Growl.....Maybe DonSideB was right
Bacchae
serious restructuring. After reading the following I'm about
ready to agree with him.
Check this out: (from:
http://cbc.ca/cgi-bin/templates/view.cgi?category=World&story=/
news/2001/11/25/sarape_011125 )
"More cases of rape are reported in South Africa than almost
anywhere else in the world, and authorities say the problem is
getting worse. More than 20,000 children were sexually
assaulted in the country during the past year, according to
government crime statistics.
Many of the girls and boys are under seven, and some are much
younger.
For instance, police are investigating reports that an
eight-month-old baby was abducted from her parents' home and
sexually assaulted on Friday. She was found in a ditch in need
of medical attention but is expected to survive.
Earlier this month, police said a nine-month-old girl was raped
by six drunk men in the northwestern town of Upington. The
accused are scheduled to return to court in December.
Some men with HIV or AIDS in South Africa cling to the belief
that having sex with a virgin or baby can cure them. Health
authorities are trying to debunk the myth."
***
What the fuck is in the minds of men who would rape a
nine-month old child? I hope they die the most miserable,
painful and lingering death AIDS can give them, the bastards.
Unfortunately they are just more likely to spread the disease
to others. <sigh>
- Sandy
--
Bacchae at telusplanet dot net
Sockermom9
>What the fuck is in the minds of men who would rape a
>nine-month old child? I hope they die the most miserable,
>painful and lingering death AIDS can give them, the bastards.
>Unfortunately they are just more likely to spread the disease
>to others. <sigh>
Also unfortunately, not all rapists have AIDS. I'd like to see cunts (and
other orifices) equipped with blades, thus making non-con entry a one-time-only
affair.
Lynn
New to the world of submission? Check out http://members.aol.com/oldrope/ for
some thoughts for newcomers from those who've been there and decided to stick
around.
Bacchae
>
> >What the fuck is in the minds of men who would rape a
> >nine-month old child? I hope they die the most miserable,
> >painful and lingering death AIDS can give them, the
bastards.
> >Unfortunately they are just more likely to spread the
disease
> >to others. <sigh>
Lynn replies:
> Also unfortunately, not all rapists have AIDS. I'd like to
see cunts (and
> other orifices) equipped with blades, thus making non-con
entry a one-time-only
> affair.
Indeed, not all rapists have AIDS but it seems like it is an
issue in regards to the type of rape currently going on in
South Africa.
I'd be okay with your solution though.
- Sandy
Bacchae
I wrote:
> >DonSideB once said that he thought Africa needed some <ahem>
> >serious restructuring. After reading the following I'm
about
> >ready to agree with him.
> >
> >Check this out: (from:
> >
"UKBen"
> One can find equally abhorrant stories in the USA, UK or just
about
> anywhere else. Do you think we need the same 'restructuring'
as the
> 70+ countries that make up the continent of Africa?
If you'd read the first paragraph you'd have seen the
following:
"More cases of rape are reported in South Africa than almost
anywhere else in the world, and authorities say the problem is
getting worse. More than 20,000 children were sexually
assaulted in the country during the past year, according to
government crime statistics."
So, more "than almost anywhere else in the world" doesn't mean
anything to you? If Canada had as many problems as the
continent of Africa I think we'd maybe do something like the
people of South Africa are doing (i.e. marching to increase
awareness of how severe a problem rape is in their country),
like the UN is doing in some of its initiatives for Africa and
like the G8 is doing with its Africa Action Plan.
Although I don't think Don's "start over again" solution is
feasible I am aware that much of Africa is in serious poverty
and health crisis. Part of the concerns the G8 and UN have
about Africa relate to the rights of women and children. They
appear to feel that Africa needs some help and "restructuring"
in order to sustain its population in a more healthful and
human rights aware manner.
I think we should all be part of the "restructuring" of our
society when children are at risk. That's why there are things
like "mandatory reporters" for child abuse. That's why there
are Children's Help Lines/Phones. That's why we have social
services that will seize children. I don't believe that Africa
as a whole has the infrastructure to do similar things but it
appears parts of South Africa are at least aware of the
atrocities being committed there.
I am not advocating Don's solution or policy but I am certainly
empathize with a sense of helpless horror when I read things
like this article. Excuse my use of hyperbole to express how
distraught I felt upon reading about a 9 month old child being
raped by 6 drunken men. We all know that HIV and AIDS is
rampant in Africa and part of the problem is the sexual habits
of some of the people who have HIV and AIDS there such as "dry"
intercourse, female genital mutilation and now it appears, rape
of virgins/children/infants.
I am thankful that it seems as though HIV/AIDS sufferers in the
Western World don't generally rape children to ostensibly
effect a cure but hey, if you have cites that state otherwise
I'd be happy to review them.
- Sandy
Dreamstalker
> Sandy writes:
>
> >What the fuck is in the minds of men who would rape a
> >nine-month old child? I hope they die the most miserable,
> >painful and lingering death AIDS can give them, the bastards.
> >Unfortunately they are just more likely to spread the disease
> >to others. <sigh>
>
> Also unfortunately, not all rapists have AIDS. I'd like to see cunts (and other
> orifices) equipped with blades, thus making non-con entry a one-time-only affair.
IIRC, "toothed vaginas" are a theme in some folktales (North American Indian comes
to mind--I know I've read a few, but can't recall the titles or tribes).
seth j fogarty
>IIRC, "toothed vaginas" are a theme in some folktales (North American Indian comes
>to mind--I know I've read a few, but can't recall the titles or tribes).
Vagina dentata. (SP). The North American native myth specifically involves
a man being swallowed whole into a vagine (see American Gods for further
reference). There are, I believe, vagina dentata in Hindu myth, but oh boy
is there a lot of it in early psychoanalysis.
This also leads to the Neal-Stephenson inspired rape defense mechanism
called the "dentata." A spike deployed to poke any entering man and dose
him with a sleep drug. Not quite safe, given discussions of sleep drugs
I've seen here lately (any anesthetic sans monitoring), but not something
I object to in principle.
--
Arav bipsum | "The same person. No difference at all. Just a
Neep neep at large | different sex." -Orlando (Orlando, 1992)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
AIM: Sorrath ICQ: 47462500 sfog...@students.uiuc.edu
lexi
%%%%snipped%%%%
> IIRC, "toothed vaginas" are a theme in some folktales (North American Indian comes
> to mind--I know I've read a few, but can't recall the titles or tribes).
Are you thinking of the Wiccans?
darkness
> DonSideB once said that he thought Africa needed some <ahem>
> serious restructuring. After reading the following I'm about
> ready to agree with him.
>
>
> What the fuck is in the minds of men who would rape a
> nine-month old child? I hope they die the most miserable,
> painful and lingering death AIDS can give them, the bastards.
> Unfortunately they are just more likely to spread the disease
> to others. <sigh>
>
>
> - Sandy
Welcome to the brutal world that lies outside our doors. You can find
chilling tales of abuse (eg bride burning) in other parts of the world
like India, Pakistan, Brazil (murder of street children by police in
an organised fashion), Indonesia etc. etc. Haiti, the poorest country
in the western hemisphere, gets pretty desparate as well.
South Africa was a poisoned nation. The bitter legacy of apartheid
was a heavily armed, heavily divided society with vast inequalities of
wealth and poverty. One of the key strategies of apartheid had been
to arm the Zulus to fuel the Zulu-Xhosa rivalry (the ANC was a heavily
Xhosa organisation), as well as to flood adjacent, anti-apartheid
states with cheap weapons, which are now flooding back into SA. The
wars between the taxi cab companies are legendary, and settled with
AK47s. SA has the highest violent crime rate in the world.
Into this came the tonic elixir of AIDS, with a legacy of black
political paranoia about the white man (fed by what had happened under
50 years of apartheid, and 100 years of colonial rule before that).
So its entirely credible for the President of South Africa to question
the 'white' (ie HIV related) explanation of AIDS.
At the same time, most of Africa is going through the collapse of
traditional tribal social structures, rapid urbanisation and
population explosion (AIDS is only now beginning to negatively effect
the growth rate). So all the usual social controls collapse, and
there are not new social structures to remedy them: the police and law
courts are hopelessly corrupt and overburdened for example. There is
no public health infrastructure of the type the West mobilised against
tuberculosis and polio in the first half of this century, for example.
AIDS is precisely that kind of challenge that the West faced pre
WWII: ie an incurable disease whose control relies entirely on the
social control and the public health system. If we look at our
failures in this regard (with addicts and other high risk groups) it
is hardly surprising Africa has failed on a much greater scale.
Witchcraft and rumour are given as much credence as fact and analysis,
or more.
Read accounts of the Concentration Camps (of what the inmates did to
each other), or the Japanese Rape of Nanjing in 1936, or indeed any of
the German Army's actions on the Eastern Front behind the lines in
WWII, and you will realise that human beings are heavily influenced by
their context, and that ordinary, sensible, civilised people can
commit huge atrocities. Imagine how much worse things are in Africa
where you are not starting with people brought up in an ordinary civil
society. Start a big enough rumour about raping virgins, and
desparate, careless men will follow suit.
The really grim thing is that South Africa is easily the most
prosperous and most advanced nation in Sub-Saharan Africa, and the
most integrated into the global economy. Much of the hope for SA must
lie in the ability of the major multinationals to influence their
workforces and the government towards more sensible policies. In a
very real sense, SA is evolving towards a sort of anarchistic state,
where private forces provide the security and order.
DonSideB
darkn...@yahoo.com (darkness) writes:
> Into this came the tonic elixir of AIDS, with a legacy of black
>political paranoia about the white man (fed by what had happened under
>50 years of apartheid, and 100 years of colonial rule before that).
>So its entirely credible for the President of South Africa to question
>the 'white' (ie HIV related) explanation of AIDS.
>
Much of what you say is true, but you fall into the trap of blaming everything
wrong with African culture on white men. The sickness in sub Saharan Africa's
culture goes much deeper and has been there much longer than that. By blaming
an external devil, the internal devils will remain hidden.
I have a theory that we might kick around here. I believe that cultures evolve,
much in the way species do, by natural selection. Life in Europe required
different cultural adaptations than life in the tropics. It is not a matter of
race, but of geography and climate. Had it been possible to switch the
populations of Africa and Europe or Asia 40,000 years ago, I expect the outcome
would have been pretty much the same. Life in Africa just doesn't select the
for same cultural traits as the harsher life in Europe, which drove the
development of our cultures in the West.
Thoughts?
--
don
A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves. - Edward R Murrow
SSBB Diplomatic Corps: Tidewater Virginia
John Warren
news:20020301121119...@mb-fs.aol.com...
> Sandy writes:
>
> >What the fuck is in the minds of men who would rape a
> >nine-month old child? I hope they die the most miserable,
> >painful and lingering death AIDS can give them, the bastards.
> >Unfortunately they are just more likely to spread the disease
> >to others. <sigh>
>
> Also unfortunately, not all rapists have AIDS. I'd like to see cunts (and
> other orifices) equipped with blades, thus making non-con entry a
one-time-only
> affair.
>
> Lynn
After my experience in Cambodia, I made sure that it would never happen to
me again while I was there. I got a four ounce tin of TNT and taped it to
my belt with electrical tape. Then I disassembled a MK2 grenade, trimmed
the fuse so the detonator was just under the cap, cut off most of the spoon
and glued it into the well on the end of the can and covered it with a bit
more electrical tape. It was comforting to know that no only was I never
have to go through that again but that, should someone attempt it, they
would become part of my honour guard when I arrived in hell.
Some experiences have a marked effect on one's outlook.
--
Diversified Services (Toys, Books and Videos for the Scene since 1992)
www.diversifiedservices.biz
Philip the Foole
> The wars between the taxi cab companies are legendary, and settled
with AK47s.
Yeah, but that's not just South Africa. All cabbies do that.
Your Humble Jester,
Philip the Foole
Sockermom9
>It was comforting to know that no only was I never
>have to go through that again but that, should someone attempt it, they
>would become part of my honour guard when I arrived in hell.
I love a man who appreciates revenge as an art form.
darkness
Gary Becker argues that there is no such thing as culture, only a
structure of incentives. So, Haitians emigrate to America, from the
poorest and most corrupt country in the hemisphere, and rapidly exceed
the social and economic norms of the existing black (and in some cases
white) ethnic groups.
I think culture has a heck of a lot to do with it. To wit, governing
culture, the structure of law and order and what is acceptable in
commercial terms. Australia has a very benign climate, so does
California, but the British and American governments imposed a
tidy-minded, Victorian style commercial culture there (to be fair, the
corruption in gold rush California was probably worse than it was in
Mexican California). So California and Australia outperformed, for
example, Uruguay and Argentina. I think the key issues for economic
growth are the social and commercial norms imposed: protection of
private property, degree of corruption of government activity.
Does climate play a role? Difficult to say. England has a very mild
climate, Minnesota and New England do not. Canada has a recognisably
more British, and more collective culture, than the United States, but
conversely, the bits of the US that are most like Canada are those
next to the border.
It seems to me a bit like the Religion and the Rise of Capitalism
thesis, ie unproven that Protestant societies are more likely to
generate prosperous capitalist ones, than Catholic societies.
In Africa, colonialisation messed the place up thoroughly.
Decolonisation was done in such a hurry that there was no chance to
provide alternative, stable structures of government (and the ruling
ideologies of the time were all messed up ones ie state socialist
ones).
Its impossible to know what Africa might have been without the impact
of colonialisation, although Ethiopia (and Thailand and Japan in Asia)
provide hints: independent kingdoms, struggling to modernise, but with
fewer of the artificial tribal splits the west imposed. The Cold War
inspired flood of cheap arms into places like Mozambique, Angola,
Somalia, Ethiopia has helped fuel the chaos. I doubt the place would
be in the godawful mess it is in now if we had kept our hands out.
darkness
>
> Thoughts?
Reading your thoughts again, I wonder if there is really the evidence
for them.
The US Deep South, or Latin America, are much more corrupt and
backward, historically, than the North East, Midwest and Canada. I
*think* you are arguing that that is the consequence of the climate in
the home countries, but Argentina, the Deep South, Uruguary, Chile,
Brazil were all settled by people from Europe, just like the more
prosperous areas.
You could argue Asia has the most benign human climate, but it also
has the historically best organised civilisations with the Confucian
ideas of hard work, education, saving.
I think the key is the system of government and culture that emerged
out of North Western Europe post the Reformation and in particular in
the 18th Century: rationalist, paternalistic (in terms of things like
universal education and healthcare), relentlessly commercial and
individualistic. The role of people like the Quakers in the
Industrial Revolution is pretty key. I am not sure it really runs
deeper than that, because Northwest European culture is almost wholly
a creation of post 1000, and really post 1346. In 600 say, Europe was
a bunch of trees and savage barbarians.
