How come some countrys are more developed......

Originally posted by alfa1

Originally posted by Hanslune
The final test is to place people of different origins into different cultures and have them grow up there. Then you can tell whether there reaction to the environment is genetic or cultural.

Such an experiment is going on in the USA right now.
Take a group of people from the darkest jungles of Africa, place them in a modern technological advanced society (said by some to be the best in the world) and see how they fare.

If think that in this case they become people like Augustin Banyaga:

en.wikipedia.org...

Augustin Banyaga (born March 31, 1947) is a Rwandan-born American mathematician whose research fields include symplectic topology and contact geometry. He is currently a Professor of Mathematics at Pennsylvania State University.

Banyaga earned his Ph.D. degree in 1976 at the University of Geneva under the supervision of André Haefliger. He was a member of the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, New Jersey (1977–1978), Benjamin Peirce Assistant Professor at Harvard University(1978–1982), and Assistant Professor at Boston University (1982–1984), before joining the faculty at Pennsylvania State University in 1984 as Associate Professor. He was promoted to Full Professor in 1992.

He has made significant contributions in symplectic topology, especially on the structure of groups of diffeomorphisms preserving a symplectic form (symplectomorphisms). One of his best-known results states that the group of Hamiltonian diffeomorphisms of a compact, connected, symplectic manifold is a simple group; in particular, it does not admit any non-trivial homomorphism to the real line.

Let's re-examine the claims of OP.

OP says that, the more distant from "the source" (Africa), more advanced the people are.

Well... America was the last continent to be colonized by our species, homo sapiens. So, it's the most distant continent from "the source".

The original peoples from the American continent were NOT more advanced than the African peoples.

The Cherokee, the Sioux, the Apache, the Iroquois, the Navajo, were NOT more advanced than the African tribes by the time of the arrival of the first European colonizers.

The tribes from the South American rain forest were also not more advanced than the Africans.

By the time when the European colonizers started to come to America, around the year 1500, the Benin Empire, and the Kingdom of Kongo, both in Africa, were way more advanced than the Cherokee, the Sioux, the Apache, the Iroquois, or the Navajo tribes.

Originally posted by GLontra
If think that in this case they become people like Augustin Banyaga:

According to what I've read, one theory goes along the lines that each human population (and I'm not even going to use the word "race") has for each trait, a probability function where you get a small number of very capable people up one end, most people in the middle, and a small number of complete failtards at the other end.

Comparing different population groups, these functions will mostly overlap but will not be exactly the same.
ie: the "middle" of each function, representing most of the population, will be offset slightly.

Thus, in any group, you will always get geniuses, and always get morons.
But a society mostly works by what the vast majority are capable of.

Of course its so multifactorial because there will be a curve for each trait you can think of. Ability to run, ability to swim, ability to sing, ability to sense ghosts, ability to throw rocks... everything...

It gets all messed up nowdays because a modern society needs humans to have abilities that were NEVER evolutionarily selected for during all that long pre-history. Ability to manage credit card finances, ability to drive a car, ability to use complex mathematics, ability to arrange bank finance for your startup business etc...

As I've said before, there is no reason to expect every single one of the human population groups around the world has an exactly equal ability for all these traits.
Despite what is politically correct.

reply to post by GLontra


technology rises and falls, depending on the strenght and weakness of societies.

while ancient egypt had advanced architecture and society, the greeks had a more powerful military.
then the romans came along and plundered the greeks and everybody else.
then the barbaric vikings plundered the roman empire.

the incas i believe were a much more advanced society than the spaniards,imo, but the spaniards had a military advantage.

the europens became more develloped by plundering the americas for anything they could get rich with, plundered africa for slaves, and had resources to spend on science.

and they plundered india and china, selling opium, no place on earth was safe from the white barbarians' corporate capitalism, and their industrial science developed.

africa was advanced 4,000 years ago, so was china, it's a cycle.
the west will likely fall due to it's scamming corrupt financial sector, that is our weakness, coupled with a dysfunctional political system that won't deal with arithmetic.

but as roman civilization continued in constantinople, it's possible that american civilization will continue in china.

