When Did the ME Go Wrong?

[The Brain]

Perhaps an example will help...

Who cares when a single individual creates a single metal knife ?

Will you care when he cuts your face off and shows it to you?

[garbon]

Will you care when he cuts your face off and shows it to you?

Spoon on testicles.

[Malthus]

Way too teleological, Malthus.

On the contrary. I am not stating that these things were designed for a result - that appears to be the position of my opponents.

[Malthus]

Perhaps an example will help...

I think it is precisely trying to isolate these kinds of examples which creates an illusion.

How did metal knives came about ? Who cares when a single individual creates a single metal knife ? Unless you think the material preceeds the social or the cultural, I find it very hard to separate the metal knife from the culture that produced it, and the type of polity they bring about, which is all about the uses of the metal knife...

Consider that metal knife in the 17th century, in the Americas. Why were they exported to the Americas ? Would you characterize the Native's shift from stone tools to metal tools as progress ? Were the technical systems which sustained the expansion of the European monarchies a progress over Natives' consensual-style of politics? Warfare, within Native societies with stone tools, created hundreds of deaths. Warfare, within European society, created thousands of deaths. Is this progress ? This is why I wanted you to define the values which you must associate with progress.

There are of course various meanings of "progress" and I beleve by "values" you are questioning the moral aspect of it. Certainly individual humans are no more "good" now than in Sumerian times ... if your concern is the moral implications of the term, I would agree - the relationship between moral and material progress is complex.

However, that is not my immediate concern, which is (to paraphrase Jared Diamond) why "the West" ended up with "all the cargo" - why, for example, we are here communicating over the Internet and not using smoke-signals, or speaking Chinese -- or for that matter, Arabic.

This is "progress" more of the steel-knives variety. I'd agree that knowing "how metal knives came about" is important - that's a study in progress.

[Queequeg]

There might be something to this: I would think that the Imperium, the domination of the civilized world (rather than the Republic, the City where citizens engage as part of their nature of citizen) is certainly a break, a rupture in ways to understand polity, and the goals associated with it. Especially when it united with the King-Shepard of Christian tradition. But, then, it morphed into the unification of Christianity in another brand - albeit slightly different - of eschatology.

This seems to at least partially acknowledge a kind of progress.  Rome went from a Greek-style Polis to  a kind of Proto-Nation (Middle Republic, union of all Italian peoples) to an Empire (expansion into Sicily, Sardinia) to a universal state (Scipio, Marius and later).  Technology improved, for most of this period the living standard of everyone improved, and, most importantly, there was a huge shift towards "modern" business management and the profit motive. 

This is something Joan seems to have studiously avoided; the average Gaul transplanted into a rural Russian mir  in the 17th Century or a Sumerian farm would have been able to adjust with only a degree of culture shock, but the same could be said of the Roman merchant transplanted into any nearly any urbanized, economically advanced society.  The Roman running a Latifunda in modern day Burgundy would likely recognize his modern Burgundian counterpart.  Similarly, the Venetian merchant trying to bring nutmeg to Paris would have run into some of the same problems as the Greek, Chinese, Indian or Persian merchant of a similarly advanced period, as well as some of the same problems of the contemporary Italian capitalist. 

I think Joan is wrong in that the Celt would feel at home as a Sumerian farmhand because he would have been similarly powerless and have little or no understanding of monetary economics or a government beyond a tribe or primitive city-state; the serf/slave of the period would naturally have more in common with other serfs/slaves of any other period.  But within an advanced society we see more primitive versions of nearly all the same professions we see today (or perhaps saw until the advent of the information age).  The Hellenistic world had its factory workers and stevedores, same as early 19th century Britain. 

While I am unwilling to pigeonhole 'progress' I think it is safe to say that continued technological improvement and gradual increase in economic activity are two key parts of it, and it is very safe to say that those two things showed (on the whole) steady improvement over the last 5,000 years and at some specific points in history this would be apparent (specifically the early Caliphate, which, upon further reflection, is as good a proxy for the 19th Century European Imperial state as I can think of in terms of innovation and mindset).

