old continent the Ottomans were in a pretty prime position to be THE major world power before the age of discovery.
>>382248
>Yeah, like in the Crusades :^)
Sicily and Spain are not muslims anymore.
>>382497
So you chose the two front that began before the Crusaders proper?
That sure shows how Crusades rock.
Western civilization is undoubtedly the superior civlization at present time. However, who knows what it'll be like in 500 years? East Asia, now that China is on the rise, is a real force to be reckoned with. They could easily adapt Western civilization to their own purposes.
>>381842
>muh smallpox did all the job! There is no way Europeans were abasolutely better un any way
>>382532
The Reconquista had the same importance as the crusades in the middle east, all Europe participated. It didn't "start first", both of those events are part of the expansion of the west in the high middle ages. In the end, the crusades in the middle east failed, but the West now had Spain and Portugal, two countries who explored the world, discovered new trade routes, built the first colonial empires. I'd say the crusades were a decisive victory for Europe.
>>381083
>You can't deny the gothic cathedral were much harder to make and thus more impressive.
Yes, I cannot deny that the cathedrals are harder to make, however I can deny that it makes them more impressive. That's the subjective part.
>>382571
Yes it did.
>>382073
Hello John Green
>>382623
>The goal of the Crusades was taking the holy land
No, it wasn't. That was the goal of the crusades launched in the middle east. But crusades against heretics, in Iberia, or against pagans didn't have that goal.
>>380885
Depends on what you mean by "superior". If you're going to compare historical achievements and use the current state of Western civilization as evidence its superiority, you're in for a long and tiresome discussion.
If, however, you're talking about a personal preference (see >>380948), I'd say you're right to believe so. And no, not all civilizations, nations, religions or people are equal in that regard - far from it.
>>382563
>muh black plauge did all the job, there was no way the Mongols were absolutely better at anything
>>382996
The Black Plague happened decades after the Mongol Empire.
>>382173
but why do they have very successful space programs?
>>381820
Science and philosophy mean nothing without the military force to protect your civilization from enslavement.
Civilizations are macro-organisms, life like any other animal comprised of human-cells. Success can be purely measured by those that wielded the most power in their lifetime.
>>381627
Yes it does. Mainly because it means one guy is fucking dead and the other is atop his corpse and holding up his severed head.
I find that to be a pretty easy means of measuring success. The weaker, inferior civilizations get destroyed or ravaged by the superior ones, as power is the only thing that exists.
>>382544
Presently it's global civilization. It stopped being western civilization when every other group nation of the world "westernized".
>>381074
>technology is culture
sick of this meme senpai
>>380949
did that cat ever eat the pancakes?
>>385076
Those are not pancakes
>>381083
What about the population of Tenochtitlan? Surely the ability to maintain a population which at lower estimates of 200,000 equals the greatest cities of Europe ca 1500, Paris and Naples, is of much more import than the subjective quality of their edifices?
>>385094
answer the fucking question cunt
>>382073
And you're also not even using punctuation.
Why do European supremacists ignore the massive portions of history where Asia was ahead of the West?
>>386199
Because shit flinging Germanic simians have claimed they are the inheritors of classical southern Europe for so long they no longer question their own flavor of WE WAZ KINGZ.
>>380885
It all really depends on what you think. If you look at China, for example, they came up with gun powder. Perhaps one of the most important substances ever discovered by mankind. I believe they also had a kind of steel that the process for making was only discovered in the late 1800's.
Or if you look at Islam/ the middle east they banged out a great deal of mathematics and physics before Galileo ever showed up.
Western civilization since the Renaissance and Enlightenment followed the idea that with the use of reason will ultimately lead to good and will bring about a more just world. Honestly it's hard to argue against this as reason has brought us many inventions and even answered so many questions that have plagued humans since the dawn of man.
But back to your question I guess it really depends on how you see it. The use of reason honestly is probably one of the greatest ideas to ever exist, unless you're some idiot who thinks that accidentally cutting yourself with a knife and dying two days later is a good idea. I guess it's really up to you at the end of the day.
>>386199
Because people think that gun powder isn't important.
>>382532
Fag, have you heard of the Baltic Crusades? All that land, Christian.
The Reconquista was basically the precursor to the crusades, and hey, we took all of it back and then some.
>>386234
Did Europe really invent reason?
Thinking whoever is on top right now is intrinsically superior is a stupid-easy trap to fall into. Some thousand years ago, you might have thought folks around the Mediterranean were clearly superior. Yet, today, many of them are poor as fuck, while some of the tribal people of old are rich as fuck.