Originally posted by GLontra
Let's re-examine the claims of OP.

OP says that, the more distant from "the source" (Africa), more advanced the people are.

Well... America was the last continent to be colonized by our species, homo sapiens. So, it's the most distant continent from "the source".

The original peoples from the American continent were NOT more advanced than the African peoples.

The Cherokee, the Sioux, the Apache, the Iroquois, the Navajo, were NOT more advanced than the African tribes by the time of the arrival of the first European colonizers.

The tribes from the South American rain forest were also not more advanced than the Africans.

By the time when the European colonizers started to come to America, around the year 1500, the Benin Empire, and the Kingdom of Kongo, both in Africa, were way more advanced than the Cherokee, the Sioux, the Apache, the Iroquois, or the Navajo tribes.

Did you forget the Mayan, Olmecs, Toltecs, Aztecs, Incas and others?

Why are the African countries less developed? Are you kidding me?

If you think all men are created equal, or we're all the same on the inside, you're an idiot.

Go out and actually MEET some black people, polynesians or Aussie aboriginies are a good place to start, you'll be more than impressed by how 'awesome' these f**ken people are.
After you're sick to death of them, go to South Africa, where the black people are just incredible examples of human kindness.

Why are they less developed, you've got to be kidding.

Originally posted by manontrial
Why are the African countries less developed? Are you kidding me?

If you think all men are created equal, or we're all the same on the inside, you're an idiot.

Go out and actually MEET some black people, polynesians or Aussie aboriginies are a good place to start, you'll be more than impressed by how 'awesome' these f**ken people are.
After you're sick to death of them, go to South Africa, where the black people are just incredible examples of human kindness.

Why are they less developed, you've got to be kidding.

Yes, all men are created equal, and there are plenty of examples of black people who are geniuses, who are great scientists, mathematicians, physicists.

If you are a bigot who judges all black people taking as "standard" the local drug dealer of your trailer park, it's not a scientific method, and nobody cares about your personal opinions.

My "standard" for black people are folks like Neil deGrasse Tyson, Elbert Frank Cox, Elmer Imes, Augustin Banyaga, Francis Allotey, and others.

Originally posted by Hanslune

Originally posted by GLontra
Let's re-examine the claims of OP.

OP says that, the more distant from "the source" (Africa), more advanced the people are.

Well... America was the last continent to be colonized by our species, homo sapiens. So, it's the most distant continent from "the source".

The original peoples from the American continent were NOT more advanced than the African peoples.

The Cherokee, the Sioux, the Apache, the Iroquois, the Navajo, were NOT more advanced than the African tribes by the time of the arrival of the first European colonizers.

The tribes from the South American rain forest were also not more advanced than the Africans.

By the time when the European colonizers started to come to America, around the year 1500, the Benin Empire, and the Kingdom of Kongo, both in Africa, were way more advanced than the Cherokee, the Sioux, the Apache, the Iroquois, or the Navajo tribes.

Did you forget the Mayan, Olmecs, Toltecs, Aztecs, Incas and others?

The Mayan, Olmecs, Toltecs, Aztecs and Incas were in the Bronze Age around the year 1500, while the Benin Empire and the Kingdom of Kongo already worked iron, thus being in the Iron Age.

Originally posted by GLontra

Did you forget the Mayan, Olmecs, Toltecs, Aztecs, Incas and others?


The Mayan, Olmecs, Toltecs, Aztecs and Incas were in the Bronze Age around the year 1500, while the Benin Empire and the Kingdom of Kongo already worked iron, thus being in the Iron Age.



So the ability to process iron is the arbitrator of success then? But wait didn't they obtain the ability to make Iron from other earlier cultures? I believe they did. Care to guess when Mexico and Peru obtained there first iron making facilities from the Spanish influence?

Perhaps you should set forth your criteria and parameters for grading societies?

Originally posted by Hanslune

Originally posted by GLontra


Did you forget the Mayan, Olmecs, Toltecs, Aztecs, Incas and others?


The Mayan, Olmecs, Toltecs, Aztecs and Incas were in the Bronze Age around the year 1500, while the Benin Empire and the Kingdom of Kongo already worked iron, thus being in the Iron Age.