[Queequeg]

Consider that metal knife in the 17th century, in the Americas. Why were they exported to the Americas ? Would you characterize the Native's shift from stone tools to metal tools as progress ? Were the technical systems which sustained the expansion of the European monarchies a progress over Natives' consensual-style of politics? Warfare, within Native societies with stone tools, created hundreds of deaths. Warfare, within European society, created thousands of deaths. Is this progress ? This is why I wanted you to define the values which you must associate with progress.

This seems dangerously close to ignoring how fantastically violent many of the Native civilizations were.  The Aztecs were one of the few people on earth who could make the Spanish appear like liberators.  Without some kind of statistical evidence I find it hard to believe that pre-modern society (or rather "uncivilized" society) is less violent; all the evidence I have seen argues against this.

[crazy canuck]

This seems dangerously close to ignoring how fantastically violent many of the Native civilizations were.

Compared to what.

Do you think that if a powerful potential ally appeared on the scene during any of the violent clashes in Europe that the underdogs wouldnt have jumped at the chance to take advantage of that?

[Queequeg]

I once heard in a grad seminar the best definition of Progress - it was "Paved Roads."

This seems to very elegantly include technological progress and growth of civilian economy.  However, it doesn't seem to account for areas where paved roads are not necessary or useful (the Steppe's caravans were complex and effective without a whole lot of traditional paved road).

[Queequeg]

This seems dangerously close to ignoring how fantastically violent many of the Native civilizations were.

Compared to what.

Anything?
The only societies that I think can compare to the Aztecs in terms of the level of violence would be the Mongols, Nazis and Assyrians, and I'm not totally sure about the last two.  Aztec religion was based upon continuous genocide to keep the sun in the sky, it's really hard to get that nightmarish outside of Lovecraft. 

[Malthus]

Consider that metal knife in the 17th century, in the Americas. Why were they exported to the Americas ? Would you characterize the Native's shift from stone tools to metal tools as progress ? Were the technical systems which sustained the expansion of the European monarchies a progress over Natives' consensual-style of politics? Warfare, within Native societies with stone tools, created hundreds of deaths. Warfare, within European society, created thousands of deaths. Is this progress ? This is why I wanted you to define the values which you must associate with progress.

This seems dangerously close to ignoring how fantastically violent many of the Native civilizations were.  The Aztecs were one of the few people on earth who could make the Spanish appear like liberators.  Without some kind of statistical evidence I find it hard to believe that pre-modern society (or rather "uncivilized" society) is less violent; all the evidence I have seen argues against this.

An anthropologist studying the "peaceful" !Kung San bushmen (beloved of cultural anthropologists everywhere) discovered that a goodly portion of them died by violence at the hands of other !Kung San. In contrast, "modern" war is horrifically violent, but doesn't actually impact as many persons.

Albeit obviously Bushmen are a lot less "progressed" than most n. american native societies. 

The view of aboriginal humanity as descending from a golden age of peacefullness to modern violence seems to go through periodic re-assessments - some anthropologists have even taken the view (very popular in the '90s) that the development of agriculture was a "Malthusian trap" and humanity would have been better off without it, living the happy carefree life of the hunter-gatherer - my own view is that this is nonsense, much overstating the actual degree of happiness and care-freedom of living as a hunter-gatherer.

[crazy canuck]

This seems dangerously close to ignoring how fantastically violent many of the Native civilizations were.

Compared to what.

Anything?
The only societies that I think can compare to the Aztecs in terms of the level of violence would be the Mongols, Nazis and Assyrians, and I'm not totally sure about the last two.  Aztec religion was based upon continuous genocide to keep the sun in the sky, it's really hard to get that nightmarish outside of Lovecraft.

First, you are using the Aztecs and then saying that "Many" Native civilizations were just as violent?  Maybe you mispoke and you really only meant that the Aztecs were "fantastically violent" - although you may also have in mind the Mayans.  That still leaves a whole range of Native civilazations that were not as violent as the rest of the world.

Second, you yourself are able to think off the top of your head of other civilizations that were just a violent.  Btw no chance the Aztecs killed as many as the Nazis in the same amount of time.  I think you have to rethink your comparisons.