>>386410
Well Yurop has been doing strong for five hundred years now, and it did invent the global empire.
Besides the mongols there haven't really been major conquests between civilization that had a lasting effect, although the Chinese ethnic cleansing in its western provinces may upset that.
>>386440
Europeans have done amazing things well prior to the last 500 years, but mostly Italians and Greeks. Whose countries are suffering today, while descendants of Gaulish or Germanic barbarians seem far more successful. Or weird mix-breeds living in America. Because you never know who will rise to the top.
>>386410
>Some thousand years ago, you might have thought folks around the Mediterranean were clearly superior.
But they obviously were.
>>380948
>scientific method is only true for us
so why are the laws of physics the same in China
certainly horseshit like spengler's philosophies and catholicism is subjecitve, but objective facts are objective facts
>>386471
>Italians
Are you seriously calling Romans Italians?
>>386484
Lol. Indeed. They just aren't anymore, or don't seem to be.
>>386489
I am. Prior to the conquests of Gaul, Romans were mostly Italian.
>>386514
I guess we should also include conquests in North Africa and the like, but either way. You know full well what I'm on about.
>>386487
Then why didn't the Chinese come up with them?
Western physics uses concepts like force or momentum which are completely made up and not directly measurable or observable, and which only make sense within the Western mindset. Just like how Arabic alchemy and its concept of substance makes no sense to us.
>>386514
No they weren't Luigi, they were Romans who occupied most of the Italian peninsula, Iberia, North Africa, the Balkans, Greece, and parts of Gaul. There was no such thing as Italians.
>>386532
The weren't technically "Italians". That's such a boring point, which has to do with nothing.
>>386487
>Classical Mechanics lead to objective facts
Hello undergrad
>>386536
They had nothing to do with Italy. It's like calling ancient Sumerians Iraqis, stop that.
>>380885
>Is it wrong to believe the western civilization is superior to the rest ?
There is no rest, western civilization is the only civilization. There have been others in the past, but trying to re-establish them is just neo-barbarism.
>Are civilizations equals ?
A moral equvalence could only be claimed under relativistic standards, which are self defeating as an assertion of equality requires precisely the kind of objectivity that relativism denies.
>>386547
>chinese civilization does not exist
wew lad
>>386527
Chinese students can study western originated science and become engineers. By your definition they adopt the western mindset, in reality they would have developed the same mindset if the west didn't, in effect it is only western because it originated in the west.
Anyone here could study medieval arabic alchemy if they wanted and would understand it eventually, the main reason it makes no sense is because we are too lazy to study it and there is little point because it is obsolete like phlogiston theory, any of it that isn't obsolete has been absorbed into mainstream chemistry.
>>386546
Are Iraqis not descendants of ancient Sumerians? Or, I would suspect, some of them? I get your point, but I think you're missing mine. Or just ignoring it.
>>386550
Not anymore.
>>386563
How so?
>>386551
>By your definition they adopt the western mindset
Correct. Which the Chinese have done for many things already.
>in reality they would have developed the same mindset if the west didn't
That's quite a claim, what could possibly make you think that, considering not only the absence of Western concepts in Chinese philosophy, but also the total lack of scientific progress in China in about 2000 years?
History isn't a straight line where all paths lead to Obama's America.
>Anyone here could study medieval arabic alchemy if they wanted and would understand it eventually
And it would require a lot of cognitive dissonance, and it would never feel true to a Westerner the way it did to Arabs, regardless of whether or not he knows Western physics.
>>386567
When's the last time Chinese civilisation has produced anything new?
>>386578
2000 years? China had bombs within the last 2000 years, which the Mongols used to wreck Western armies.
>>386567
Mainland china is organized according to the western ideology of socialism, Taiwan is organized according to the western ideologies of nationalism and capitalism. In both countries, the ancient chinese hierarchical social order has been replaced with the inherently western notion of equality before the law. All substantial differences you could point out are really differences in culture, as are expected to exist within one civilization.
>>386595
Before said armies had anything of the sort, I obviously mean.
>>386595
That's not science.
It most certainly isn't the scientific method, which in this form could only have appeared in the West.
>>382209
>If I was black I'd still want to be white, I could just fool myself a lot.
There's a difference between knowing the status quo and being a mental sea you cee kay.
>>386601
When the Other is wrecking your shit due to superior technology, bitching some hundred years in the future they weren't using the "scientific method" rings hollow. Our scientific method will likely be refined by people of future generations. Maybe from China, or who knows where.