So the ability to process iron is the arbitrator of success then? But wait didn't they obtain the ability to make Iron from other earlier cultures? I believe they did. Care to guess when Mexico and Peru obtained there first iron making facilities from the Spanish influence?

Perhaps you should set forth your criteria and parameters for grading societies?

The Sub-Saharan kingdoms of the early 16th century were NOT less developed than the Mayan, Olmecs, Toltecs, Aztecs or Incas, by any criteria. They were more, or at least as much developed.

And they were SURELY more developed than the Cherokee, the Sioux, the Apache, the Iroquois, and the Navajo tribes of North America.

Originally posted by GLontra
Originally posted by Hanslune
]Originally posted by GLontra


Did you forget the Mayan, Olmecs, Toltecs, Aztecs, Incas and others?


The Mayan, Olmecs, Toltecs, Aztecs and Incas were in the Bronze Age around the year 1500, while the Benin Empire and the Kingdom of Kongo already worked iron, thus being in the Iron Age.



So the ability to process iron is the arbitrator of success then? But wait didn't they obtain the ability to make Iron from other earlier cultures? I believe they did. Care to guess when Mexico and Peru obtained there first iron making facilities from the Spanish influence?

Perhaps you should set forth your criteria and parameters for grading societies?


The Sub-Saharan kingdoms of the early 16th century were NOT less developed than the Mayan, Olmecs, Toltecs, Aztecs or Incas, by any criteria. They were more, or at least as much developed.

Any criteria?

Okay, stone buildings, obsidian working and astronomy for the Maya, and for the Incan high altitude agriculture, lol

reply to post by manontrial


Sorry, I've met way too many "chavs". At least that is what a certaint type of white folks are called in the UK. We have them here in the US but we don't have as good of a term for them here.

I think where you get an environment where people are motivated to achieve in order to eat and clothe themselves and have sufficient peace and lack of corruption that they can build an effective infrastructure in which to do so, the people will be successful whatever their race. If they are in an environment where just about all the people who would normally be workers are in near constant warfare over resources or are pitted against one another due to lingering external forces like exploitation, they won't prize peaceful cerebral endeavors.

But you have the other state of being, where there are plenty of resources, and they are doled out regardless of merit, and you will again end up with a population that lacks motivation to engage in peaceful cerebral endeavors. Hello chavs. It doesn't even have to be a problem with welfare. When I see this happening in at least one white community I know very well, there will be a handful of responsible wage earners in a given family with a large bunch of lazy manipulative leeches finding a way to live off the wage earners. Ever see a girl with several kids with different baby daddies and her brother with his kids by several different women living off the salary of their mom or grandparents? I have. The leeches are largely stupid and yeah, they have technology but no concept how it was designed or how it works. All they understand is pretty shiny toy. They are as primitive as it gets despite being surrounded by advanced technology.

I've heard all the arguments about how blacks are supposedly more aggressive and less cerebral than whites and more short sighted. Sometimes I even half believe them when I read certain news articles. But then I see the degenerated knuckle draggers I have the misfortune to have to put up with from time to time. From really impressive ancestors who valued education and hard work, within a couple of generations and a few unwise matings, we ended up with some white folk who act like they just came down out of the trees last week. They are as hot headed, short sighted and inarticulate as a human being can be. I can't believe, then, that it comes down to just race or to race at all. We need to look harder at other factors. Laying it on race is a cheap shot.

Originally posted by Hanslune

Originally posted by GLontra
Originally posted by Hanslune
]Originally posted by GLontra


Did you forget the Mayan, Olmecs, Toltecs, Aztecs, Incas and others?


The Mayan, Olmecs, Toltecs, Aztecs and Incas were in the Bronze Age around the year 1500, while the Benin Empire and the Kingdom of Kongo already worked iron, thus being in the Iron Age.



So the ability to process iron is the arbitrator of success then? But wait didn't they obtain the ability to make Iron from other earlier cultures? I believe they did. Care to guess when Mexico and Peru obtained there first iron making facilities from the Spanish influence?

Perhaps you should set forth your criteria and parameters for grading societies?