Inevitably there was luck. Once the aborigines were exterminated,
North America and Australia were destined to be some of the richest
places on the planet for people to live. Britain ahd Holland were two
of the best placed countries to have an overseas empire,
geographically, and geography insulated them from some of the worst
excesses of the European wars of the 17th and 18th centuries.
I think the success of parts of Asia post 1960 is about them emulating
that pattern of good government and private rectitude (or indeed even
exceeding it in areas like education and savings). The achilles heel
is the degree of cronyist corruption. But then 18th Century England
was an incredibly corrupt place.
DonSideB
darkn...@yahoo.com (darkness) writes:
>Reading your thoughts again, I wonder if there is really the evidence
>for them.
>
>The US Deep South, or Latin America, are much more corrupt and
>backward, historically, than the North East, Midwest and Canada. I
>*think* you are arguing that that is the consequence of the climate in
>the home countries, but Argentina, the Deep South, Uruguary, Chile,
>Brazil were all settled by people from Europe, just like the more
>prosperous areas.
>
>You could argue Asia has the most benign human climate, but it also
>has the historically best organised civilisations with the Confucian
>ideas of hard work, education, saving.
>
Right now, I am working in another dentist's office temporarily while he
recuperates from surgery at the same time as I am fitting out and opening a new
practice of my own (near the office where I formerly worked as an employee) so
I don't have the time to really dig for cites to support my ideas about climate
and culture to the standard we are used to here. So I'll just give you my
observations and leave critical examination to someone with more time
available.
Briefly, what I am thinking about goes back earlier than the time periods you
are talking about. Late pre-history. What I am thinking is that if the climate
is too harsh, like the Arctic, survival is just too hard for real civilization
to develop, but at the other extreme, if it is too easy to survive, that also
limits cultural development.
Though sub Saharan Africa has its dangers, it is possible to feed oneself off
the land pretty much year round. There is no real necessity to accumulate
stores and protect them. If someone steals what you have, you go get more.
Extra work, but survivable.
In Europe, with a shortened growing season, agriculture became necessary as
population grew past what hunter gathering would support. Stores had to be put
aside to survive the winter. If someone stole your stores, survival was in
doubt. That made common defense a necessity, and corrupt as the feudal system
was, it provided law and order of a sort. A grass and mud hut surrounded by a
thorn bush fence just wouldn't do the job in Europe, cities and fixed
fortifications became necessary.
If you look at early history, you will see that civilization and technology
originated in temperate zones but was lacking in both the Arctic and the
Tropics. That is what I am thinking about, that some degree of hardship is
necessary to drive advancement. If a stone age culture and technology is good
enough to get by with, then it persists and the left over energy goes into
superstition, exploitation and indulgence, and you get the stagnant culture
Livingston found when he explored the Dark Continent, substantially unchanged
since our ancestors migrated to Europe and Asia.
I do not believe, as Livingston did, that this is any kind of racial
difference, switch the populations and I expect the outcome would have been the
same. Cultures hardened by the temperate zone winters walked on the moon while
those is the tropics would still be praying to the moon had they remained
isolated.
I do agree that European influence made things worse, not as a result of
exploitation as you proposed, but by bringing Africa the technology that made
survival even easier without the hardship of winter to drive the development
of a culture based on common purpose and respect for property.
Bacchae
> Briefly, what I am thinking about goes back earlier than the
time periods you
> are talking about. Late pre-history. What I am thinking is
that if the climate
> is too harsh, like the Arctic, survival is just too hard for
real civilization
> to develop, but at the other extreme, if it is too easy to
survive, that also
> limits cultural development.
...
> If you look at early history, you will see that civilization
and technology
> originated in temperate zones but was lacking in both the
Arctic and the
> Tropics. That is what I am thinking about, that some degree
of hardship is
> necessary to drive advancement. If a stone age culture and
technology is good
> enough to get by with, then it persists and the left over
energy goes into
> superstition, exploitation and indulgence, and you get the
stagnant culture
> Livingston found when he explored the Dark Continent,
substantially unchanged
> since our ancestors migrated to Europe and Asia.
>
> I do not believe, as Livingston did, that this is any kind of
racial
> difference, switch the populations and I expect the outcome
would have been the
> same. Cultures hardened by the temperate zone winters walked
on the moon while
> those is the tropics would still be praying to the moon had
they remained
> isolated.
Um, although I tend to agree with some of your comments here
there are some things you're missing.
What about the "lost" civilizations in Africa and South America
that were far FAR superior to what Europe had at the same time?
Take a look at some PBS archeology specials about Peru and the
one about Africa by Henry Louis Gates Jr.
Check out:
http://www.pbs.org/wonders/BehindSc/behind.htm
(particularly "Black Kingdoms of the Nile" and "Lost Cities of
the South", which, while not being tropical per se are much
different than temperate regions in Europe)
There are reams of written material rotting at Timbuktu because
the rest of the world doesn't want to think that there is
anything substantial in Africa.
Irt Peru:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/transcripts/2404inca.html
There are also things like Easter Island and I don't even know
where to start with the ancient sites in the Far East and
India.
I think that many of us of European extract just have trouble
seeing the incredible accomplishments of other cultures because
it isn't coming from the same "philosophical" (for lack of a
better word) place as our accomplishments. I think this is a
mistake. Just because a culture has different priorities
doesn't make it less of a developed civilization. I'd
personally rather have a vast knowledge of plants, medicines,
herbal lore and animal husbandry than a bunch of stupid cold
rock buildings built to display "wealth" or "superiority" (a
exaggerated form of dick-flopping if you ask me). And I'd far
rather have freedom than fortification. I'd rather have
personal fulfillment than life-taking weapons.
I know that seems easy to say as I make use of the comforts of
civilization but I could definitely do without many of the
martial aspects of society that seem to go along with the
comforts.
- Sandy
--
Bacchae at telusplanet dot net
"Beauty is terror. Whatever we call beautiful, we quiver
before it. We want to be devoured by it, to hide ourselves
in that fire which refines us."
- Donna Tartt
DonSideB
<bac...@nospam.telusplanet.net> writes:
>
>Um, although I tend to agree with some of your comments here
>there are some things you're missing.
>
>What about the "lost" civilizations in Africa and South America
>that were far FAR superior to what Europe had at the same time?
>Take a look at some PBS archeology specials about Peru and the
>one about Africa by Henry Louis Gates Jr.
>
Those actually reenforce my belief. You have to ask WHY a technologically
superior civilization was 'lost?'
Was it that there was no survival benefit because the stone age cultures that
coexisted with them survived as well or better or were they destroyed by their
internal corruptions as a result of wastefulness in a land of plenty?
The Aztecs and Mayans certainly accomplished a lot, but you would not have
found Eurpoeans wasting prefectly good serfs and slaves by cutting their hearts
out.
Whatever the reasons, tropical cultures seem to tend toward stagnation and
often brutality. I can't pin down the reasons with certainty, but the pattern
is clear.
Bacchae
> >Um, although I tend to agree with some of your comments here
> >there are some things you're missing.
> >
> >What about the "lost" civilizations in Africa and South
America
> >that were far FAR superior to what Europe had at the same
time?
> >Take a look at some PBS archeology specials about Peru and
the
> >one about Africa by Henry Louis Gates Jr.
> >
"DonSideB" wrote in message
> Those actually reenforce my belief. You have to ask WHY a
technologically
> superior civilization was 'lost?'
>
> Was it that there was no survival benefit because the stone
age cultures that
> coexisted with them survived as well or better or were they
destroyed by their
> internal corruptions as a result of wastefulness in a land of
plenty?
>
> The Aztecs and Mayans certainly accomplished a lot, but you
would not have
> found Eurpoeans wasting prefectly good serfs and slaves by
cutting their hearts
> out.
>
> Whatever the reasons, tropical cultures seem to tend toward
stagnation and
> often brutality. I can't pin down the reasons with certainty,
but the pattern
> is clear.
Don, I still think you're looking at things with a pretty
narrow view. I recommend you take a look at a book called
"Catastrophe" by David Keys which discusses his theory that a
profound disaster occurred some time in 535 CE. The entire
world can be devasted by a single "natural" upheaval. A
disaster of this magnitude can alter history and that has
nothing to do with "internal corruption", "stagnation" and
"brutality".
If you don't have time to acquire the book you can take a look
at the transcript of another PBS special on this topic at:
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/secrets/html/e1-resources.html
- Sandy
Volcano
>
> Those actually reenforce my belief. You have to ask WHY a technologically
> superior civilization was 'lost?'
Partly through lack of competition. The nations of Europe had to
advance in technology or be conquered by their neighbors. More
isolated civilizations didn't have that pressure driving their
cultures. Therefore, by the time the Spanish arrived in Central
America, the pre-exisiting civilizations there were unable to
compete.
>
> Was it that there was no survival benefit because the stone age cultures that
> coexisted with them survived as well or better or were they destroyed by their
> internal corruptions as a result of wastefulness in a land of plenty?
>
> The Aztecs and Mayans certainly accomplished a lot, but you would not have
> found Eurpoeans wasting prefectly good serfs and slaves by cutting their hearts
> out.
The main problem the Aztecs had was the lack of any domestic beasts
of burden, or any domestic food animals other than turkeys and dogs.
One of the limitations on civilization is transporting food to all
those people who aren't producing their own. Dog carts really don't
haul much cargo, and turkeys don't herd real well. Dogs are a very
inefficient source of protein, being meat-eaters themselves. Slaves
can transport cargo, but eat too much. Slaves, however, can be fed
adequately on a diet of grain, and can be readily herded into town.
--
,~~~~ Board Member: Darkest Desires Central Texas
/ \ Corps Diplomatique SSB; San Antonio, TX
/ \ Volcano Founder: Pink Pistols Central Texas
www.PinkPistolsCenTex.org
"Armed gays don't get bashed." www.pinkpistols.org
Binder
>
> In article <KDLg8.35961$DS6.1...@news2.telusplanet.net>, "Bacchae"
> <bac...@nospam.telusplanet.net> writes:
>
> >
> >Um, although I tend to agree with some of your comments here
> >there are some things you're missing.
> >
> >What about the "lost" civilizations in Africa and South America
> >that were far FAR superior to what Europe had at the same time?
> >Take a look at some PBS archeology specials about Peru and the
> >one about Africa by Henry Louis Gates Jr.
> >
>
> Those actually reenforce my belief. You have to ask WHY a technologically
> superior civilization was 'lost?'
How about an extended drought? There is some evidence that suggests that
some pre-Columbian cultures in the Americas died out not because of a
collapsing society, except as that relates to a lack of water.
> Was it that there was no survival benefit because the stone age cultures that
> coexisted with them survived as well or better or were they destroyed by their
> internal corruptions as a result of wastefulness in a land of plenty?
It was neither, at least in Peru. FIrst off: they were all "stone age
cultures" at that time, unless you count the excellence of their gold and
silver work, and the exquisite engineering feats they accomplished... like
their irrigation system. Second, the Peruvians did not live in a land of
plenty, except as they created one. The irrigation system they used, given
adequate water (which was not a great deal to start with) was capable of
producing far more food per acre than many modern growing systems.
> The Aztecs and Mayans certainly accomplished a lot, but you would not have
> found Eurpoeans wasting prefectly good serfs and slaves by cutting their hearts
> out.
Naw... they let the slaves and serfs starve, or used them as ammunition for
the catapults.
> Whatever the reasons, tropical cultures seem to tend toward stagnation and
> often brutality. I can't pin down the reasons with certainty, but the pattern
> is clear.
This is different from modern European society how??? We may not be as
blatantly brutal as the Aztecs, or as stagnant as Pharonic Egypt, but we're
not far behind, IMO, and in a lot less time as either of them. Try to
remember that Pharonic Egypt survived for a couple of thousand years, and
the Aztecs and Maya not a great deal less than that.
And let's not omit the brutal fact of the Spanish invasion on the health of
barely post-Columbian America: a rather large percentage of the native
population (those that weren't murdered outright) died of imported diseases
like measles and smallpox.
Binder
--
LLEbootHSoNLG -- SSBB Dip Corp, Vallejo CA
My whips, Dread Koosh Floggers, etc: http://www.madplaiter.com
SSBB Charter is at: http://www.mindspring.com/~frites/charter.htm
Free Radical
Binder <binder...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3C84384C...@yahoo.com...
IMO a lot of very negative assumptions are made and promoted about these
ancient civilizations based on archeological findings when we really know
very little about their social function over all.
darkness
> Binder <binder...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:3C84384C...@yahoo.com...
> > DonSideB wrote:
> > >
> > > In article <KDLg8.35961$DS6.1...@news2.telusplanet.net>, "Bacchae"
> > > <bac...@nospam.telusplanet.net> writes:
> > >
> > > >
> > > >Um, although I tend to agree with some of your comments here
> > > >there are some things you're missing.
> > > >
> > > >What about the "lost" civilizations in Africa and South America
> > > >that were far FAR superior to what Europe had at the same time?
> > > >Take a look at some PBS archeology specials about Peru and the
> > > >one about Africa by Henry Louis Gates Jr.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Those actually reenforce my belief. You have to ask WHY a
> technologically
> > > superior civilization was 'lost?'
> >
> > How about an extended drought? There is some evidence that suggests that
> > some pre-Columbian cultures in the Americas died out not because of a
> > collapsing society, except as that relates to a lack of water.
> >
> > > Was it that there was no survival benefit because the stone age cultures
> that
> > > coexisted with them survived as well or better or were they destroyed by
> their
> > > internal corruptions as a result of wastefulness in a land of plenty?
Can we really call Mesopotamia 'temperate'? ie the cradle of
civilisation is actually a bloody hot place, infested with waterborn
diseases.
> >
> > It was neither, at least in Peru. FIrst off: they were all "stone age
> > cultures" at that time, unless you count the excellence of their gold and
> > silver work, and the exquisite engineering feats they accomplished... like
> > their irrigation system. Second, the Peruvians did not live in a land of
> > plenty, except as they created one. The irrigation system they used, given
> > adequate water (which was not a great deal to start with) was capable of
> > producing far more food per acre than many modern growing systems.
> >
> > > The Aztecs and Mayans certainly accomplished a lot, but you would not
> have
> > > found Eurpoeans wasting prefectly good serfs and slaves by cutting their
> hearts
> > > out.
Urk? When the Crusaders reached jerusalem, they spent 3 days
slaughtering the inhabitants. Similar examples took place all over
medieval Europe, for example in the Spanish reconquista from the
Moors.
The Romans were quite prepared to decimate whole countries (Dacia,
Carthage).
> >
> > Naw... they let the slaves and serfs starve, or used them as ammunition
> for
> > the catapults.