>>386578
>That's quite a claim
Many of the same ideas arose across different cultures.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_multiple_discoveries
>it would never feel true to a Westerner
We already use ideas that originated outside the west, our number system for example.
The origin of an idea is meaningless and because the laws of physics are the same here as they are everywhere else and we are mostly the same genetically, the only deviations are superficial or due to differences in environment, which is very relevant for something like agriculture but less influential for abstract things like mathematics.
>>386624
One has nothing to do with the other. You're talking about engineering (if you can call it that), not science.
There is nothing to "refine" in the scientific method. If the West falls and a new civilisation rises (which won't be Chinese civilisation which is nothing but an ancient rotting corpse), it will most likely either reject the scientific method entirely, or twist it into something we wouldn't even recognise or ever agree with.
>>386582
In what fashion?
I know the Chinese developed a class of drugs effective against falciparum malaria, one of the more dangerous forms, the lead scientist was a part winner in this year's Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine. But of course with such a ridiculous blanket statement you were just shitposting so I don't know why I'm responding.
>>386640
Dude. Do you even Kuhn or Popper? The scientific method is pretty hotly debated, in its details. Someone could easily advance on it, whether from China or wherever.
>>386639
You need to learn the difference between form and essence. A numeral system is the perfect example of pure form, there is absolutely nothing essential of any depth about it.
And everything in that article is either form or pure result that you can arrive at using different paths, while it's the path that is important. You won't find anything like calculus or Newtonian physics or Darwinism or the scientific method in it, because those are methods and systems of thought, and they are what actually matters.
>>386653
>Someone could easily advance on it
And what, you've been too busy?
Note how the people you just mentioned are Westerners, not ancient Mayans.
>>386649
Did they by any chance develop it in a Western style research lab with a research team applying knowledge Western biology and pharmaceutics and the scientific method acquired at Western universities?
That's not Chinese civilisation dumbass, just like if an Egyptian scientist discovers something today that's not ancient Egyptian science.
>>380885
No, because nowadays everything is relative and dialectical circlejerking has become the main qualifying element for intellectual discourse, Franz Boas would be grinning like a madman if he saw the current state we are in.
There is also nothing more boring than talking to relativists if you in any way hold any kind of position that is not completely malleable.
Arguing with a relativist is pretty much like playing tennis with someone, and then when you suddenly score an ace or your opponent shoots the ball wide into a different court he then proceeds to claim that the lines on the ground are just social constructs anyways.
It is immensely tedious and even worse, it is extremely boring.
>>386671
And yet history moves on, and the mathematics of ancient Egyptians gets adopted and improved on by the Greeks, and later the Arabs, and then some Germans and the like. The very fact people made progress prior to the "scientific method" as you define it, seems to say so much the worse for the scientific method. It's nice, but you don't need it to advance beyond those around you.
>>386682
Then Chinese civilisation no longer exists, and you'd have to decide an arbitrary date where China was still in a vacuum to work out how recently up to that date that they were still innovating.
>>386691
Ok? When did I ever say the contrary?
My point is that the scientific method is something Western. You can call it shit if you like that's beside the point.
>>386698
Well Spengler's model seems pretty accurate for that.
>>386689
Nah. Asians were just superior to the West throughout a good string of history. Despite what Westerners might think intuitively given only a secondary school education, or otherwise no further education in history.
>>386596
Mainland china is not organized entirely according to socialism, and the effects of the classical society are still felt. You can use new terminology and a slightly modified political structure but a single century isn't going to eliminate all remnants of a 2000 year old civilization.
If you really want to take that tact then the Japanese still retain their indigenous social order, while being integrated into the global capitalist economic system.
I think China is more pristine than Japan personally, but you can't think that both are westernized for the same reasons.
>>386707
I did not even mention Asians or the West so you are barking up the wrong tree.
To give you some kind of argument to work with I would say that pointing out that Asia was more advanced in the past has nothing to do with the argument that currently the West is more advanced than the rest of the world.
>>386702
>the scientific method is something Western
Are Persian and Arab scholars included in "Western" or are they ignored for the European Bacon-Grosseteste-Aristotle chain (in which the rest of Europe and the West is arguably riding on largely English coat-tails)?
>>386735
Jesus christ, you talk like such a fag. Not even him bro but seriously you sound gay as fuck.
>>386738
You seem super-sensitive. Did dude hit a nerve?