The Sub-Saharan kingdoms of the early 16th century were NOT less developed than the Mayan, Olmecs, Toltecs, Aztecs or Incas, by any criteria. They were more, or at least as much developed.

Any criteria?

Okay, stone buildings, obsidian working and astronomy for the Maya, and for the Incan high altitude agriculture, lol

edit on 19/12/11 by Hanslune because: (no reason given)

Are you kidding me? LOL!!!

Namoratunga represent an archaeoastronomical site at the west side of Lake Turkana in Kenya, believed to have been founded around 300 BC. Namoratunga II contains 19 basalt pillars, aligned with 7 star systems Triangulum, Pleiades, Bellatrix, Aldebaran, Central Orion, Saiph, and Sirius. Namoratunga means "people of stone" in the Turkana language. Mark Lynch and L.H. Robbins discovered the sited in 1978. Lynch believes the basalt pillars ties the constellations or stars to the 12 month 354 day lunar calendar of Cushytic speakers of southern Ethiopia. The pillars aligns with the movement of the 7 constellations corresponding to 354 day calendar. The pillars are surrounded by a circular formation of stones. One grave with a pillar on top exist in the area. Namoratunga I contains a similar grave but no pillars.

Source: en.wikipedia.org...

More about Namoratunga: www.as.utexas.edu...


And have you ever heard about the Kingdom of Aksum (Axum), also known as the Aksumite Empire, a Sub-Saharan kingdom of black people, that achieve prominence by the 1st century AD? Have you ever heard about their architecture?

Aksumite architecture flourished in the region from the 4th century BC onward, persisting even after the transition of the Aksumite dynasty to the Zagwe in the 12th century, as attested by the numerous Aksumite influences in and around the medieval churches of Lalibela. Stelae (hawilts) and later entire churches were carved out of single blocks of rock, emulated later at Lalibela and throughout Tigray, especially during the early-mid medieval period (ca. 10th-11th c. in Tigray, mainly 12th c. around Lalibela). Other monumental structures include massive underground tombs often located beneath stelae. Among the most spectacular survivals are the giant stelae, one of which, now fallen (scholars think that it may have fallen during or immediately after erection) is the single largest monolithic structure ever erected (or attempted to be erected). Other well-known structures employing the use of monoliths include tombs such as the "Tomb of the False Door" and the tombs of Kaleb and Gebre Mesqel in Axum.

Originally posted by GLontra

lol

You didn't get the intent of my tongue in cheek response

You can spend a great deal of time 'comparing websites'; mentioning this and that; but if you lack a thorough, comprehensive system with parameters and criteria to determine - and 'value' aspects of culture you'll get nowhere.

That is what you need, however your work will be difficult and I know its been tried. You may wish to look at previous attempt to build up a comprehensive 'rating' or assigning value to cultural achievement....good luck

reply to post by Hanslune


Well, Sub-Saharan people did astronomical observations, and even created their own "Stonehenge", and erected a lot of stone buildings, besides being able to work iron...

Nigerian sattelite NigComSat-1R successfully launched from China:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by Idonthaveabeard
The further away you get from where it all started?

Humans thought to have originated from africa and eventually migrated north east and west. The further away you get from Africa, specially north and West, the more developed countrys you will find. Why is this? Surely Africa as a continent should be the most developed region since thats where humans have been the longest? But its one of the least developed you will find on Earth.

edit on 13/12/2011 by kosmicjack because: helped clarify title

Maybe when God said go forth everybody legged it and took as much as they could out of greed, hence why we are in this mess we see today. Some live the life of luxury yet in this day and age poverty famine and illness still exist.

Now what i want to say is why governments globally no matter who they are allow this to happen yet preach bs. I tell you this right now and you may want to quote this for future reference but
I would rather, when the time comes to stand before God in unity with all people of all colours and all faiths as one, where we have learned from mistakes and have all come together and tried to put wrongs right, and stand before him and say "YES, we did it and came through all together"

I dont want to get to the day of his return and have to sit and try and answer why the hell we killed each other, destroyed the planet and standing before him in the name of righteousness knowing what we have done to get there.

UNity is key