> >
> > > Whatever the reasons, tropical cultures seem to tend toward stagnation
> and
> > > often brutality. I can't pin down the reasons with certainty, but the
> pattern
> > > is clear.
But Rome fell. And Greece before it. And Byzantium after it. And
medieval civilisation collapsed in demographic crisis and the Black
Death.
> >
> > This is different from modern European society how??? We may not be as
> > blatantly brutal as the Aztecs, or as stagnant as Pharonic Egypt, but
> we're
> > not far behind, IMO, and in a lot less time as either of them. Try to
> > remember that Pharonic Egypt survived for a couple of thousand years, and
> > the Aztecs and Maya not a great deal less than that.
Pharoanic Egypt was anything but static: contrast New Kingdom with
Old, c. 1700 years later. And in between, they were overrun a couple
of times so received a lot of outside influences.
From memory, the Aztecs had beaten other civilisations relatively
recently: this partly accounts for their savagery.
The Mayans were around much longer, and earlier.
> >
> > And let's not omit the brutal fact of the Spanish invasion on the health
> of
> > barely post-Columbian America: a rather large percentage of the native
> > population (those that weren't murdered outright) died of imported
> diseases
> > like measles and smallpox.
> >
> > Binder
The Mongols were on the point of destroying European civilisation once
they had won the battle of Leipzig. In the parts where their
influence held on (Russia, Ukraine) they set those civilisations back
by 3 centuries, an effect still felt today.
If the Mongols had not been recalled for the election of the successor
to Genghis Khan, it is likely they would have burned Paris. Even
Italy was reachable with their technologies and techniques, let alone
Oxford.
European civilisation, such as it was, would have fallen to the
Ottoman Turks. The takeoff into self sustaining growth of the modern
period might never have taken place.
Sometime about 1600, the Japanese would have arrived in Europe and set
up trading outposts.
I think there is a lot of recent (ie post 1500) historical accident in
the triumph of the West. Until that time, the civilisations of the
Middle East and Asia were technologically and scientifically more
advanced.
The allegedly 'primitive' civilisations of the New World, and of Asia,
actually lasted a heck of a lot longer and achieved more than the ones
in the West did, at least until about 1600. The crucial break point
appears to be in the Early Modern era 1600-1750.
And these civilisations were as sophisticated as our own in terms of
organisation and ability: look at what they achieved with far less
technology in the field of construction. Or the sophistication of
their astronomical understanding. Its just that they fell, which is
what civilisations tend to do.
Robert Heinlein was right: our civilisation, in turn, will fall.
Whether it does so peacefully by transmuting into something else, is
unclear. It might die violently: usually from internal discord and
strife. The barbarians don't usually knock down the gates, they find
them open and wander in.
darkness
>>> But civilisation began in the Fertile Crescent, and in Egypt (or
perhaps China: I am vaguer on the timelines). Also the Ganges Basin.
European civilisation is later (and the climate was a lot more benign
in Europe, for long stretches).
And when European civilisation did emerge, it was in the temperate
parts, next ot the centres of civilisation: ie the Greek Islands, the
coasts of Spain and Italy.
>>>
>
> If you look at early history, you will see that civilization and technology
> originated in temperate zones but was lacking in both the Arctic and the
> Tropics. That is what I am thinking about, that some degree of hardship is
> necessary to drive advancement. If a stone age culture and technology is good
> enough to get by with, then it persists and the left over energy goes into
> superstition, exploitation and indulgence, and you get the stagnant culture
> Livingston found when he explored the Dark Continent, substantially unchanged
> since our ancestors migrated to Europe and Asia.
>>> And the Almoharid (Almohavid?) civilisation of West Africa and
Benin? Destroyed in the 12th century by Berber moslem fanatics (one
group of moslems wiping out a less 'pure' one than previous, an old
trend in moslem history).
Or the Christian civilisation of Ethiopia: again pushed back by wars
with the newly Islamified Arab sea pirates? But they had been
seafaring at least as far as India, in the 6th Century AD. Or the
civilisations of Madagascar and East Coastal Africa.
Of for that matter, the Renaissance-period civilisation of Zimbabwe
which built those large stone buildings.
Africa was a mess, in the same way Europe was a mess in 800.
Livingstone worked his way up the most primitive part. Or a better
example, in 1350: 40% of the European population dead due to the Black
Death, the Turks busily conquering Greece and the Balkans, the Church
hopelessly divided.
Look at the impact on the Roman Empire of the arrival of the stirrup:
completely changed the military balance, and allowed the place to be
overrun.
If the Chinese had stuck to navigation in the 14th century, when they
were exploring Africa, rather than having it abandoned by their
Emperor, or the Japanese had had another century or two to evolve,
*they* would have been forcing open our ports to trade, not us forcing
them. No Commodore Perry in Tokyo Bay ('150 years of friendship' as
some president said ;-) but Commodore Iwomoto at Dover Harbour?
At the time of the Shoguns, the Japanese emperors were fielding armies
larger and better armed than their European counterparts.
The triump of the west over the New World is a handful of things:
1. gunpowder (even though the Chinese invented it)- the locals beat
the Vikings off, but could not beat the English, French, Dutch
2. navigation - compass, etc and all the attendant seafaring skills
3. disease - we held the really big, nasty diseases, like smallpox,
and could give them to the populations of the New World
4. religous fanaticism - the conviction that all we had to do was
bring God to these heathen lands: the Spanish got it out of the
Reconquista from the Moors
>
> I do not believe, as Livingston did, that this is any kind of racial
> difference, switch the populations and I expect the outcome would have been the
> same. Cultures hardened by the temperate zone winters walked on the moon while
> those is the tropics would still be praying to the moon had they remained
> isolated.
>
> I do agree that European influence made things worse, not as a result of
> exploitation as you proposed, but by bringing Africa the technology that made
> survival even easier without the hardship of winter to drive the development
> of a culture based on common purpose and respect for property.
The colonial powers practised genocide on a grand scale (most notably
in the Belgian Congo, but elsewheres) and obliterated the existing
power structures, creating their own which were more malleable to
colonial control.
When they exited in indecent haste (and remember how recent this was:
South Africa ended apartheid in the early 90s, Rhodesia fell in the
early 80s, Portugal pulled out of Angola, Mozambique and West Africa
in 1972) there wasn't enough of a political infrastructure to pick up
the pieces.
I would argue that most of North America or for that matter France is
inherently a far more hospitable place than sub Saharan Africa. By
your model, *these* ought to be underdeveloped.
DonSideB
writes:
>
>This is different from modern European society how??? We may not be as
>blatantly brutal as the Aztecs, or as stagnant as Pharonic Egypt, but we're
>not far behind, IMO, and in a lot less time as either of them. Try to
>remember that Pharonic Egypt survived for a couple of thousand years, and
>the Aztecs and Maya not a great deal less than that.
>
>And let's not omit the brutal fact of the Spanish invasion on the health of
>barely post-Columbian America: a rather large percentage of the native
>population (those that weren't murdered outright) died of imported diseases
>like measles and smallpox.
>
I am not arguing ethical perfection for temperate zone populations so much as I
am postulating that life being too easy in the tropics stagnated those
populations.
Europe had its plagues and conquering barbarians too, but the underlying
culture survived and prospered. Whether the great cultures of the tropics
existed or not, they failed and they never produced the equivalent of the
temperate zone cultures in technology or enduring philosophy. While their
northern neighbors went from the stone age to the space age, the tropics
remained stone age except where technology was brought to them. Zimbabwe and
South Africa are driving out the Europeans that conquered them, but show every
sign of reverting to a stone age culture again. A stone age culture with
AK-47's, but stone age none the less.
Yes, the Mayans and the Pharohs were around longer than our culture, but how
much progress did they make in all that time? Where is the African Jefferson or
the Amazonian Newton? Have the tropics produced a Constitution or a jet engine
or a Salk Vaccine?
THere had to be great minds born into those cultures, but what happened to
them? Was a great mind of no advantage in those cultures?
My speculation is that if life is too easy(as in year round availability of
food), survival becomes random rather than selected. THere is no payoff for
greatness and no value placed upon it.
Again, this is speculation based on observation, but it appears to hold up.
Philip the Foole
upon it.
*Far* be it from me to agree with DonSideB on anything, but I've noticed
a similar "natural selection" effect in the martial arts. Schools that
regularly spar against other styles are constantly improving their
techniques. Schools that limit themselves to "within-system"
tournaments stagnate. Several centuries of constant sword fighting
resulted in some mighty effective Japanese fencing techniques.
Your Humble Jester,
Philip the Foole
It's a jungle out there. And the fittest *thrive* in the jungle.
- Ancient Kung Foole Proverb
Bacchae
> Yes, the Mayans and the Pharohs were around longer than our
culture, but how
> much progress did they make in all that time? Where is the
African Jefferson or
> the Amazonian Newton? Have the tropics produced a
Constitution or a jet engine
> or a Salk Vaccine?
The African Jefferson was the person who managed to design and
build the pyramids that have stood far FAR longer than
Jefferson has even been known. The Amazonian Newton is the
tribesperson who has developed cures for local diseases and
poisons to capture food. That Amazonian tribesperson's legacy
has likely lasted longer than Newton's has.
The Tropics have produced "constitutions", they just aren't
ones that you recognize because you're too immured in your
current culture. Is a boomerang not as wonderous as a jet
engine? Do not the flight dynamics of the boomerang amaze you?
Do herbal cures as administered by centuries of medical people
with no written pharmacology not impress you?
> THere had to be great minds born into those cultures, but
what happened to
> them? Was a great mind of no advantage in those cultures?
Their legacy lives on, you just don't see it. Their legacy has
already lived on far longer than the people you have mentioned
in this post. You just don't see their contributions because,
well, you're a snob (to put it nicely).
- Sandy
Bacchae
> THere had to be great minds born into those cultures, but
what happened to
> them? Was a great mind of no advantage in those cultures?
And furthermore, the greatest minds of today still can't figure
out how the great minds of yesteryear did things. The
"technology" required for the building of the pyramids, Easter
Island's statues, Stonehenge, Machu Picchu and many other
structures that stand today CENTURIES after being built are
physical evidence of ancient genius.
If we suffer some cataclysmic event what will we have to show
for it? As we have so tragically found out recently even our
most obvious edifices of supposed technological wonder burn and
fall to rubble.
- Sandy
Binder
>
> "DonSideB"
>
> > THere had to be great minds born into those cultures, but
> what happened to
> > them? Was a great mind of no advantage in those cultures?
>
> And furthermore, the greatest minds of today still can't figure
> out how the great minds of yesteryear did things. The
> "technology" required for the building of the pyramids, Easter
> Island's statues, Stonehenge, Machu Picchu and many other
> structures that stand today CENTURIES after being built are
> physical evidence of ancient genius.
Don seems to think that lack of evidence equates with evidence of lack. If
the libraries of Meso America hadn't been destroyed, there might be quite a
bit more evidence to prove Don wrong. We'll know more when the
archaeologists make some progress with the digs in Mexico and Peru... how
much more? Who knows.
The Mayan calendar was far superior to anything we had until computers came
along. (I'm waiting for their predicted end of the world in 2112.) There is
copious evidence of successful brain surgeries in Peru before ran around in
pointy hats thinking they would prevent the Plague.
Interesting that you put Stonehenge and Macchu Piccu in the same
sentence... I was mulling over that exact comparison while I was taking my
daily soak. They resemble each other, superficially. But the latter was
built at high altitude, and at a standard of construction that we would
find near impossible today, yet was done with stone hammers. By comparison,
Stonehenge is more like an accident of time and cataclism.
> If we suffer some cataclysmic event what will we have to show
> for it? As we have so tragically found out recently even our
> most obvious edifices of supposed technological wonder burn and
> fall to rubble.
IMO, it is sheer hubris to think that we have acheived the pinnacle of
human ability. And, if there's any good reason for my entry into this
thread, it is to point out that thinking that we are is a fallacy that
makes small minds comfortable, and that leads to the fall of societies. At
least, if I've read my history of European culture adequately.
Bacchae
> Interesting that you put Stonehenge and Macchu Piccu in the
same
> sentence... I was mulling over that exact comparison while I
was taking my
> daily soak. They resemble each other, superficially. But the
latter was
> built at high altitude, and at a standard of construction
that we would
> find near impossible today, yet was done with stone hammers.
By comparison,
> Stonehenge is more like an accident of time and cataclism.
I don't understand why you would say that about Stonehenge.
Could you please explain what you mean with that comment?
DonSideB
<bac...@nospam.telusplanet.net> writes:
>
>The African Jefferson was the person who managed to design and
>build the pyramids that have stood far FAR longer than
>Jefferson has even been known. The Amazonian Newton is the
>tribesperson who has developed cures for local diseases and
>poisons to capture food. That Amazonian tribesperson's legacy
>has likely lasted longer than Newton's has.
Not to pick a nit, but I clearly wrote about sub-Saharan Africa. Egypt is as
far north as Viriginia and it has a definite growing season, though it is based
on the Nile floods instead of snow. But the engine driving the development of
culture I postulated, that being the necessity of storing and defending food
between growing seasons, applies to Egypt.
>
>The Tropics have produced "constitutions", they just aren't
>ones that you recognize because you're too immured in your
>current culture. Is a boomerang not as wonderous as a jet
>engine? Do not the flight dynamics of the boomerang amaze you?
>Do herbal cures as administered by centuries of medical people
>with no written pharmacology not impress you?
>
Boomerangs and herbal medicine are interesting, but again, trial and error over
centuries do no impress me. The guys here at Nasa Langley make much better
boomerangs than the aboriginies without generations of experimentation because
they base their designs on an understanding of those aerodynamics. That is the
difference between science and trial and error. The aboriginies over centuries
learned that shaping their throwing sticks differnently made them do
interesting things and played around with different shapes for amusement until
they refined the shape of a number of different styles of boomerangs. But they
don't have a clue *why* those shapes act the way they do. How long do you think
its going to take them to get a space shuttle or a 767 using that method?
Same thing for the herbalists. Centuries of human experimentation with no
understanding of the pharmocology is not science. How many did they kill in the
course of developing their "medicine" by experimenting without understanding?
Look at what the drug companies are doing with the same plant alkaloids we are
stealing from the rain forests in only a few years. How many lives were
squandered by failing to understand and make the best use of those herbs?
>> THere had to be great minds born into those cultures, but
>what happened to
>> them? Was a great mind of no advantage in those cultures?
>
>Their legacy lives on, you just don't see it. Their legacy has
>already lived on far longer than the people you have mentioned
>in this post. You just don't see their contributions because,
>well, you're a snob (to put it nicely).
>
I don't think I am the snob here. Snobs are generally quick to find excuses for
people they feel superior to. I don't. I believe the Amazonian indians,
sub-Saharan Africans and the aboriginies are just as smart, on average, as we
are and I find their cultures to be reprehensible for wasting the most precious
resource of human intelligence.