>>386727
Japan is considerable more integrated into western civilization than china, you're grasping at straws really. It's like saying France isn't authentically part of the west because you can get a beer at mickey d's. Of coirse there will be differences in jetween places, but that doesn't mean that the same kinds of legitmization apply, and that attempts to subvert them, for which the middle east is an even better example, are rightfully characterized as barbarism, not as a difference of civilizations.
>>386738
>Jesus christ, you talk like such a fag
What was even gay about what he said, maybe it's you who just can't stop thinking about sucking dick?
>>386745
There's something wrong with you if that post didn't hit you with a foul stench of smug liberal cultural relativism. Olfactory fatigue must be a bitch. Tell your college Marxist professor to come debate us on /pol/ instead of hiding the ivory tower circlejerk of academia.
>>386789
There was nothing liberal or marxist about the post you replied to, and even if there was, your reaction would still mark you as a retard. Now please, go be retarded somewhere else.
>get keked by christians
>get keked by jews
>now getting keked by muslims
>>383107
Edgy.
>>381399
Spaniards were welcomed as gods by the aztecs, they were not immediately fought upon
they were kicked out of yucatan tho
>>386765
>Japan is considerable more integrated into western civilization than china, you're grasping at straws really.
That's what I said.
>>386982
Good for you. Doesn't change the fact that you're grasping at straws.
Also, the last time I looked, Japan had legal equality and emancipation for all citizens, so any remainkng traditional hierarchy is an ineffectual vestige at best.
>>387015
>good for you
lol okay.
Seems like you are the one grasping at straws, not me.
>>386661
That is what I am saying. Sort of. Calculus is not an essence, path, method or system of thought.
There is only 1 iteration of calculus, you can use roman numerals or arabic numerals, you can do it using hexadecimal or with an anally inserted carrot while doing a handstand, essentially though it is the same thing.
1+1=2 is the same as 1+1=10 in binary, here the use of binary is a difference in "essence", a superficial difference, while the concept of 1+1=2 is the same across all cultures, it is the "form".
>>386789
/pol/ lol
>>387021
Why, because we agreed on one thing?
>>385218
A moral society is more efficient than an immoral one. The Aztec civilization imploded when the Spaniards offered their subjects freedom from human sacrifice.
>>387058
You mean you asserted something I had already said as if it was contradicting me?
Maybe you didn't read the whole post but the point I was making is that the standard which was used to declare modern china not a true heir to chinese civilization would paradoxically assign legitimate indigenous status to Japan, and I wanted that guy to address the contradiction.
Are you that guy?
>>386789
>/pol/
hahahahahhahahahahahhahahahahhahahahahhahahahahahhahahahahahhahahahahhahahahahhahahahahahhahahahahahhahahahahhahahahahhahahahahahhahahahahahhahahahahhahahahahhahahahahahhahahahahahhahahahahhahahahahhahahahahahhahahahahahhahahahahhahahahahhahahahahahhahahahahahhahahahahhahahahahhahahahahahhahahahahahhahahahahhahahahahhahahahahahhahahahahahhahahahahhahahahahhahahahahahhahahahahahhahahahahhahahahahhahahahahahhahahahahahhahahahahhahahahahhahahahahahhahahahahahhahahahahhahahahahhahahahahahhahahahahahhahahahahhahahahahhahahahahahhahahahahahhahahahahhahahahahhahahahahahhahahahahahhahahahahhahahahahhahahahahahhahahahahahhahahahahhahahahahhahahahahahhahahahahahhahahahahhahahahahhahahahahahhahahahahahhahahahahhahahahahhahahahahahhahahahahahhahahahahhahahahahhahahahahahhahahahahahhahahahahhahahahahhahahahahahhahahahahahhahahahahhahahahahha
>>387128
I am that guy, and are you aculy denying that the ancient structure of japanese society has larely been supplanted with the modus operandi of the west, i.e. the stripping of historical privileges until every law applies to everyone?
>>387141
Whereas
>lol you're gay you cultural marxist
Is top-tier banter, amirite?
>>387174
Please point to the post ITT where someone said "lol you're gay you cultural marxist".
>>382045
The bottom one was built by Europeans as well. Your image makes no sense.
>>382101
Look up a book called Lost crops of Africa. They have a ton of domesticated plants.
>>382114
Aztec's didn't truly have "writing." They used the pictures as a memory aid to tell oral stories.
The Maya did however, have writing.
>>382173
Different civilization. The Indus valley civilization had plumbing thousands of years ago, what you're really thinking of is not civilization it's thinly veiled racism. Get educated.
>>386234
Black powder was invented searching a way of achieving immortality and even then it was in Europe where it was refined into guns and canons (the chinese used mainly rockets or very rudimentary handgonnes).