[crazy canuck]

The view of aboriginal humanity as descending from a golden age of peacefullness to modern violence seems to go through periodic re-assessments - some anthropologists have even taken the view (very popular in the '90s) that the development of agriculture was a "Malthusian trap" and humanity would have been better off without it, living the happy carefree life of the hunter-gatherer - my own view is that this is nonsense, much overstating the actual degree of happiness and care-freedom of living as a hunter-gatherer.

I knew you would eventually say something I could agree with.

The studies of why civilizations collapsed say has a lot to do with the Malthusian trap they created for themselves.  However that doesn't mean that hunter gatherer subsistence living is better.  Its not.  It is the default position after a collapse.

[Malthus]

This seems dangerously close to ignoring how fantastically violent many of the Native civilizations were.

Compared to what.

Anything?
The only societies that I think can compare to the Aztecs in terms of the level of violence would be the Mongols, Nazis and Assyrians, and I'm not totally sure about the last two.  Aztec religion was based upon continuous genocide to keep the sun in the sky, it's really hard to get that nightmarish outside of Lovecraft.

First, you are using the Aztecs and then saying that "Many" Native civilizations were just as violent?  Maybe you mispoke and you really only meant that the Aztecs were "fantastically violent" - although you may also have in mind the Mayans.  That still leaves a whole range of Native civilazations that were not as violent as the rest of the world.

Second, you yourself are able to think off the top of your head of other civilizations that were just a violent.  Btw no chance the Aztecs killed as many as the Nazis in the same amount of time.  I think you have to rethink your comparisons.

Not for want of trying. Of course, the Aztecs themselves may well have inflated the figures to make themselves appear more fearsome.

The comparison is explicitly made here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_sacrifice_in_Aztec_culture#Estimates_of_the_scope_of_the_sacrifices

For the re-consecration of Great Pyramid of Tenochtitlan in 1487, the Aztecs reported that they sacrificed about 80,400 prisoners over the course of four days, though there were probably far fewer sacrifices. According to Ross Hassing, author of Aztec Warfare, "between 10,000 and 80,400 persons" were sacrificed in the ceremony.[32] The higher estimate would average 14 sacrifices per minute during the four-day consecration. As a comparison, the Auschwitz concentration camp, working 24 hours a day with modern technology, approached but did not equal this pace: it executed about 19,200 a day at its peak. Four tables were arranged at the top so that the victims could be jettisoned down the sides of the temple.[33] Nonetheless, according to Codex Telleriano-Remensis, old Aztecs who talked with the missionaries told about a much lower figure for the reconsecration of the temple, approximately 4,000 victims in total.

Michael Harner, in his 1977 article The Enigma of Aztec Sacrifice, estimates the number of persons sacrificed in central Mexico in the 15th century as high as 250,000 per year. Fernando de Alva Cortés Ixtlilxochitl, a Mexica descendant and the author of Codex Ixtlilxochitl, claimed that one in five children of the Mexica subjects was killed annually. Victor Davis Hanson argues that an estimate by Don Carlos Zumárraga of 20,000 per annum is "more plausible."[34] Other scholars believe that, since the Aztecs always tried to intimidate their enemies, it is more likely that they could have inflated the number as a propaganda tool.[35]

[Malthus]

The view of aboriginal humanity as descending from a golden age of peacefullness to modern violence seems to go through periodic re-assessments - some anthropologists have even taken the view (very popular in the '90s) that the development of agriculture was a "Malthusian trap" and humanity would have been better off without it, living the happy carefree life of the hunter-gatherer - my own view is that this is nonsense, much overstating the actual degree of happiness and care-freedom of living as a hunter-gatherer.

I knew you would eventually say something I could agree with.

The studies of why civilizations collapsed say has a lot to do with the Malthusian trap they created for themselves.  However that doesn't mean that hunter gatherer subsistence living is better.  Its not.  It is the default position after a collapse.

Wait - isn't that a judgment on the "progress" from hunter-gatherer to civilization? On what basis are you holding that being a hunter-gatherer isn't "better"? 

[Jacob]

In contrast, "modern" war is horrifically violent, but doesn't actually impact as many persons.

What do you mean by modern war?