These cultures have a legacy alright, but it is one of missed opportunity and
needless death and suffering.
Dan Holzman
DonSideB <dons...@aol.combackatyu> wrote:
>
>Same thing for the herbalists. Centuries of human experimentation with no
>understanding of the pharmocology is not science. How many did they kill in the
>course of developing their "medicine" by experimenting without understanding?
>Look at what the drug companies are doing with the same plant alkaloids we are
>stealing from the rain forests in only a few years. How many lives were
>squandered by failing to understand and make the best use of those herbs?
I hate to burst your bubble, but medical research kills lots and lots
of people, too.
Dan
Tacit
>build the pyramids that have stood far FAR longer than
>Jefferson has even been known.
The nice thing about a pyramid is that even if it collapses in a heap, a heap
is still basically pyramid-shaped.
Which is not to say that the pyramids are not remarkable achievements--they
are--but they are far less complex and pose far less of an engineering
challenge than, say, a Gothic cathedral.
From an engineering standpoint, the only real challenge in building a pyramid
is shaping the blocks. It's a structurally stable construct, and requires no
particular engineering finesse to design; the Gothic cathedral, on the other
hand, is not structurally sound--the open vaults and thin stone walls, and the
lack of interior columns, pose a very complex engineering problem that required
the development of the flying buttress to solve.
>The Amazonian Newton is the
>tribesperson who has developed cures for local diseases and
>poisons to capture food.
No; their developments did not surpass those of tribal healers elsewhere in the
world. A remarkable achievement is germ theory and the discovery of things such
as antibiotics, both of which make for far better understanding of and cure for
disease than anything you're likely to find in a pre-industrial civilization.
--
"Quand la morale triomphe, il se passe des choses tres vilaines."
Literature. Art. Photography. Forums. Shareware. Kink. Sex.
All at: http://www.xeromag.com/franklin.html
Tacit
>out how the great minds of yesteryear did things.
Outdated information.
There is a popular myth, as enduring and as common as the myth that the
Eskimoes have fifteen words for "snow" or the police need two minutes to trace
a phone call, that we don't understand how the pyramids were built.
The reality is: The construction of the pyramids is now well-understood. It
requires less engineering finesse than just vast quantities of slave labor.
Eighty thousand slaves can solve all kinds of quarrying and transportation
difficulties; the construction of the pyramids was decidedly low-tech.
Even the raising and placement of multiton blocks is now well-understood.
Essentially, each block was positioned by using a series of wooden levers.
Workers on each side would lever the block up a couple of inches, and
scaffolding would be placed beneath. Then the levers were repositioned and the
process was completed.
It's crude, but if you have enough people, it was fast; constructing a pyramid
took only about twenty years or so, not the centuries that early archaeologists
believed.
(As an aside: It takes zero seconds to trace a phone call--the trace is
completed before the first ring is finished. You don't even have to answer the
phone. And the Eskimoes have three words for "snow," which translate roughly as
"snow," "sleet," and "slush.")
>The
>"technology" required for the building of the pyramids, Easter
>Island's statues, Stonehenge, Machu Picchu and many other
>structures that stand today CENTURIES after being built are
>physical evidence of ancient genius.
Yes, they are. But the cultures that produced them never developed beyond what
is now understood to be relatively crude engineering techniques. They certainly
could not have built the equivalent of a modern skyscraper, or for that matter
even of the Taj Mahal--IIRC, the Egyptian architects never developed the dome
or the Roman arch, and they certainly never developed the flying buttress.
Tacit
>copious evidence of successful brain surgeries in Peru before ran around
>in pointy hats thinking they would prevent the Plague.
I would hardly call trepanning "brain surgery." If that's brain surgery, then
replacing the air filter on my car is rocket science. ;)
>IMO, it is sheer hubris to think that we have acheived the pinnacle of
>human ability.
True. Indeed, we're nowhere even close.
John Warren
news:20020307125605...@mb-dh.aol.com...
> >And furthermore, the greatest minds of today still can't figure
> >out how the great minds of yesteryear did things.
>
> Outdated information.
>
> There is a popular myth, as enduring and as common as the myth that the
> Eskimoes have fifteen words for "snow" or the police need two minutes to
trace
> a phone call, that we don't understand how the pyramids were built.
>
> The reality is: The construction of the pyramids is now well-understood.
It
> requires less engineering finesse than just vast quantities of slave
labor.
> Eighty thousand slaves can solve all kinds of quarrying and transportation
> difficulties; the construction of the pyramids was decidedly low-tech.
Agreed. It was much the same "lots of people lots of work" approach that
allowed the Romans to penetrate the fortress at Massada. Faced with a
cliff, they simply built a huge artificial hill, a ramp, with megatonnes of
dirt and rock and then just walked up the ramp. The same approach can be
used to position big rocks. Build a gradual hill, pull the rock up the
slope, position it, take the hill away. Lots of sweat, but it works.
John Warren
> >There is
> >copious evidence of successful brain surgeries in Peru before ran around
> >in pointy hats thinking they would prevent the Plague.
>
> I would hardly call trepanning "brain surgery." If that's brain surgery,
then
> replacing the air filter on my car is rocket science. ;)
Actually, an even better example would be that when faced with a clogged air
filter you bashed in your windshield with a brick "to let more air in."
Philip the Foole
That seems unlikely to me, since the people of Buffalo, New York have
*way* more ways to describe snow.
A few of them are even printable.
Your Humble Jester,
Philip the Foole
"What I have written here is a silly, misleadingly unscholarly piece,
designed to infuriate."
- Ancient Kung Foole Proverb by Dr. Geoffrey K. Pullum (from "The Great
Eskimo Vocabulary Hoax")
Tacit
>*way* more ways to describe snow.
Ah, yes, but they are not really WORDS for snow; they're ADJECTIVES to modify
the word "snow." As in "This Godforsaken horrible wet snow..."
Bacchae
> >The African Jefferson was the person who managed to design
and
> >build the pyramids that have stood far FAR longer than
> >Jefferson has even been known.
"Tacit" wrote in message ...
> The nice thing about a pyramid is that even if it collapses
in a heap, a heap
> is still basically pyramid-shaped.
>
> Which is not to say that the pyramids are not remarkable
achievements--they
> are--but they are far less complex and pose far less of an
engineering
> challenge than, say, a Gothic cathedral.
>
> From an engineering standpoint, the only real challenge in
building a pyramid
> is shaping the blocks. It's a structurally stable construct,
and requires no
> particular engineering finesse to design; the Gothic
cathedral, on the other
> hand, is not structurally sound--the open vaults and thin
stone walls, and the
> lack of interior columns, pose a very complex engineering
problem that required
> the development of the flying buttress to solve.
And what about the monoliths still standing in Africa? What
about the Great Zimbabwe?
http://www.scholars.nus.edu.sg/landow/post/zimbabwe/art/greatzi
m/gz1.html
or Debra Damo
http://www.pbs.org/wonders/Episodes/Epi4/4_wondr3.htm
or Mapungubwe
http://www.pbs.org/wonders/Episodes/Epi6/6_wondr2.htm
Perhaps this quote will point out why we don't think there is
anything of consequence in Africa other than in Egypt:
"Since discovery of its ruins in the 1930s, Mapungubwe has been
owned and excavated by the University of Pretoria. Because
South Africa's apartheid system taught that South Africa was
uninhabited until the white settlers arrived in the 17th
century, it was considered an embarrassment for the South
African government or to the conservative University to admit
that they had discovered this ancient African city. So this
great treasure found at Mapungubwe has remained in the
University's basement, hidden away from the public for the past
seventy years. Historians and archaeologists now can tell us
that Mapungubwe is one of hundreds of similar ancient towns in
Southern Africa that were settled by black Africans more than
1,000 years ago."
Oh yea, and it took a while to figure out how to make flying
buttresses. Africa has archeological wonders that pre-date
flying buttresses.
> >The Amazonian Newton is the
> >tribesperson who has developed cures for local diseases and
> >poisons to capture food.
> No; their developments did not surpass those of tribal
healers elsewhere in the
> world. A remarkable achievement is germ theory and the
discovery of things such
> as antibiotics, both of which make for far better
understanding of and cure for
> disease than anything you're likely to find in a
pre-industrial civilization.
And how was penicillin discovered? Pure accident.
- Sandy
Bacchae
> Boomerangs and herbal medicine are interesting, but again,
trial and error over
> centuries do no impress me. The guys here at Nasa Langley
make much better
> boomerangs than the aboriginies without generations of
experimentation because
> they base their designs on an understanding of those
aerodynamics. That is the
> difference between science and trial and error. The
aboriginies over centuries
> learned that shaping their throwing sticks differnently made
them do
> interesting things and played around with different shapes
for amusement until
> they refined the shape of a number of different styles of
boomerangs. But they
> don't have a clue *why* those shapes act the way they do. How
long do you think
> its going to take them to get a space shuttle or a 767 using
that method?
And you don't think the Wright brothers and all their
unsuccessful predecessors weren't using trial and error to
develop their flying machines?
If you consider Da Vinci's drawings of flying "machines" until
the time of the Wright brothers don't you think that wasn't a
considerable length of time?
Don't you also think that without humankind understanding
things like boomerangs that the guys at Nasa Langley wouldn't
have the *foundation* for their work?
Not all human achievements took place in Northern Europe.
Europe had some things going for it that perhaps other places
didn't have: source of raw materials of established trade for
same, infrastructure, and population density.
- Sandy
Tacit
>about the Great Zimbabwe?
Neither are as sophisticated as the stone structures constructed throughout
Western Europe inthe same time period (the eleventh through thirteenth
centuries), but that's neither here nor there. My remarks weren't focussed on
Don's thesis or on the capabilities of Europeans or Africans, but rather on the
specific engineering challenges of constructing the Great Pyramids.
>And how was penicillin discovered? Pure accident.
Penecillin was discovered by accident by a researcher who already understood
germ theory and was culturing bacterial specimins for observation. It could
never be discovered by accident by a civilization that did not first grasp the
relationship between disease and microscopic organisms.
I stand by my thesis: A civilization which understands germ theory will do
better in treating disease than a civilization which does not.
Tacit
>unsuccessful predecessors weren't using trial and error to
>develop their flying machines?
As much as it pains me to admit this, as I rarely agree with Don about
ANYTHING: He's got you on this one.
There is a difference between systematic experimentation by someone who has no
concept of aerodynamics,and experimentation by someone who does.
In the former case, you can continue to work on your boomerang, but your
experimentation is not really guided by a fundamental grasp of WHY the changes
you are making are significant. Therefore, you do not have the intellectual
tools to predict what changes you make will have the desired effect, nor to
optimize the boomerang's performance directly; you just make a change, see what
happens, make a change, see what happens, and hope that you'll eventually get
where you want to go.
In the latter case, you can predict in advance what course is likely to yeild
results, and you can capitalize on the results you achieve much more
efficiently.
It's the difference between finding the door to a room while blindfolded, with
someone next to you saying "Warmer...warmer...cooler..warmer...cooler..." and
finding the door by looking for it.
SilverOz
Tacit <tac...@aol.com> wrote:
>>And you don't think the Wright brothers and all their
>>unsuccessful predecessors weren't using trial and error to
>>develop their flying machines?
>
>As much as it pains me to admit this, as I rarely agree with Don about
>ANYTHING: He's got you on this one.
>
>There is a difference between systematic experimentation by someone who has no
>concept of aerodynamics,and experimentation by someone who does.
>
And how much aerodynamics was understood in the early 1900s?
SilverOz
darkness
> In article <3C84384C...@yahoo.com>, Binder <binder...@yahoo.com>
> writes:
>
> >
> >This is different from modern European society how??? We may not be as
> >blatantly brutal as the Aztecs, or as stagnant as Pharonic Egypt, but we're
> >not far behind, IMO, and in a lot less time as either of them. Try to
> >remember that Pharonic Egypt survived for a couple of thousand years, and
> >the Aztecs and Maya not a great deal less than that.
> >
> >And let's not omit the brutal fact of the Spanish invasion on the health of
> >barely post-Columbian America: a rather large percentage of the native
> >population (those that weren't murdered outright) died of imported diseases
> >like measles and smallpox.
> >
>
> I am not arguing ethical perfection for temperate zone populations so much as I
> am postulating that life being too easy in the tropics stagnated those
> populations.
But civilisation emerged in places other than Northwestern Europe:
Mesopotamia and Egypt and the river valleys of the Indian
subcontinent.
Medieval Europe had many, many great thinkers. Most of whom spent
years arguing about how many angels could dance on the head of a pin,
and whether filius que meant the same thing as filius quo. So there
was an archetypal western civilisation that was embroiled in all kinds
of debates that we now consider utterly meaningless. Remember
Iconoclasticism? Rest assured, though, these were great thinkers.
Its a very long reach to extend the post 1600 European dominance of
the globe: founded on the emergence of a rational-scientific culture,
the power of disease to overwhelm the inhabitants of the Americas and
Australia, the successful adoption of a number of military reforms
(primarily based on the fact that gunpowder meant you could turn a
peasant into a killing machine in under 6 months), and take that
dominance and project it backwards and presume it says something
fundamental about the superiority of cultures and civilisations from
that neck of the world (ie northwest europe).
After all, Northern China has a harsher climate. So too did North
America. Japan and China had more organised societies vastly earlier,
with elaborate philosophies and more advanced technologies, at least
until the 16th century. Lots of civilisations have lasted far longer
than the west's. Modern mathematics came from the Arab cilivisations
of the Baghdad Caliphate, and the Moors in Granada. Modern medicine
came from a heterodox islamic state on the frontiers of Persia (name
escapes me for the moment).
The west got lucky. The Mongols managed to mash the civilisations of
central Asia, but tired before they had reduced western Europe the way
they did Eastern Europe (the population of Moscow fell from something
like 100,000 to under 3,000 in the course of 4 years).
Because the religious orthodoxies of the late medieval period were
weakened by political discord (and the Black Death) it became possible
for rationalist philosophers, rediscovering the work of the Greeks
(and the additions of the moslems, provided in the 15th century via
the reconquest of Spain), to assert themselves. The Protestant states
of Europe, founded on trade and commercialism, became the protectors
of this critical scientific tradition. As Britain and Holland
supplanted the Spanish and Portugese seaborn empires, they spread that
philosophy and approach over the globe.
We're prone to taking spot observations and generalising. The heroic,
or whig histories of Britain (history as progress towards British
democracy and British civilisation) were popular just when the 'map
was coloured red' ie more than half the world was under the sway of
the British Empire, and Britain was the largest exporter and the most
powerful military nation.