Islam pls be jocking, they were riding the Classical knowladge than they had access, the greatest thing about islam was than it unified great swats of land and made interchange of knowladge a easier at first (Hindu maths, Classcial texts lost in the west, Persian culture etc) but they hardly invented anything (algebra was used be the greeks like Diophantus, or Hindu sages with names I never remeber, probably based in the Babylonian and Egyptian pre-algebra).
>>387217
It's all the more pathetic that today they don't have plumbing.
DESIGNATED
>>382563
It's just true. I say this as a descendant of those conquistadors lol. Smallpox and other diseases were vital.
There's no situation in which it's more obvious that this board is full of children than when you all start talking about 'civilizations' and how one 'civilization' is superior to another.
It's like your only knowledge of cultural development and change comes from playing Sid Meier's games.
If you honestly believe that a peoples' genetic make-up or 'race' has any bearing on material development you need to go back to school
>>383119
I can think of an example of the top of my head that counters your argument: The Indus Valley civilization. They were more advanced than pretty much any civilization(there weren't even any other arguably) at the time, yet they were destroyed by neighboring peoples simply because they had no weapons. Now, which is more advanced or superior out of those 2?
>>387247
>If you honestly believe that a peoples' genetic make-up or 'race' has any bearing on material development you need to go back to school
Do you believe that chimpanzees could develop a civilization? I mean sure they're not as smart as humans but that has no bearing on civilization right?
>>387114
How does morality have anything to do with efficiency? Is this bait?
I'd actually argue that an immoral civilization is more efficient.
>>387259
I was looking for the phrase "cultural marxist" specifically, which fails to appear in both the posts you quoted. Do you have reading comprehension problems?
>>387251
why are you god damn stupid
anon was talking about humans
>>386789
Fuck off /pol/
>>386559
They're not, actually. Modern Iraqis are mostly Arabs. Sumerians are extinct.
>>387267
But that's a bit species-ist. If you agree that intelligence is not important regarding humans, why is it so important regarding species?
Let me rephrase : do you at least acknowledge that humans are smarter than chimpanzees and that this higher intelligence is the reason why humans developed civilization whereas chimpanzees didn't?
>>387261
>I am unable to understand even basic speech that isn't exactly literal
I'm sorry to hear you suffer in this way, but the good news is, it's a fairly common condition and you should be able to find a support group to help you through these day-to-day interactions.
http://www.autism.org.uk
>>382045
Savage post
>>387261
>autism
It's alright m80, I should have predicted your inability to tell a paraphrase from a direct quote, somehow, apparently.
>>386596
>implying ideas haven't been traded among and influenced other civilizations since forever.
I guess "Western" civilization is really just Jewish civilization since we follow an offshoot of their religion.
>>387251
Lmao, can you not tell the difference between a chimpanzee and a human being?
Are you not aware that our evolutionary paths split more than a million years ago?
But if you really think that genetic differences between contemporary human populations has a significant impact on material development - why were white people living in mud huts during the bronze and iron ages? For thousands of years? Were white people genetically inferior to the egyptians, who were building vast temple complexes while they were still trying to work out how iron worked? Did some evolutionary moment lead to their thinking up more complex infrastructure? The idea that this can be explained by genetic 'advancement' is a thought-terminating (and stupid) idea.
How about we actually listen to actual archaeologists who have understood for decades - that material, ecological and economic circumstances explain perfectly well these complex differences in cultural trajectory?
>>387279
>>I am unable to understand even basic speech that isn't exactly literal
More like
>I see everywhere le /pol/ boogeyman and conjure up imaginary posts
Get your brain checked.
>>387251
Irrelevant. His specific claim was that, between humans, genetics aren't a factor in "greatness of civilization" (however you want to measure that). Your attempt to draw a comparison with chimpanzees does not in any way invalidate his claim.
>>387281
Ha, so we've switched from "quote" to "paraphrase".
A good start.
>>387278
are you a racist trying to be smart (you really arent) and when i say a chimp is not a human you gona link some 4chin inforgraphs of blacks having lower IQs than whites?
>>387284
The jewish influence is quite significant, and obvioisly western civilization wouldn't have its universalistic aspirations without it, but the most significant developments happened almost a thousand years after said jewish influence began to take hold.
>>387288
See >>386789. Specifically the part where he says "come debate us on /pol/". Unfortunately, /pol/ is not a boogeyman. There are people who regularly and unironically visit that cesspit of a board, broadly agree with mainstream /pol/ 'ideas', and regrettably feel the need to regurgitate their historical illiteracy onto /his/. Which is why people who are actually interested in history and come to this board to discuss it, tell /pol/ to fuck off.
