PANDORA The Perfect World? NOT REALLY

[Tsyal Makto]

Let's do what the French did. Everyone who does cause the problems of Earth, let's round them up, and give 'em a nice close shave with the national razor. Let's start with the Koch Brothers.



Seems like a good first step. We can rebuild once we take out the trash.

[Aihwa]

Let's do what the French did. Everyone who does cause the problems of Earth, let's round them up, and give 'em a nice close shave with the national razor. Let's start with the Koch Brothers.



Seems like a good first step. We can rebuild once we take out the trash.

That's what Al-Quaida, the IRA, The Weather Underground, Haamas, and every other terrorist organization in the history of mankind though. Don't want go down that road.

[Raidrik]

^this to the 9,001st power


seriously, eco-terrorism much?

[Tsyal Makto]

Pity, you must've caught me in a bad mood. You see, that's when I tend to give the scum elites (not only environmental, but financial...and, well, any facet of society where elites emerge and do harm to the world. Don't think people like that exist? Go google "pink slime," for a recent example.) of this Earth my full wrat, usually including hyperbole. Would I ever act on that? Of course not, but it's a good anger management strategy, no? And I can dream of a day when these people are finally purged of society through (hopefully) peaceful means.

It seems like your looking for posts to bump just for the sake of mudslinging at this point. WTF are you trying to prove with this bumping.

[Raidrik]

^ two words: THANK.GOD
You had me going their for a moment

and who's bumping? The thread was visible to me as soon as I opened the page. And I only had a short post because quite literally that's all I had to say. Not to mention, it appears these days any times I 'contribute' I get attacked for being a 'troll'

So make up your mind, do you people want me to make longer, drawn out posts stating my opinion or not?

[Ja'k Dawsiin]

It seems like your looking for posts to bump just for the sake of mudslinging at this point. WTF are you trying to prove with this bumping.

^ yeah,that. bumping without a contribution,is total crap and pretty much tells me what kind of varmit you are. first rule of fight club...no bumping unless a post of substance. grrrrr

[Raidrik]

^ yeah,that. bumping without a contribution,is total crap and pretty much tells me what kind of varmit you are. first rule of fight club...no bumping unless a post of substance. grrrrr

And not reading the post just above your explaining everything TOTALLY a legitament excuse to post something like this is *sarcasm*

[DeMouse]

Facets of "Western culture" have been around just as long as "Native customs". The fertile crescent in the middle east is where a majority of early civilizations flourished, ideas such as coinage, civil planning, agriculture, and even capitalism (in the sense of private ownerships and operation of a business for personal profit) all can trace their beginnings to these early peoples. (Along with mathematics, written language, and sciences)


The earliest settlements date back to more than 9000 BC, or 11 thousand years ago. Compared to the first Native American tribes arriving in America a mere 2000 years before that. The difference in technological advancement is staggering.

I have to agree with this.

Not all cutures are equal. Western culture lends itself far more to progress and advancement while "naturalistic" type cultures lead to stagnation and everything staying in their "perfect form" forever.

That is why western culture has come to dominate the modern world.

[Ximphron]

I have to agree with this.

Not all cutures are equal. Western culture lends itself far more to progress and advancement while "naturalistic" type cultures lead to stagnation and everything staying in their "perfect form" forever.

That is why western culture has come to dominate the modern world.

Thats a massive oversimplification.
But another massive oversimplification is that primitive societies are ecological saints. Uh huh. The Lakota use every part of the buffalo and kill only what they need... except when they pushed an entire herd of thousands off a cliff. The Algonkin peoples lived in harmony with the forest... that they set fire to twice yearly to clear it out.
The Native American societies, at least, were "behind" but not stagnated. When the Europeans arrived America was in a sort of dark age, they had recently had a relapse from massive city states that had a collapse of their food producing. The present USA had cities with over a million people, but something, perhaps climate change or bad farming techniques destroyed this.
Western culture isn't superior, it's view that nature needs to be controlled hasn't given it it's power. Rather geographic, environmental, and competitive factors did.
The middle east lends itself perfectly to irrigated farming. Hardy yet nutritious grains are in abundance. Fat, submissive animals are all around. So theres a nice head-start for the Middle East, the India, and China. -- lets look at sub-Saharan Africa. One grain that doesn't grow too well in most areas, a root vegetable that has the same problem. Animals that are fast and paranoid - try domesticating a Zebra. Oh, an a gigantic rainforest that doesn't lend itself well to civilization.
North America: until relatively recently, Maize could only grow in equatorial regions. Animals to use for meat/fur/pulling: Turkey, Dog, Llama, Guinea Pig. Those really don't compare to cattle, horses, sheep, goats, donkeys, pigs, dogs, and chickens. Other staple crops, such as Maguey can only grow in Mexico. Overall plants are nutritious but not very good in the cold, and aren't as productive.
So now you might ask, since Asia and Europe have good animals and great crops like rice and wheat, well why did the Middle East and Europe pull ahead of China and India in recent history? Competition. Europe is made of tiny squabbling states. India and China have spend almost their entire history fairly united. Internal wars and wars between small city states was uncommon. The lack of real threats for the most part causes a lack of huge technological advancement and runaway resource acquisition. No contant war equals no constant military and social innovation.
In Europe, constant competition between states was unequaled anywhere else in the world. This drove up technology, warfare strategies, and many other things to higher levels extremely quickly - just like capitalism supports technology and growth, so did the super-competitive nature of Europe. Even the middle east, for a while the beacon of civilization, fell behind when Europe finally broke its barriers of food and disease. What really drove europe to such technological advancement and power wasn't some cultural mindset but the complete failure to create a cohesive identity or any form of peace. To put it short, Europe advanced so much because no country could get ahead. No country could dominate the others like in the rest of the world, leading to an arms race.
Europe had tons of bonuses, and the middle east had a massive head start on the rest of the world. Western civilization dominates the world. Was this because their culture was superior? No. It was because it had a massive head start from the beginning and managed to have extreme state vs state competition due to the failure of any one nation to become dominant.

[RD-701]

Ximphron- sounds like the the theory put forward by Jarod Diamond.

I agree; it's not how 'in tune with nature' and thus supposedly 'backward' or 'stagnant' a culture is; it's all about geographical advantages and historical events.

All humans have proven to be destructive to their environment at one time or another; human activities likely played a major role in the extinction of many species of megafauna in North America, for example.

Also, societies that damage their local environments usually don't get far... because they end up wrecking their own infrastructure in the process.