120 years later, a form of managerial capitalism is triumphant, rather
than the free market one of Victorian Britain, and with it the United
States and its military and technological prowess. The Empire and its
monarchy seems like a total has been, a sort of pompous joke. (The
Queen is still Empress of India, though ;-).
A 100 years from now, we will not be writing about the triumph of the
West, but rather its momentary ascendancy before the next global
player. Demographics mean that the West will largely be seen the way
we see Scandinavia now: a nice place to live, but not terribly
consequential. Or Britain: a country which still has a military and
political bite above its weight in the world, but which sits on a
gracefully declining economic and social base.
On a bet, the predominant world philosophy will be some kind of
Confucian Chinese collective commercialism. The big players will be
China, Brazil perhaps (mobilised by Protestant religious fervour) and
a third, other, which could be India, but might be someone in the
Middle East.
>
> Europe had its plagues and conquering barbarians too, but the underlying
> culture survived and prospered.
No. Very little left of the Roman culture, until the Renaissance.
The civilisations of Benin and of West Africa were more advanced at
that time.
Whether the great cultures of the tropics
> existed or not, they failed and they never produced the equivalent of the
> temperate zone cultures in technology or enduring philosophy. While their
> northern neighbors went from the stone age to the space age, the tropics
> remained stone age except where technology was brought to them. Zimbabwe and
> South Africa are driving out the Europeans that conquered them, but show every
> sign of reverting to a stone age culture again. A stone age culture with
> AK-47's, but stone age none the less.
>
> Yes, the Mayans and the Pharohs were around longer than our culture, but how
> much progress did they make in all that time? Where is the African Jefferson or
> the Amazonian Newton? Have the tropics produced a Constitution or a jet engine
> or a Salk Vaccine?
>
> THere had to be great minds born into those cultures, but what happened to
> them? Was a great mind of no advantage in those cultures?
Or because they did not have written cultures, or indeed written
records were destroyed (by Spanish conquistadors, in the case of the
Maya) we don't know.
Bacchae
> >And you don't think the Wright brothers and all their
> >unsuccessful predecessors weren't using trial and error to
> >develop their flying machines?
"Tacit" wrote in message ...
> As much as it pains me to admit this, as I rarely agree with
Don about
> ANYTHING: He's got you on this one.
>
> There is a difference between systematic experimentation by
someone who has no
> concept of aerodynamics,and experimentation by someone who
does.
And where did that "someone" and his predecessors learn the
concept of aerodynamics? Where did the foundation for their
understanding come from? We are not, at least I don't think we
are, discussing modern achievements versus ancient ones. For
example, I think that people who developed the boomerang had a
far greater understanding of aerodynamics *at the time* they
developed boomerangs than their counterparts elsewhere who
didn't have boomerangs. Once boomerangs were being
manufactured with relative sophistication the technology of
aerodynamics they, the manufacturers, had was likely superior
to what anyone else on Earth had at the same moment in history.
In different periods in history different cultures have
benefited from different achievements/technological advances.
Humankind has achieved great things regardless of where on
Earth they lived. We are the product of those achievements.
Unfortunately I think we have lost many of our ancestors'
greatest advances because we are lazy.
I think we are poorer for our arrogance than richer for our
modern conveniences. And while I wouldn't haphazardly dismiss
some of our medical and technological advances I mourn the loss
of the knowledge we used to have and have lost. I also mourn
many other skills we acquired or naturally possessed and have
lost through neglect. (For example, different sea-faring
cultures are reputed to have had a innate sense of direction.
Personally I am pretty damned good at placing myself even in
the middle of nowhere so I'm rather connected to this legacy of
my ethnicity. Another example are the singers/chanters of
ancient Scandinavian
myths (there are other cultures who do this as well) who have
memorized vast volumes of material that has only been passed
down word-of-mouth. Sadly, it is a dying art.)
- Sandy
Binder
By the turn of the last century (gawd, how it pains me to say that) the
fundamentals had gotten pretty well understood, at a base level. A wing was
known to require a curvature, though how much was still a subject for
experiment. A mere decade earlier, though, and the science of aviation was
at about the same level as the Aboriginals of Australia.
Otto Lilienthal, who some consider the father of manned flight, had flown
successfully on many occasions, died in an experiment, much like some of
the subjects in modern medicine, or those that weren't cured by witch
doctors.
Binder
>
> "Binder" wrote in message ...
>
> > Interesting that you put Stonehenge and Macchu Piccu in the
> same
> > sentence... I was mulling over that exact comparison while I
> was taking my
> > daily soak. They resemble each other, superficially. But the
> latter was
> > built at high altitude, and at a standard of construction
> that we would
> > find near impossible today, yet was done with stone hammers.
> By comparison,
> > Stonehenge is more like an accident of time and cataclism.
>
> I don't understand why you would say that about Stonehenge.
> Could you please explain what you mean with that comment?
Stonehenge, by comparison to Macchu Piccu, looks like leftovers. Maccu
Piccu's stonework is crafted to level that has stood (almost completely
intact, IIRC) since its building, with joints between multi-ton blocks of
stone that are difficult, when possible, to slip a razor blade between.
Stonehenge's are far more crudely assembled, and at best only roughly
finished; Macchu Piccu's stone is polished almost as finely as a glaciar
polish.
I'll admit that Stonehenge is impressive... but to look at both together
leaves it pale in the comparison.
Binder
>
> >And furthermore, the greatest minds of today still can't figure
> >out how the great minds of yesteryear did things.
>
> Outdated information.
>
> There is a popular myth, as enduring and as common as the myth that the
> Eskimoes have fifteen words for "snow" or the police need two minutes to trace
> a phone call, that we don't understand how the pyramids were built.
>
> The reality is: The construction of the pyramids is now well-understood. It
> requires less engineering finesse than just vast quantities of slave labor.
> Eighty thousand slaves can solve all kinds of quarrying and transportation
> difficulties; the construction of the pyramids was decidedly low-tech.
Minor (perhaps not) point: the pyramids of Egypt were not built by slaves.
> Even the raising and placement of multiton blocks is now well-understood.
> Essentially, each block was positioned by using a series of wooden levers.
> Workers on each side would lever the block up a couple of inches, and
> scaffolding would be placed beneath. Then the levers were repositioned and the
> process was completed.
We're not certain that's how it was done; that's how modern scientists have
been able to manage similar (but smaller) stoneworks. We still don't know
how it was done, but your's is the best guess we've made to date. I don't
think that anyone in this millenia or the last one has bothered to consider
hydraulics, but that was not unknown, even 3000 years ago. Practical?? who
knows.
We can reverse engineer almost any engineering feat: does that mean we are
better intuitive scientists?
> >The
> >"technology" required for the building of the pyramids, Easter
> >Island's statues, Stonehenge, Machu Picchu and many other
> >structures that stand today CENTURIES after being built are
> >physical evidence of ancient genius.
>
> Yes, they are. But the cultures that produced them never developed beyond what
> is now understood to be relatively crude engineering techniques. They certainly
> could not have built the equivalent of a modern skyscraper, or for that matter
> even of the Taj Mahal--IIRC, the Egyptian architects never developed the dome
> or the Roman arch, and they certainly never developed the flying buttress.
We'll never know how they might have developed if the survived to this era.
If Egypt had stood against Rome? (There have been domes around far longer
than the Romans...) If the Consquistadors hadn't come to South America? We
know very little about what was common in Aztec, Maya, or Incan societies:
what we have seen so far has been largely temple work. We can't judge their
accomplishments based solely on their religious edifices, any more than we
can do that of say, Rome. If the only evidence we had to judge Europe with
was Rome, we'd have a very innacurate picture.
Bacchae
> >
> > > Interesting that you put Stonehenge and Macchu Piccu in
the
> > same
> > > sentence... I was mulling over that exact comparison
while I
> > was taking my
> > > daily soak. They resemble each other, superficially. But
the
> > latter was
> > > built at high altitude, and at a standard of construction
> > that we would
> > > find near impossible today, yet was done with stone
hammers.
> > By comparison,
> > > Stonehenge is more like an accident of time and
cataclism.
I asked:
> > I don't understand why you would say that about Stonehenge.
> > Could you please explain what you mean with that comment?
>
> Stonehenge, by comparison to Macchu Piccu, looks like
leftovers. Maccu
> Piccu's stonework is crafted to level that has stood (almost
completely
> intact, IIRC) since its building, with joints between
multi-ton blocks of
> stone that are difficult, when possible, to slip a razor
blade between.
> Stonehenge's are far more crudely assembled, and at best only
roughly
> finished; Macchu Piccu's stone is polished almost as finely
as a glaciar
> polish.
>
> I'll admit that Stonehenge is impressive... but to look at
both together
> leaves it pale in the comparison.
Ah. Fair enough.
What I was thinking when I wrote that is that it took quite a
bit of ingenuity to get building materials from point A to
point B in order to build these wonders.
The rocks used to form Stonehenge (and actually the statues at
Easter Island as well) had to be moved from where they were
quarried to where they were placed. This was no small feat.
Granted, the Incas performed "masonry", something not readily
apparents in the Stonehenge placements, but it is the
difficulty in transporting the building material that made me
connect the two sites.
- Sandy
Mr Etaoin
I believe that the Wright brothers developed a wind tunnel to study
aerodynamics. I have a book on bicycle engineering from 1896 which
has a section on air resistance. (Bicycles & Tricycles: An
Elementary Treatise on Their Design and Construction. Archibald
Sharp, MIT Press.)
--
ETAOIN: Nevertheless, you are in a cage, and I am free to walk about.
THE SNAKE: Oh, you have your cage, too. You test your bars as often
as I test mine.
Charles Finney, The Circus of Dr. Lao
Mr Etaoin
>
> Outdated information.
>
> There is a popular myth, as enduring and as common as the myth that the
> Eskimoes have fifteen words for "snow" or the police need two minutes to trace
> a phone call, that we don't understand how the pyramids were built.
>
I never had a problem believing that about Eskimos. After all,
Americans have over a hundred words for road/street/highway.
Tacit
Rather a lot, actually.
The Wright Brothers used a wind tunnel to test their early prototypes. By the
time they were working on their Flyer, the Bernoulli Effect (the fact that a
flow of air over a curved surface produces lift) was already documented. The
overall principles by which lift could be generated on an aircraft wing were
understood, as were the principles by which such a wing could be stabilized in
flight; the Wright Brothers used their knowledge of these principles to design
a series of aircraft, which were tested and refined in their wind tunnel before
the Flyer was constructed.
Tacit
>benefited from different achievements/technological advances.
>Humankind has achieved great things regardless of where on
>Earth they lived. We are the product of those achievements.
I agree. I also believe that Don's original thesis is somewhat suspect, in part
because I believe it comes from an axiom that is overly simplistic.
His original thesis, as I understand it, is that temperate climates offer an
advantage to technological innovation over tropical climates, because temperate
climates offer survival challenges that promote and encourage technological
advancement.
That idea may or may not have merit, but I think the whole truth is likely to
be more complex. There are a number of other factors likely to be at least as
important, or more so.
For example, no civilization will ever reach the Iron Age without having ready
access to abundant, high-quality surface deposits of metal ores, particularly
tin, copper, and (of course) iron. Without those surface deposits, you're stuck
in the Stone Age. So geological distribution of surface ores may be a much more
important factor in technological development than climate.
>Unfortunately I think we have lost many of our ancestors'
>greatest advances because we are lazy.
What advances? I can't think of any of our ancestors' accomplishments we can't
replicate today.
>I think we are poorer for our arrogance than richer for our
>modern conveniences.
Really? I think we're far better off today, ourself. Not only technologically,
but in life expectancy, health, general welfare, sociology, politics (the
modern idea that people are inherently equal and are born with certain
fundamental rights is not one I'd dismiss as arrogant, or give up regardless of
how romanticised your view of early civilizations may be), and so on.
And it's inarguable that we have a far more sophisticated understanding of the
world around us than our ancestors did. That knowledge was painfully won, and I
submit it has value that far exceeds any such knowledge our ancestors had.
>And while I wouldn't haphazardly dismiss
>some of our medical and technological advances I mourn the loss
>of the knowledge we used to have and have lost.
What knowledge is that?
>I also mourn
>many other skills we acquired or naturally possessed and have
>lost through neglect. (For example, different sea-faring
>cultures are reputed to have had a innate sense of direction.
A sense of direction is a learned thing. It has not been "lost;" people who
need it still have it.
>Another example are the singers/chanters of
>ancient Scandinavian
>myths (there are other cultures who do this as well) who have
>memorized vast volumes of material that has only been passed
>down word-of-mouth.
And yet when you have an oral tradition, tyhe sum total of your race's
knowledge must necessarily be limited to what can be passed on by word of
mouth. I submit the sum total of our culture's knowledge is greater than the
sum total of the knowledge of ANY oral tradition, and I further submit that
that is a feature, not a bug. Literacy is without question one of the greatest
achievements of man, and a literate culture has an overwhelming advantage.
Kevin Craig
<tac...@aol.com> wrote:
> >And how much aerodynamics was understood in the early 1900s?
>
> Rather a lot, actually.
>
> The Wright Brothers used a wind tunnel to test their early prototypes. By the
> time they were working on their Flyer, the Bernoulli Effect (the fact that a
> flow of air over a curved surface produces lift) was already documented. The
> overall principles by which lift could be generated on an aircraft wing were
> understood, as were the principles by which such a wing could be stabilized in
> flight; the Wright Brothers used their knowledge of these principles to design
> a series of aircraft, which were tested and refined in their wind tunnel
> before
> the Flyer was constructed.
The problem in the Wright brothers era was not aerodynamics, but power
to weight ratio. Making it fly was easy; making it fly under power was
not, because the engines of the day that produced sufficient power
could measure in the hundreds of pounds. The altitude and length of
their first flights were limited not by their knowledge of
aerodynamics, but by the availability of lightweight horsepower.
Kevin
Tezcatlipocateopixque
news:20020309234941...@mb-fn.aol.com:
> What advances? I can't think of any of our ancestors' accomplishments
> we can't replicate today.
Damascus steel is the first that comes to mind. Technology
is lost then recovered repeatedly over time.
As for environmental pressure, I don't agree at all that
sub-Saharan Africa has fewer pressures. Malaria and
Sleeping Sickness are but two very large ones that come
to mind, and are not present in Europe.
--
"Evolution in action. It's a GOOD thing."
--STella
Bacchae
> >Unfortunately I think we have lost many of our ancestors'
> >greatest advances because we are lazy.
"Tacit" wrote in message ...
> What advances? I can't think of any of our ancestors'
accomplishments we can't
> replicate today.
I think we have lost some of the ability to memorize
information the way we once did. I think we have also lost
certain techniques for preparations of various useful items.