Now fuck off.
>>387285
>Are you not aware that our evolutionary paths split more than a million years ago?
The evolutionary paths of different human races split tens of thousands of years ago too. Was that also a significant event, in your opinion?
>But if you really think that genetic differences between contemporary human populations has a significant impact on material development - why were white people living in mud huts during the bronze and iron ages?
They weren't? Whites derive from two ancestral populations, middle eastern neolithic farmers who colonized europe and would've lived similarly to other farmers in the middle east, and the nomadic indo-europeans who would've probably lived in yurt-like dwellings.
>Were white people genetically inferior to the egyptians, who were building vast temple complexes while they were still trying to work out how iron worked?
Yes, they were probably less intelligent at that time.
>Did some evolutionary moment lead to their thinking up more complex infrastructure?
Yes, the european middle ages greatly raised the average european IQ.
>The idea that this can be explained by genetic 'advancement' is a thought-terminating (and stupid) idea.
It's actually supported by data. To take an extreme example, it's the reason for today's very high ashkenazi jewish intelligence.
>How about we actually listen to actual archaeologists who have understood for decades - that material, ecological and economic circumstances explain perfectly well these complex differences in cultural trajectory?
Because digging up pots and pans does not necessarily qualify someone to have an informed opinion about the development of civilizations.
Let me ask you a question : when did humans develop their intelligence which separates them from chimpanzees?
>>386596
>the ancient chinese hierarchical social order has been replaced with the inherently western notion of equality before the law
You forgot the part where China's superior mandate-of-heaven system replaced the West's archaic concept of the divine right of kings.
>>387301
>There are people who regularly and unironically visit that cesspit of a board, broadly agree with mainstream /pol/ 'ideas',
/pol/ ideas are way more logical than reddit ideas t b h
guys
what if
hear me out
what if this post
>>386789
is satirising /pol/tards?
>>387305
>Because digging up pots and pans does not necessarily qualify someone to have an informed opinion about the development of civilizations.
Utter ignorance and stupidity. Well done.
>>387305
>Yes, the european middle ages greatly raised the average european IQ.
[Citation needed] as to why this is genetic, when it's entirely explained by social factors and an overwhelming majority of historians and geneticists side against a genetic explanation.
>>387309
>this shit may smell bad, but that other shit is way worse
Good to know. Unfortunately, /pol/ is still shit.
>>387314
Poe's law in action.
>>387317
Thanks
>>387319
>[Citation needed] as to why this is genetic,
Well we know for a fact that intelligence has a very high genetic heritability. We also know that the european middle ages were a time with great darwinian selection : the upper classes had twice as many surviving children as the lower classes, and since the number of places in the upper classes were limited, there was a lot of downward mobility. If you're interested in the subject check out the book "A farewell to alms".
>when it's entirely explained by social factors
It's not.
>and an overwhelming majority of historians and geneticists side against a genetic explanation.
That is not true either. And even if it were the case, it would be an appeal to authority...
>>387285
>why were white people living in mud huts during the bronze and iron ages? For thousands of years? Were white people genetically inferior to the egyptians, who were building vast temple complexes while they were still trying to work out how iron worked?
White people had the genetic potential, but not the tools to create civilization back then.
Northern Europe was garbage until the people got the means to actualize their potential, then they joined the round of civlized countries, same for East Asian and SE Asian countries.
Only African countries and countries with large African admixture are shit. Africans outside of Africa (In America) are shit across countries and cultures, while Asians and Europeans do well wherever they go.
What a mystery.
Maybe you should drop the premise, that all peoples are equal, since that practically falsified.
>>387335
There was no "Upper class." It was feudalism. Meaning even if the lords had more surviving children per person, the peasants still outnumbered them thousands to one.
Also simply because they were lords or kings doesn't mean they were smarter in a genetic way, they simply had access to better food.
>>387305
>Let me ask you a question : when did humans develop their intelligence which separates them from chimpanzees?
Millions of years ago. Why?
They separated in evolutionary terms millions of years before anyone at all even thought of painting on a wall, or even tried to build anything with their hands.
Chimpanzees are irrelevant when we're talking about the material advancement of human beings, which only really takes any form of 'civilization' once we get to the Neolithic, after the agricultural revolution about 14000 years ago.
>>387354
>There was no "Upper class."
Oh really? There were only peasants? Nothing else?