This would be why there are pharmacologists looking to learn
more about preparations made by various "primitive" tribes and
botanists trying to preserve various plants useful to
"primitive" tribes. The good news is that they aren't quite
lost yet, so I erred in my comments although I daresay there
are other techniques and compounds that even "primitive" tribes
have lost.
And although we may be able to replicate certain
accomplishments can we do it the same way they did it using the
same tools?
> >I think we are poorer for our arrogance than richer for our
> >modern conveniences.
>
> Really? I think we're far better off today, ourself. Not only
technologically,
> but in life expectancy, health, general welfare, sociology,
politics (the
> modern idea that people are inherently equal and are born
with certain
> fundamental rights is not one I'd dismiss as arrogant, or
give up regardless of
> how romanticised your view of early civilizations may be),
and so on.
Although I appreciate out modern conveniences and can agree
that our general situation is better I feel that we have lost
some ways of using our minds and bodies that our ancestors
revered. I think there are many not-so-great things about
early civilizations but I am appreciative of what they show us
about humankind.
> And it's inarguable that we have a far more sophisticated
understanding of the
> world around us than our ancestors did. That knowledge was
painfully won, and I
> submit it has value that far exceeds any such knowledge our
ancestors had.
But we couldn't have arrived *here* without having been
*there*.
> >And while I wouldn't haphazardly dismiss
> >some of our medical and technological advances I mourn the
loss
> >of the knowledge we used to have and have lost.
>
> What knowledge is that?
The use of plant substances to effect cures of certain
diseases. Again, I suppose some aren't technically lost
although I am sure some may well be.
I think there'd be a few people who'd like to know how
Stradivarius managed to make his wares as he did.
I am also reminded of how our European forebears regularly died
of scurvy when they arrived on the North American continent
unless Native Americans happened to help them out by showing
them how to brew certain teas or eat certain plants/plant
parts. I'll grant that we have that technology *now* but it
was lost for a time.
>
> >I also mourn
> >many other skills we acquired or naturally possessed and
have
> >lost through neglect. (For example, different sea-faring
> >cultures are reputed to have had a innate sense of
direction.
>
> A sense of direction is a learned thing. It has not been
"lost;" people who
> need it still have it.
Oh really? Is this why men never ask for directions?
> >Another example are the singers/chanters of
> >ancient Scandinavian
> >myths (there are other cultures who do this as well) who
have
> >memorized vast volumes of material that has only been passed
> >down word-of-mouth.
>
> And yet when you have an oral tradition, tyhe sum total of
your race's
> knowledge must necessarily be limited to what can be passed
on by word of
> mouth. I submit the sum total of our culture's knowledge is
greater than the
> sum total of the knowledge of ANY oral tradition, and I
further submit that
> that is a feature, not a bug. Literacy is without question
one of the greatest
> achievements of man, and a literate culture has an
overwhelming advantage.
It isn't the actual things they have learned, it is the way
they have schooled their minds to learn it. Although I suppose
you could say that perhaps these myth-singers have eidetic
memories which is something we still have today but regardless,
I'm still impressed.
I'm actually a bit surprised to see this attitude that "modern
is better" on a newsgroup where ancient practices are being
resurrected and practiced by some here. Ancient civilizations
practiced ways of achieving "subspace" in an amazing number of
ways. We "kinksters" aren't really doing anything new at all,
we are making use of something our ancestors knew well and
manipulated with ease. Some of our compatriots look to ancient
practices to get themselves where some others of us wish to go.
<shrug> I guess you don't see that.
While I agree that *now* is better I still think there are
accomplishments from our collective past that I think are/would
be valuable to us even *now*.
- Sandy
darkness
But then, they had this idea in Iceland about 900, and in some
Amerindian communities.
The reality is that, in day to day life, our societies are much more
hierarchical and unequal than many more primitive ones were.
[more snipping]>
> - Sandy
There is this historicism in this thread, ie that there is such a
thing as 'progress' and we are 'better' for having progressed through
it.
I doubt it. The overwhelming evidence is that previous generations
and civilisations were just as clever as we were. More
technologically primitive, but just as clever. Hence the
sophisticated astronomic calculations underlying Stonehenge. Or the
subtlety and sophistication of Thomas Aquinas, Aristotle and Sun Tzo.
'Progress' except in a technological sense, is largely an illusion.
The men found on the Mary Rose, which sank in 1531, had fewer cavities
in their teeth than a comparable group of modern Britons.
The idea that we have somehow 'solved' the problem of government, by
taking a highly restrictive model of limited franchise from the 18th
century, and given the vote to a much wider section of the population,
but still relying on our elected representatives to wrestle with the
detail, and overcome our natural tendency to self-gratify short term,
is not correct. Or is very unlikely to be. The reality is that we
are here, and going somewhere else from here, and future generations
will look back and wonder how we thought we could run a civilsation
with so much lack of education (poll a random group of Americans to
find Kandahar on a map, or to summarise the differences between the
governments of Iran and Iraq) or with such a high burn rate of the
environment around us.
What we have lucked into is an (apparently) self perpetuating way to
make ever more efficient use of the inputs available to us, to raise
living standards and health without having to steal from those around
us (with the caveats about the exhaustability of the environment:
there is no way everyone on the planet can attain the standard of
living of Southern California, at least without radical changes in
technology). This is the technological revolution, and it dates from
the early Modern Era. Its hard to prove that it is unique (the
Chinese got there first, but turned away) but it seems embedded in our
world culture. its also hard to prove that it was a part of western
civilisation in an enduring sense before the Renaissance. The Romans
were clever, but so were the Chinese, the Mongols, the Arabs. That
said, I would reckon the Chinese are better and more innovative at a
lot of modern technology than most of the rest of the world.
Jan-Olov Newborg
> >And how much aerodynamics was understood in the early 1900s?
>
> Rather a lot, actually.
>
> The Wright Brothers used a wind tunnel to test their early prototypes. By the
> time they were working on their Flyer, the Bernoulli Effect (the fact that a
> flow of air over a curved surface produces lift) was already documented. The
> overall principles by which lift could be generated on an aircraft wing were
> understood, as were the principles by which such a wing could be stabilized in
> flight; the Wright Brothers used their knowledge of these principles to design
> a series of aircraft, which were tested and refined in their wind tunnel before
> the Flyer was constructed.
Here is some good links with Flight Physics!
Jan-Olov Newborg
Stockholm
http://www.aa.washington.edu/faculty/eberhardt/lift.htm
http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/airplane/bernnew.html
http://home.mira.net/~radacorp/ground_effect.html
http://www.boeing.com/commercial/aeromagazine/aero_12/attack.html
http://www.elmendorf.af.mil/Units/90FS/aoa.htm
http://amber.aae.uiuc.edu/~m-selig/ads/afplots/whitcomb.gif New
"Non Bernoulli effect" wing on Airbus 330/340
http://www.rz.uni-frankfurt.de/~weltner/
http://www.rz.uni-frankfurt.de/~weltner/Flight/PHYSIC4.htm Weltner
Lift
http://www.informatik.uni-frankfurt.de/~plass/MIS/mis6.html Weltner
Bernoulli
http://www.grc.nasa.gov/Other_Groups/K-12/airplane/wrong3.html
http://www.lerc.nasa.gov/www/K-12/airplane/right2.html
http://www.jefraskin.com/forjef2/jefweb-compiled/published/coanda_effect.html
http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/coanda.htm
http://www.allstar.fiu.edu/aero/coanda.htm
http://www.algonet.se/~newborg/ F18 Soundbarrier and highspeed pass
http://www.amasci.com/wing/airgif2.html Beaty Gif pictures smokepuls
plus SAAB 2000
http://www.diam.unige.it/~irro/gallery.html Prof. Colombinis
photogallery
http://www.diam.unige.it/~irro/profilo_e.html
http://www.scienceweb.org/movies/aero.htm
http://aerodyn.org/HighSpeed/supercritical.html
http://www.wb-sails.fi/news/95_11_Tellingtales/Tellingtales.html
http://www.cousteausociety.org/vessels/vessels.htm
Lift from spinning balls:
This website gives a lot of references all back to Newton/Robbins !
http://www.geocities.com/k_achutarao/MAGNUS/new_magnus.html
http://www.soest.hawaii.edu/GG/STUDENTS/jfoster/normal.html
Reversed Magnus effect explained:
http://www.soest.hawaii.edu/GG/STUDENTS/jfoster/reverse.html
Wrong Lift explanations:
Smithsonian:
http://www.nasm.edu/galleries/gal109/NEWHTF/HTF510.HTM
http://www.elmendorf.af.mil/Units/90FS/bernoulli.htm
False Bernoulli explanations:
http://www.nasm.edu/galleries/gal109/LESSONS/TEXT/TEASERS.HTM
http://www.physics.umd.edu/deptinfo/facilities/lecdem/demolst.htm#f4
US AirForce Museum:
http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/zone/ff3.htm
Dr. John S. Denker online aerodynamic book. Wrong Liftexplanation
explained by "Circulation flow "creating" the Velocity Field":
Explanation only valid for a non exsisting mathematical modelled
idel/perfect fluid.
Philip the Foole
> Here is some good links with Flight Physics!
>
> Jan-Olov Newborg
> Stockholm
> Lift from spinning balls: ...
Spinning balls certainly gives *me* a lift!
Damn, this newsgroup is educational. How's the BDSM scene in Stockholm?
Your Humble Jester,
Philip the Foole
Facing to the northern clime,
Thrice he traced the Runic rhyme;
Thrice pronounced, in accents dread
The thrilling verse that wakes the dead,
Till from out the hollow ground
Slowly breathed a sullen sound.
- Ancient Kung Foole Proverb (Thomas Gray's "Descent of Odin")
DonSideB
<kbc...@pobox.com> writes:
>
>The problem in the Wright brothers era was not aerodynamics, but power
>to weight ratio. Making it fly was easy; making it fly under power was
>not, because the engines of the day that produced sufficient power
>could measure in the hundreds of pounds. The altitude and length of
>their first flights were limited not by their knowledge of
>aerodynamics, but by the availability of lightweight horsepower.
>
That was a factor for sure, but better engines were becoming available to
everyone, not just the Wrights. Their breakthrough that made flight possible
was the understanding and successful control of adverse yaw.
Airplanes turn by banking the wing in the direction of the turn. Banking the
wing requires temporarily increasing the lift on the wing away from the turn. A
basic principle of aerodynamics is that anything that increases lift also
increases drag, so the raised wing would drag the nose of the plane away from
the direction of the turn, resulting in an uncoordinated turn that would
develop into a loss of control and crash. The Wrights recognized this and
controlled it by adding rudders to the flyer to control yaw in a turn. It is
one of those things that seems obvious now, but the Wirghts had to learn it
through experimentation with models in a wind tunnel of their own construction
and and understanding of principles of aerodynamics that no one else had
recognized or measured.
There success came from systematic experimentation and reasoning added to the
knowledge of others who had tried and failed. It was not a matter of blind
trial and error by a couple of persistent bicycle mechanics as it is so often
portrayed. They were true scientists with a practical bent.
--
don
A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves. - Edward R Murrow
SSBB Diplomatic Corps: Tidewater Virginia
Tacit
>is lost then recovered repeatedly over time.
Didja check out January 2001 Scientific American cover article on the subject?
Turns out the secret to Damascus steel was the inclusion of very, very tiny
trace amounts of impurities in the iron ore. When the ore used to supply the
blacksmiths who produced Damascus steel was exhausted, the "secret" was
lost--because it wasn't understood to begin with.
As it turns out, modern metallurgists can now reproduce steel with the same
properties, including tensile strength, density, and macroscopic and
microscopic physical properties as samples of existing Damascus steel--it even
has the characteristic surface patterns, which are formed by the accumulation
of impurities in the iron during the folding process.
Bacchae
someone said:
> >Damascus steel is the first that comes to mind. Technology
> >is lost then recovered repeatedly over time.
"Tacit" wrote in message ...
> Didja check out January 2001 Scientific American cover
article on the subject?
So the intervening years mean nothing at all to you? It
doesn't impress you that just now we have found out what made
the steel so superb? With all our technology up till now we
couldn't figure it out but you're still not even the least bit
impressed?
Tough audience. Shit.
- Sandy
Binder
>
> >Damascus steel is the first that comes to mind. Technology
> >is lost then recovered repeatedly over time.
>
> Didja check out January 2001 Scientific American cover article on the subject?
>
> Turns out the secret to Damascus steel was the inclusion of very, very tiny
> trace amounts of impurities in the iron ore. When the ore used to supply the
> blacksmiths who produced Damascus steel was exhausted, the "secret" was
> lost--because it wasn't understood to begin with.
The secret wasn't lost; it moved to Japan. Part of the forging process is
to sweep the red hot iron being worked with rice straw. Instant carbon. :)
It isn't purely tradtional, either; what little I know of the swordsmith's
art I learned at the forge of a smith who had learned the process from his
father, who learned it from his, etcetera, but when he was asked "why?" his
answer was immediate: "To turn the iron into steel; it needs carbon to take
an edge. That is also why, when we temper a blade, it is in a reducing
atmosphere (that is, with less oxygen than is needed for combustion) so
that the carbon rich steel is drawn to the edge, where we want it very
hard, and out of the back of the blade, where we want it somewhat softer,
and more ductile." I don't think he made his goal of National Living
Treasure that year, but he was in the running. I might be somewhat naive
about such things, but his peers certainly weren't.
> As it turns out, modern metallurgists can now reproduce steel with the same
> properties, including tensile strength, density, and macroscopic and
> microscopic physical properties as samples of existing Damascus steel--it even
> has the characteristic surface patterns, which are formed by the accumulation
> of impurities in the iron during the folding process.
One wonders, though: did the moderns study the artifacts and create a new
material making methodology, or learn from the people still doing the work?
My experience with engineers suggests that the "Now that you mention it,
I'm glad I thought of it" principle was in action.
John Warren
I think the point was that the original steel was not an intentional
creation, like a object trouve; it was a fortunate accident because the ore
was "contaminated." That's not technology... that's luck.
--
Diversified Services (Toys, Books and Videos for the Scene since 1992)
www.diversifiedservices.biz
Bacchae
> > Didja check out January 2001 Scientific American cover
article on the subject?
"Binder"
> The secret wasn't lost; it moved to Japan. Part of the
forging process is
> to sweep the red hot iron being worked with rice straw.
Instant carbon. :)
Actually, Binder, I think the article in question refered to
the existence of vanadium as a very low level impurity that
makes a difference to the quality of the steel.
I have a link around here somewhere because I sent the website
I read the information on to Spyral Fox as her family is in the
blade business.
I can check it out for you if you'd like but I am sure a search
on sword/vanadium will get you somewhere.