>It was feudalism
There was no upper class in feudalism? No lords? No ministers? Nothing?
>Meaning even if the lords had more surviving children per person, the peasants still outnumbered them thousands to one.
But compounded over several generations a significant chunk of the population ended up having "lord" ancestry, even if they remained peasants. It's exponential.
>Also simply because they were lords or kings doesn't mean they were smarter in a genetic way, they simply had access to better food.
Actually it does, because like I said there were a limited amount of places at the top, and only the smart remained lords. The other lost their titles or squandered their inheritence and ended up with the peasants.
>>387335
>it would be an appeal to authority
Yeah, that's how academia works. Every metallurgist doesn't start out smelting ore and determining material properties from scratch. Mainstream ideas are accepted as true until/unless a successful challenge is mounted.
>A farewell to alms
If I wanted to read a racially-charged political manifesto, I'd plump for Mein Kampf, which is at least honest about its ideological bias. Not a refuted attempt to assuage the guilt of colonialism-cum-neoliberalism peddlers.
>>387355
>Millions of years ago. Why?
So humans have been of exactly the same intelligence ever since they separated from the common ancestor to chimpanzees millions of years ago? Pic related had the same intelligence as the modern day human? Are you literally a moron?
>>387352
>White people had the genetic potential, but not the tools to create civilization back then.
But this is the case with all human populations. Your willingness to grant that apology to 'whites' and not to any other population proves your inherent bias when it comes to judging levels of intelligence.
They only way we could test this hypothesis would be to have nomadic or tribal populations inhabit the same environment as Europeans for 10000 years and see what happens - but it's just an impossible thought experiment. What we can say with certainty is that different parts of the world provided the foundation for different forms of human organization and different trajectories of cultural change. Race doesn't have to come into it at all - the questions raised by environment, by trade, communication, material wealth, are not even close to being answered.
But to go back to 19th Century theories of race as an explanation just proves that you are completely ignorant of about 100 years of intellectual development in history and archaeology.
Daily reminder:
Jews
Power gap
Asians
Whites
Blacks
>"b-b-but we're so much better than Africans!" - average white supremacist desperately trying to defend his mediocre race even as Asia once again overtakes the West, thus returning the world's power balance to the status quo
>>387363
Just no. Natural selection works on longer time frames. You really think a few hundred years is enough for substantial change in something as complex as intelligence? We're not like fruit flies where a generation is a week.
>>387365
>Yeah, that's how academia works
No it's not. Academia works not by discrediting unorthodox claims with appeals to authority. It works by analyzing and judging the worthiness of a claim based on the current knowledge.
>If I wanted to read a racially-charged political manifesto
Oh ok, you're one of those guys. Disregard anything which challenges your delusional fantasies with "DATS RAYCIS".
Do you also shove bananas up your rectum?
>>387352
How do you know that Africa isn't simply a late bloomer (as Europe was) and won't host great powers in the future?
http://mg.co.za/article/2015-04-02-nigeria-will-be-africas-first-global-superpower
>>387378
More like
Ashkenazi jews
Power gap
Asians
Whites
Power gap
Hispanics, south asians and middle easterners
Power gap
Niggers.
>>387384
>Just no. Natural selection works on longer time frames
That is not correct.
> You really think a few hundred years is enough for substantial change in something as complex as intelligence?
Yes
>>387378
Some Ethnic groups in Africa outperform whites as well. I think it was the Igbo and others in Nigeria.
>>387374
>reading comprehension
Human evolutionary development separated from Chimpanzees millions of years ago, are you contesting this now?
Humans as we would understand them today appeared about 200,000 years ago. They only began to settle and farm in the near-east around 14,000 years ago, at the beginning of the neolithic.
Human 'civilization' as fascists usually want to describe it can only be seen as arising at this increase in social complexity after the agricultural revolution, and, funnily enough - it sprung quite independently in at least three different parts of the world. So, unless you're going to hold onto the idea that some kind of genetic switch turned on, leading to human intelligence and social complexity - you have to assume it randomly sprang up at exactly the right moment in 3 completely separate places, meso-america, the near east, and China.
It's just too weird to even take it seriously. Material conditions explain it without having to plumb those depths.
>>387393
Ok, please explain to me how come Mongol nomads have higher IQs than modern Europeans then.
>>387399
>Human evolutionary development separated from Chimpanzees millions of years ago, are you contesting this now?
No, but if you weren't abnormally stupid you'd have realized that the question I asked you wasn't "when did humans separate from chimpanzees", but "when did humans develop their intelligence which separates them from chimpanzees".