- Sandy
Kevin Craig
<bac...@nospam.telusplanet.net> wrote:
Do you contend that the original smiths knew what made the steel
superb, beyond "when we dig for ore here, it works pretty good"?
Being a bladesmith by hobby, I question the many myths surrounding
traditional Damascus steel. And, just for the record, there was
nothing "lost" about it... steel and iron were folded and welded
repeatedly for centuries, by many different cultures, including the
Vikings and the Japanese. The only thing "lost" was that the
Damascenes and their particular techniques faded into obscurity.
The problem seems to be that they were working by trial and error,
where other societies were working toward standardization. Meteorites
can make excellent steel... but there's a very high rejection rate.
Non-standardized raw materials, especially with no scientific
understanding of what is good raw material and what is not, are not
compatible with industrialization.
I love what is commonly called "damascus" in the modern blade industry,
although most bladesmiths use the term as shorthand for
"pattern-welded", which is more correct. Modern research shows that
there is no real metallurgical advantage to using two (or more)
dissimilar ferrous metals, other than the creation of beautiful
patterns. My understanding is that the cutting and edge-holding
properties come from the repeated folding and welding. The process
creates a very fine grain structure and a micro-serrated edge.
Starting with 5160 and 1020, 1020 and O-1, or many other combinations
of standardized steels, modern smiths create beautiful blades with
*predictable* properties. There are some who begin with ferrous
meteorites, and they know they're facing a crapshoot. Sometimes they
luck out, and the results are wonderful, but they're hardly the stuff
around which to base industrial standardization.
> Tough audience. Shit.
Yep, you're tough.
Kevin
Asmodeus
Hash: SHA1
Kevin Craig <kbc...@pobox.com> wrote in
news:120320021114012724%kbc...@pobox.com:
> Vikings and the Japanese. The only thing "lost" was that the
> Damascenes and their particular techniques faded into obscurity.
That's lost technology. The fact that a similar
technology existed elsewhere is irrelevant, since
the Japanese (or whoever) knew nothing of Damascus
or the process by which they worked steel.
- --
"It did look a lot like a penis, only smaller."
--SpyralFox
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.8 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>
iQA/AwUBPI5HMFDu+agosMXSEQIZAQCeOnxqHChuCzeJYps0nLqLYRGfvOEAoO2t
7anQPM3p9/+yUsO2bLe08Aoh
=VCd3
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Asmodeus
Hash: SHA1
Binder <binder...@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:3C8D9CC0...@yahoo.com:
> The secret wasn't lost; it moved to Japan. Part of the forging
There was no migration from Damascus to Japan. The
technology merely existed elsewhere, though it wasn't
necessarily the same technology.
The Chinese were making birth control pills in 200 AD
that were more or less chemically identical to those
we invented in the 60s. That doesn't mean the technology
"moved from" Japan to the West, only that they existed
independent of one another.
- --
"Disdain and contempt for homosexuals by a braggart
animal eater."
-- Blazin' Tommy D., about me
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.8 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>
iQA/AwUBPI5Iv1Du+agosMXSEQJFcwCePb1WWDpMQOCMn+ffNFxqgSzZz4gAoLCP
zoqtY8KHZUbNGilp98jdzJ4c
=vpc1
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Asmodeus
Hash: SHA1
"Bacchae" <bac...@nospam.telusplanet.net> wrote in
news:NEgj8.226$S57....@news1.telusplanet.net:
> So the intervening years mean nothing at all to you? It
> doesn't impress you that just now we have found out what made
> the steel so superb?
We haven't. Though there may be something out there
called Damascus steel, we still do not know how the
Damascenes created it. The technology was lost.
- --
"Short words are bright like sparks in the night, prompt like the
dawn
that greets the day, sharp like the blade of a knife, hot like salt
tears that scald the cheek, quick like moths that flit from flame to
flame, and terse like the dart and sting of a bee."
-- Richard Lederer, The Case for Short Words
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.8 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>
iQA/AwUBPI5JTFDu+agosMXSEQLskQCfU3uJt7pwPZoM62I2YChBCbZ4BnwAoPcb
fy54wIRGYRlEe+cq2EfZ6t+C
=IYcg
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Tacit
>doesn't impress you that just now we have found out what made
>the steel so superb? With all our technology up till now we
>couldn't figure it out but you're still not even the least bit
>impressed?
Well, to be fair, the ancients didn't understand the "secret" either.
The "secret" wasn't really a secret at all; the secret was nothing more than
starting with iron that had just the right amounts of trace impurities. Once
the supply of iron ore with the right impurities was exhausted, the "secret"
was lost.
The ancients lacked the knowledge and understanding to discover what it was
that made the metal so special.
Tacit
>material making methodology, or learn from the people still doing the work?
Neither. Rather, they learned from samples of original Damascus steel itself.
You should read the article; it's fascinating. The researchers started with a
sample of Damascus steel from a blade the owner was willing to sacrifice. They
subjected it to analysis, including a content assay and electron microscopy.
During the assay, they discovered very tiny trace amounts of an impurity called
vanadium--less than three-thousandths of one percent--and discovered by
structuralanalysis that the impuity tended to collect other impurities, and
carbon grains, in long chains as the metal is folded.
That's what gives Damascus steel its strength; it's not the forming process
exclusively. (Damascus steel is stronger than steels made by the same
mechanical process, and is visually unique as well.)
The researchers are now able to produce steel that is physically and
structurally identical to samples of Damascus steel, and has the same
properties (such as hardness and tensile strength); the modern Damascus steel
can not in any way be distinguished from the original. Hence, I submit that the
secret has been rediscovered.
The trick? Start with raw iron doped with the proper impurities.
Kevin Craig
<bo...@nospamkiva.net> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Kevin Craig <kbc...@pobox.com> wrote in
> news:120320021114012724%kbc...@pobox.com:
>
> > Vikings and the Japanese. The only thing "lost" was that the
> > Damascenes and their particular techniques faded into obscurity.
>
> That's lost technology.
No, sorry; applying the term "technology" to a craft which was not
understood by its practitioners would be a big stretch.
Lots of things have been "lost"; doesn't make 'em technology.
Kevin
Richard Dickson
[...]
> The researchers are now able to produce steel that is physically and
> structurally identical to samples of Damascus steel, and has the same
> properties (such as hardness and tensile strength); the modern Damascus
> steel can not in any way be distinguished from the original.
For pedantic trivia buffs, there would be one distinguishing feature:
"In 1995 it was announced that about 100 German WWII U-boats would be
salvaged off the Scottish coast. These submarines were scuttled after the
end of the war during Operation Deadlight, the disposal of the captured U-
boat fleet. Because they were scuttled, there is no issue of them being war
graves, as vessels sunk in combat would be. The reasons behind the salavge
have been questioned, as raising a batch of U-boats doesn't seem to be a
particularly economical way of getting scrap metal. In reality, the ship
are not being salvaged to be cut up and melted down as ordinary scrap.
These U-boats represent one of the last readily available sources of non-
radioactive steel, and are being salvaged for that 'clean' steel.
"All steel made since the detonation of the first atom bomb in 1945 has
contained tiny amounts of radioactivity. This is because the atmosphere now
contains trace amounts of radioactivity. The steelmaking process involves
the use of large amounts of air, which transfers the radioactivity to the
steel.
"Instruments and equipment used for measuring radioactivity must be free
from extra background radiation, so post-1945 'new' steel cannot be used
for these purposes. Instead, pre-1945 'clean' steel is used. The steel is
obtained from the scrapping of pre-1945 ships, and a considerable amount
has been obtained from the German ships scuttled in Scapa Flow at the end
of WWI."
Source: Reuters, Sept 4, 02001
Asmodeus
Hash: SHA1
Kevin Craig <kbc...@pobox.com> wrote in
news:120320021519426209%kbc...@pobox.com:
> Lots of things have been "lost"; doesn't make 'em technology.
Technology is the use of tools. Chimpanzees have technology.
It requires no such understanding--consult your nearest
anthropology textbook.
Hominids have been techonological creatures since Australopithecus,
and perhaps before. It is nothing unique to Homo Sapiens, nor does
it require machinery or an understanding of how a process works.
- --
"It did look a lot like a penis, only smaller."
--SpyralFox
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.8 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>
iQA/AwUBPI6GkVDu+agosMXSEQLBeQCg8+npKEsxBBBb3l/0Yl4HKJQByNYAoN7q
zgYLbdNVI7CCUN3eqg0uprjG
=8iVk
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Asmodeus
Hash: SHA1
tac...@aol.com (Tacit) wrote in
news:20020312145609...@mb-fo.aol.com:
> The ancients lacked the knowledge and understanding to discover
> what it was that made the metal so special.
It doesn't make any difference. Homo Erectus lacked the
knowledge and understanding to know why some stones flaked
when struck and others did not, but points and axes are
technology, nonetheless.
- --
"It did look a lot like a penis, only smaller."
--SpyralFox
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.8 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>
iQA/AwUBPI6HJFDu+agosMXSEQJLrgCdGzuqF2qeeQU+KM1fMs7rRibJRHkAoLhn
/meF6NoJ695HOwbUmvfvpdj1
=11jo
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Tacit
>
Damn, the things you learn on this newsgroup... :)
Bacchae
> The ancients lacked the knowledge and understanding to
discover what it was
> that made the metal so special.
And so did we until the last few years. We didn't recognize
the importance of the impurity vanadium until very recently
even when it was right under our noses.
- Sandy
jenner
news:Xns91CFB62DF1D9Fb...@198.77.116.45:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> tac...@aol.com (Tacit) wrote in
> news:20020312145609...@mb-fo.aol.com:
>
>
>> The ancients lacked the knowledge and understanding to discover what
>> it was that made the metal so special.
>
> It doesn't make any difference. Homo Erectus lacked the
> knowledge and understanding to know why some stones flaked
> when struck and others did not, but points and axes are
> technology, nonetheless.
Look to the modern day. The SUV driving soccer mom
doesn't have to understand the technology behind her
Expedition to mow down a motorcyclist on her way to
her facial, while juggling her cell phone and drinking
her latte.
--
-- jenner
Joanie S.
<bo...@nospamkiva.net> writes:
>Technology is the use of tools.
According to the first dictionary I grabbed (Random House Webster's College
Dictionary, 2nd edition), technology is:
The branch of knowledge that deals with applied science, engineering, the
industrial arts, etc.
or some variation of that concept. (American Heritage says pretty much the same
thing.) While "technology" may mean the use of simple tools by some definition,
it most certainly is not the common meaning of the word. Even the word itself
contains "ology", but then, so does astrology, so that by itself doesn't mean
much.
>>consult your nearest anthropology textbook
In the technology (interestingly, the word also means "the terminology of a
particular field") of anthropology, there may well be a more specific meaning,
but the discussion was of steel making. Besides which, I don't believe even
anthropology concerns itself with chimpanzees.
(I generally wouldn't argue something like this, but I have a broken rib and am
on pain killers, so there!)
Joanie S.
jenner
news:20020312213652...@mb-mr.aol.com:
> In article <Xns91CFB5C3CC875b...@198.77.116.45>, Asmodeus
> <bo...@nospamkiva.net> writes:
>
>>Technology is the use of tools.
And yet, what people fail to consider is today's
technology is tomorrow's flaked obsidian.
>
> According to the first dictionary I grabbed (Random House Webster's
> College Dictionary, 2nd edition), technology is:
>
> The branch of knowledge that deals with applied science,
> engineering, the
> industrial arts, etc.
>
> or some variation of that concept. (American Heritage says pretty much
> the same thing.) While "technology" may mean the use of simple tools by
> some definition, it most certainly is not the common meaning of the
> word. Even the word itself contains "ology", but then, so does
> astrology, so that by itself doesn't mean much.
Like this example...
--
-- jenner
Kevin Craig
<bac...@nospam.telusplanet.net> wrote:
Damn. I guess my 70 year old vanadium steel anvil was just a fluke,
then.
Kevin
DonSideB
>Kevin Craig <kbc...@pobox.com> wrote in
>news:120320021519426209%kbc...@pobox.com:
>
>
>> Lots of things have been "lost"; doesn't make 'em technology.
>
>Technology is the use of tools. Chimpanzees have technology.
>It requires no such understanding--consult your nearest
>anthropology textbook.
>
This is descending into a battle over definitions. Call it technology if you
want, but it is not science and it is dead end technology at best, as if it is
not understood, it cannot serve as a basis for further development.
HannaFate
Kevin Craig wrote:
A technological fluke does not account for the ancient Romans' use of
concrete, either. Another recipe that had to be re-invented.
Bacchae
I wrote:
> > And so did we until the last few years. We didn't
recognize
> > the importance of the impurity vanadium until very recently
> > even when it was right under our noses.
"Kevin Craig"
> Damn. I guess my 70 year old vanadium steel anvil was just a
fluke,
> then.
I guess since your anvil isn't a Damascus steel sword that
perhaps the concept of why vanadium is important wasn't applied
in the same manner. In fact I think you're sort of proving my
point. If vanadium was used for things like anvils why wasn't
its importance to Damascus steel figured out until recently?
You may find the following of interest:
http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/9809/Verhoeven-9809.html
"Unfortunately, the technique of producing wootz Damascus steel
blades is a lost art. The date of the last blades produced with
the highest-quality damascene patterns is uncertain, but is
probably around 1750; it is unlikely that blades displaying
low-quality damascene patterns were produced later than the
early 19th century. Debate has persisted in the metallurgy
community over the past 200 years as to how these blades were
made and why the surface pattern appeared.6-8 Research efforts
over the years have claimed the discovery of methods to
reproduce wootz Damascus steel blades,9-12 but all of these
methods suffer from the same problem-modern bladesmiths have
been unable to use the methods to reproduce the blades. The
successful reproduction of wootz Damascus blades requires that
blades be produced that match the chemical composition, possess
the characteristic damascene surface pattern, and possess the
same internal microstructure that causes the surface pattern."
from an article written for JOM: The Member Journal of The
Minerals, Metals & Materials Society by J.D. Verhoeven, A.H.
Pendray, and W.E. Dauksch in 1998.
- Sandy
Tezcatlipocateopixque
Hash: SHA1
joaniet...@aol.com (Joanie S.) wrote in
news:20020312213652...@mb-mr.aol.com:
> The branch of knowledge that deals with applied science,
> engineering, the
> industrial arts, etc.
>
A definition that restricts technology to after the
Renaissance, and only in Europe, until of course, we
graced the barbarian world with our knowledge.
Birth control pills produced in the 60s and after
would, by that definition, be technology. But the
same pills, with the same active ingredient, made
in 600 AD China would not. That's balderdash.
- --
"Evolution in action. It's a GOOD thing."
--STella
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.8 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>
iQA/AwUBPI9yt1Du+agosMXSEQIb1wCg102bU55gxPtULZg49R5nuFNJiW8AoOha
t18mpoYOqE0Kcvj1TyEa5++T
=JTby
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Tezcatlipocateopixque
Hash: SHA1
jenner <Xj5n...@Xattbi.comX> wrote in
news:Xns91CFAB16EB6C...@204.127.202.16:
> Look to the modern day. The SUV driving soccer mom
> doesn't have to understand the technology behind her
> Expedition to mow down a motorcyclist on her way to
> her facial, while juggling her cell phone and drinking
> her latte.
(-:
And so-called "dead-end" technology, such as stone tools
made my flaking flint and/or obsidian, are superior to
anything we can produce today with steel. Obsidian flakes
are a great deal thinner, and sharper, than any surgeon's
scalpel. Oh, and as any archaeology student has discovered
to his or her sorrow, making them is no easy task; it's
dangerous, and many archaeologists have suffered severe
cuts trying to do so.
- --
"Evolution in action. It's a GOOD thing."
--STella
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.8 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>
iQA/AwUBPI9z8VDu+agosMXSEQKVXwCg04qXZyC/c0rqOe+plggqRpTv8AIAnilP
laS6QyTQHwb71zg+0zSBEWZI
=T5sc
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Tacit
>blades is a lost art. The date of the last blades produced with
>the highest-quality damascene patterns is uncertain, but is
>
>[snip]
>
>6-8 Research efforts
>over the years have claimed the discovery of methods to
>reproduce wootz Damascus steel blades,9-12 but all of these
>methods suffer from the same problem-modern bladesmiths have
>been unable to use the methods to reproduce the blades.
>
>
>from an article written for JOM: The Member Journal of The
>Minerals, Metals & Materials Society by J.D. Verhoeven, A.H.
>Pendray, and W.E. Dauksch in 1998.
That article is outdated now; in January of 2001, researchers successfully
crafted Damascus steel bearing the same physical properties, patterns, and
macroscopic and microscopic structures using the same techniques as the
originals. In fact, they even discovered the secret of producing the
relatively rare "Mohammed's Ladder" damascene pattern (which turns out to be
done by punching a series of holes through the steel early in the forming
process).
Tacit
>made my flaking flint and/or obsidian, are superior to
>anything we can produce today with steel.
Which is why scalpels used for microsurgery, such as surgery on the eye, are
made from stone blades, not from steel. It isn't a lost art; it simply has only
very narrow uses any more. (I'll take a carbon fiber arrow with a steel
broadhead over a wooden arrow with a stone tip any day; it simply works better,
despite any purported sharpness advantage the stone arrowhead may have.)
-^-^spectrum-^^-
Tezcatlipocateopixque <bo...@nospamkiva.net> wrote:
>joaniet...@aol.com (Joanie S.) wrote in
>news:20020312213652...@mb-mr.aol.com:
>
>> The branch of knowledge that deals with applied science,
>> engineering, the
>> industrial arts, etc.
>>
>
>A definition that restricts technology to after the
>Renaissance, and only in Europe, until of course, we
>graced the barbarian world with our knowledge.
>
>Birth control pills produced in the 60s and after
>would, by that definition, be technology. But the
>same pills, with the same active ingredient, made
>in 600 AD China would not. That's balderdash.
If the ethynyldiol has been found in nature, I'd be very interested.
Cite, please?
--
-^-^spectrum-^^- spectrum attmagentadottcom www.magenta.com/~spectrum
Archivist of the Kung Foole Temple; Director, FooleCo Black Labs
!! Anonymous Unix/telnet-in non-commercial accounts+Web in an all-perv
domain: in...@magenta.com or www.magenta.com/accounts. $10/month.
"Erotic is when you use a feather,
kinky is when you use the whole chicken." - C. Haynes.
Perverted is chicken soup for dinner guests the next day.
Bacchae
> This is descending into a battle over definitions. Call it
technology if you
> want, but it is not science and it is dead end technology at
best, as if it is
> not understood, it cannot serve as a basis for further
development.
I have a couple of friends who are civil engineers. I remember
having a good giggle over their semester-long classes about
concrete and cement. There is a great deal of science and
engineering related to the integrity of these materials, I'll
grant you that.
Regardless, the Coliseum and other ancient structures still
stand. Would you still say that such things didn't lead to
further development?
- Sandy
Bacchae
> That article is outdated now; in January of 2001, researchers
successfully
> crafted Damascus steel bearing the same physical properties,
patterns, and
> macroscopic and microscopic structures using the same
techniques as the
> originals. In fact, they even discovered the secret of
producing the
> relatively rare "Mohammed's Ladder" damascene pattern (which
turns out to be
> done by punching a series of holes through the steel early in
the forming
> process).
I would be pleased to get a cite for your information. I read
the article too but I can't find what I read and I am sure I
read it on-line.
Also, if you go to the site I provided you'll see that the
authors understood about making marks on the blade prior to the
final forming (if that is the correct term, I am not a
swordsmith, alas).
Despite the above it appears that you still aren't really
getting the point of the information being provided. Yes,
science can discover various things about the steel but the
*technology* to form the sword was lost. The researchers had
to physically go out and smith swords using various techniques
in order to replicate what science only provided in theory.
And yes, the place where the steel was acquired had a lot to do
with the qualities of the steel but the way the smiths made the
blades was also important. Let me say that again: the way the
smiths made the blades was also important. The smiths had
special skills as well as materials they knew enough to exploit
in a particular way in order to make the blades.
Science is wonderful, I adore science, but a lack of scientific
understanding doesn't stop things from getting done.
Understanding the microcomponents of steel isn't needed in
order to forge a blade. An understanding of smithing is
required but not all smiths are scientists (although it is
likely that a good smith can identify when those
microcomponents are present because of how the steel works,
they likely know why they like working with certain source
materials from specific sites better than others). It doesn't
seem to slow them down any. And, heck, remember that science
says a bumblebee shouldn't be able to fly.
Just because we now can discover the "why" of how something
works doesn't mean that it didn't work before.
- Sandy
Kevin Craig
> Technology is the use of tools. Chimpanzees have technology.
> It requires no such understanding--consult your nearest
> anthropology textbook.
Hmmm... what does "anthro"pology have to do with chimpanzees?
Kevin
Volcano
>
>Asmodeus <bo...@nospamkiva.net> wrote:
>>
>> Technology is the use of tools. Chimpanzees have technology.
>> It requires no such understanding--consult your nearest
>> anthropology textbook.
>
> Hmmm... what does "anthro"pology have to do with chimpanzees?
>
Well, since we don't have any living australopithecines handy to
study, anthropogists are going to look for data where they can
find it. There are those who feel that studying tool use among
chimpanzees can lead to some understanding of the development
of tool use among human ancestors.
That being said, my nearest anthropology textbook says nothing about
chimpanzees. I don't recall their being anything on chimpanzee
technology in any of my other anthro texts, but I don't have them
handy to check.
--
,~~~~ Board Member: Darkest Desires Central Texas
/ \ Corps Diplomatique SSB; San Antonio, TX
/ \ Volcano Founder: Pink Pistols Central Texas
www.PinkPistolsCenTex.org
"Armed gays don't get bashed." www.pinkpistols.org
Tezcatlipocateopixque
Hash: SHA1
Volcano <Volca...@Hotmail.com> wrote in
news:3C8FB0...@Hotmail.com:
> That being said, my nearest anthropology textbook says nothing
> about chimpanzees. I don't recall their being anything on
> chimpanzee
> technology in any of my other anthro texts, but I don't have them
> handy to check.
Chimpanzees use sticks to extract ants and termites
from hills. Rudimentary tool use, granted, but tool
use nonetheless.
- --
"Evolution in action. It's a GOOD thing."
--STella
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.8 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>
iQA/AwUBPI+291Du+agosMXSEQLADQCfWLf3kTvpjLZZMdqOZKWMaEGoAF4AnRmA
st6c8+OKPJkGmEwJB1JB+Dr3
=8Bhm
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Tezcatlipocateopixque
Hash: SHA1
tac...@aol.com (Tacit) wrote in
news:20020313114930...@mb-fi.aol.com:
> are made from stone blades, not from steel. It isn't a lost art
Where did I say it was at lost art?
- --
"Evolution in action. It's a GOOD thing."
--STella
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.8 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>
iQA/AwUBPI+3V1Du+agosMXSEQJjlwCggcJ4eVS8XqGVQnHOdczOLUeI2BEAoNTI
oZV81oWgFfVcEQ+kVfScvTwO
=UXly
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Tacit
>the article too but I can't find what I read and I am sure I
>read it on-line.
Scientific American, the cover story of the January 2001 issue.
>Yes,
>science can discover various things about the steel but the
>*technology* to form the sword was lost. The researchers had
>to physically go out and smith swords using various techniques
>in order to replicate what science only provided in theory.
Yes, that's correct. i am not trying to dispute that; I am merely arguing that
the secret to making the steel was not understood by the people who first made
it, and when you lack the understanding of what you are doing, you lack the
ability to know what variables are and are not important. As a result, when
something changes and your results change, you don't know why.
I believe as a matter of course that you get farther, faster, by understanding
the theory unlerlying what you are doing than you do by blind experimentation,
and I think our modern understanding of metallurgy is superior to that of
ancient societies.
>And yes, the place where the steel was acquired had a lot to do
>with the qualities of the steel but the way the smiths made the
>blades was also important.
The way the smiths made the blades wan't lost.
>The smiths had
>special skills as well as materials they knew enough to exploit
>in a particular way in order to make the blades.
Correct, but those skills were used in several societies, including societies
as far from the Persian Empire as Japan. The thing that made Damascus steel
unique was a thing beyond the understanding, and therefore beyond the control,
of the people who made it.
>Science is wonderful, I adore science, but a lack of scientific
>understanding doesn't stop things from getting done.
Correct. I never said it did. Rather,I've been arguing that it makes discovery
faster, easier, and far more efficient. You can navigate your way around a room
blindfolded, sure; but if your eyes are open, you do it a lot more quickly, and
you don't bark your shins so often. :)
>And, heck, remember that science
>says a bumblebee shouldn't be able to fly.
Actually, that isn't true.
I keep a list (perhaps I'll put it on my Web site one day) of what I call the
"Myth File." On that list are many popular misconceptions: The eskimoes have
fifteen (or eighteen or twenty, depending on who you ask) words for "snow," a
person who loses consciousness falls over backward, there are three states of
matter, and so on.
"Science says bumblebees can't fly" is on that list.
Science does NOT say bumblebees can't fly. Science says bumblebees are
aerodynamically unstable. There's a difference.
A thing that is aerodynamically unstable can fly, if and only if it has an
active stabilization system of some sort.
F/A-17 fighters and Stealth figters are aerodynamically unstable, as are
bumblebees. In the former two cases, the active stabilazition system is the
flight avionics, hydraulics, gyroscopes, and control surfaces of the aircraft.
In the latter case, the active stabilization system is the animal's muscles,
nervous system, and sensory apparatus.
>Just because we now can discover the "why" of how something
>works doesn't mean that it didn't work before.
Correct. But it sure does make it a whole lot easier to fix if it suddenly
stops working.
The steelsmiths of the Persian empire were at a loss when their supply of ore
changed and they couldn't make their special steel any more. They lacked the
knowledge necessary to figure out what went wrong. We have that knowledge.
Ergo, we can make it from any arbitrary source of ore, and they could not.
jenner
>>And so-called "dead-end" technology, such as stone tools
>>made my flaking flint and/or obsidian, are superior to anything we can
>>produce today with steel.
>
> Which is why scalpels used for microsurgery, such as surgery on the
> eye, are made from stone blades, not from steel. It isn't a lost art;
> it simply has only very narrow uses any more.
The same could be said for hand churning butter.
--
-- jenner
Joanie S.
Tezcatlipocateopixque <bo...@nospamkiva.net> writes:
>> The branch of knowledge that deals with applied science,
>> engineering, the
>> industrial arts, etc.
>
>A definition that restricts technology to after the
>Renaissance, and only in Europe, until of course, we
>graced the barbarian world with our knowledge.
Yeah, definitions do have a way of restricting the meaning of words to, uh,
well, what they have been agreed upon to mean in communication. Otherwise, all
words would mean everything.
I guess if the people outside of Europe and before the Renaissance didn't know
anything that they then applied, it would indeed exclude them. I dunno anything
about Chinese birth control pills, but I think swordmaking would probably count
as an industrial art.
Joanie S.
Binder
>
> joaniet...@aol.com (Joanie S.) wrote in
> news:20020312213652...@mb-mr.aol.com:
>
> > In article <Xns91CFB5C3CC875b...@198.77.116.45>, Asmodeus
> > <bo...@nospamkiva.net> writes:
> >
> >>Technology is the use of tools.
>
> And yet, what people fail to consider is today's
> technology is tomorrow's flaked obsidian.
SIG! I call SIG!
Binder
Binder
>
> In article <Xns91D06CB105382b...@198.77.116.45>,
> Tezcatlipocateopixque <bo...@nospamkiva.net> wrote:
> >joaniet...@aol.com (Joanie S.) wrote in
> >news:20020312213652...@mb-mr.aol.com:
> >
> >> The branch of knowledge that deals with applied science,
> >> engineering, the
> >> industrial arts, etc.
> >>
> >
> >A definition that restricts technology to after the
> >Renaissance, and only in Europe, until of course, we
> >graced the barbarian world with our knowledge.
> >
> >Birth control pills produced in the 60s and after
> >would, by that definition, be technology. But the
> >same pills, with the same active ingredient, made
> >in 600 AD China would not. That's balderdash.
>
> If the ethynyldiol has been found in nature, I'd be very interested.
> Cite, please?
IIRC, the Chinese variety is made from dried urine and contains hormones
like testosterone and estrogen.
From: http://www.telepath.com/ww/Herbal%20Birth%20Control.html
"Dioscorides, a famous Roman physician in the 1st century A.D., said that
White Willow (Salix alba L.) leaves acted as a
contraceptive. Then, in 1933 it was found that willow contains estriol, an
estrogenic hormone, which would be expected to
interfere with conception if taken in the correct dosage and at the proper
time in the menstrual cycle."
and:
"The CRC Handbook of Medicinal Herbs lists twelve plants with estrogenic
activity, and thirty-eight that work as
abortifacients. One researcher went through ancient books and found
references to 161 plants used to control fertility, and
that over half of them were listed in modern medical references. We will
examine several of these plants that are fairly
common in the United States to determine how they have been used by women
in the past."
Not sure this helps...
Binder
--
LLEbootHSoNLG -- SSBB Dip Corp, Vallejo CA
My whips, Dread Koosh Floggers, etc: http://www.madplaiter.com
SSBB Charter is at: http://www.mindspring.com/~frites/charter.htm