So are you going to answer the question or again fail at basic reading comprehension and go off on an irrelevant tangent?
>>387386
Did you even look at any of the responses to the book you cited? Or do you simply pick out books that suit your ideology, read through them, decide you like it and accept it as gospel? The statistics of AFTA have been thoroughly analysed and debunked.
And no, academia does not work like that. If, say, you are a physicist, you don't have to test and prove the existence of atoms, even if some revisionist idiot claims they don't exist. You don't start by reinventing the wheel. You build on top of previous orthodoxies, and only challenge them if good reason to do so comes to light. As the only challenge you posted is bunk, no good reason exists and I'm sticking with the orthodoxy.
>>387404
It all started at this date : 1855. This is when the first rubber condom factory was opened. European intelligence has lowered due to dysgenic population growth ever since the middle of the 19th century.
>>387404
>he fell for the IQ meme
>>387375
I'm not talking about the creation of civilization, which depends mostly on the presence of some geographical features and suitable crops that can be cultivated, but about the ability to adopt and maintain a sophisticated technological civilization.
Today, it can be assumed that all countries have access to the basic building blocks, and that it is desireable to copy this civilization.
How quickly and smoothly the adaptation is put into practice depends on a lot of things, but there are overall trends.
White countries do very well. East Asian countries do very well. South East Asian, South Asian countries and West Asian countries do reasonably well.
African countries don't go anywhere. The economic development is stagnant. There's no big structures, no increase of meaningful complexity. It's a quagmire, chaos, the economic development that takes place is either focused around outposts controlled by outsiders, or anarcho-capitalistic growth outside of government regulation.
It's a fact that hormones, intelligence and behaviour are strongly influenced by genes, and that genes differ meaningfully between races. It's reasonably to assume that race is one reason for these differences.
>>387405
It's still the same answer - our ancestors after the separation from chimpanzees millions of years ago were undoubtedly smarter than chimpanzees, hence our intelligence today. Hence the emergence of hunting strategy, of tool use in homo habilis and others, of increases in brain size, etc. This all happened over millions of years
I said in my post that humans only really appeared about 200,000 years ago, doesn't that answer your question?
>>387406
>Did you even look at any of the responses to the book you cited?
Yes. They were all a variation of "das raycis".
Unless you have a good debunking you want to share with me.
>The statistics of AFTA have been thoroughly analysed and debunked.
Where?
> If, say, you are a physicist, you don't have to test and prove the existence of atoms, even if some revisionist idiot claims they don't exist.
Because in the early 20th century, the frenchman Perrin PROVED that atoms existed.
This is not at all comparable, because nobody has PROVED that "genes don't matter". In fact ALL the evidence gathered in the fields of psychometrics and genetics go against that idea. The refusal to accept genetic determinism in the field of history is akin to the refusal by the catholic church to accept heliocentrism. It's purely ideological.
>>387388
Nothing like that happened in the last 60 years, and there's no reason to assume the next 50 years will be different
>african superpower
Let's draw a straight line into the future and ignore all physical restraints or any real world input, really.
>>387423
>It's still the same answer - our ancestors after the separation from chimpanzees millions of years ago were undoubtedly smarter than chimpanzees, hence our intelligence toda
BUT WHEN DID THIS INTELLIGENCE DEVELOP
> This all happened over millions of years
Oh, so you mean that human intelligence =>evolved<= to a higher intelligence?
>I said in my post that humans only really appeared about 200,000 years ago, doesn't that answer your question?
You believe that human intelligence has been constant for 200 000 years?
>>387427
>Nothing like that happened in the last 60 years, and there's no reason to assume the next 50 years will be different
Asians could've said the same about Europeans, and they would've been correct time and time again, right up until they weren't. African countries are developing and have no problem grasping modern technology etc. It's entirely plausible we'll see African great powers or even superpowers in the future, assuming the nation-state lasts that long.
>>387442
>African countries are developing and have no problem grasping modern technology etc
>>387424
You can't prove anything. Just gather enough evidence for your theory to become orthodox. Which is what's happened with race and intelligence.
>>387448
>You can't prove anything.
Of course I can. See : a farewell to alms.
>>387445
>posting a guy making a stupid face with water balloons in his eyes
>this is the level of argument /pol/acks offer
Show me one concrete example of Africans being genetically incapable of understanding a technology required for an advanced civilization.
>>387457
>Show me one concrete example of Africans being genetically incapable of understanding a technology required for an advanced civilization.
They can't even farm.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8_s9FNlQDdA
