^^This is what you should have done before trying to tell us that:

I have taken my own advice even taking the time to explain the concepts I present. Those principals informed my belief. There was point in time where even I believed the Universe had a beginning. However, with understanding of the principals I presented I no longer believe that is the case. You however said I was being disingenuous about not presenting the conclusion to the Second Law of thermodynamics. I took the time to understand what it was and it became clear you did not.

You are only trying to shift words around. The universe did not exist prior to the Big Bang. Something may have existed before the Big Bang but it wasn't the universe.

I am not shifting words around. If the Universe is defined as all existing matter,energy. space and time and a singularity fit the definition then that too must be the Universe. If something satisfies the definition of the Universe then it must  be the Universe.

justcool:

I don’t need to show any special date, just ask yourself "which race contributed the most to the technological advancement of mankind?" Then ask yourself which part of the glob that their cultures evolved.

It is clear that the people who contributed the most to the technological advancement of the world are people from the temperate regions of the globe.

You don't need to show me any special data? ok.

Let's say only countries in the "temperate" parts of the globe contributed significantly to tech advancement. I'll even go a step further and grant you that ONLY countries in temperate regions have EVER EVER contributed anything to tech advancement of mankind. . . So what?

It doesn't follow that they contributed the most BECAUSE of the climate. You still need to demonstrate how this occurs and you have not.

Your theory sounds very superficial to me. You have made a direct link between climate and ingenuity, at least as far as technology goes, with total disregard for all the other factors that can cause, or affect, social change. You have some kind of abstract theory with no context. History and Anthropology do not work like that. Context is everything. Facts, examples, across different cultures (or in this case civilizations), over extended periods of time, under different kinds of circumstances.  If you have no academic studies to back your theory, or some kinda plausible explanation of how this process works, then your theory should, imo, not be taken seriously. Cultural phenomena are not like math or philosophy. . . nothing abstract here  . . theory is worthless without the empirical case studies that flush it out. IMO this is just hypotheses . . .no data, then I don't buy it.

justcool:

Just look at the glob, the developed areas and were we have humans with the best work ethics are in the temperate regions.

How do you know who has the best work ethic? Where did this info come from or is this just your opinion.

justcool:

Look at continents like Europe and compare it with a continent like Africa. Even in continents that spread across the equator and the temperate regions of the world, the part extending to the temperate regions are often more developed. Look at Africa, North Africa extends to the temperate part of the world, and North Africa is most developed in Africa. Look at the continents of North and South America; in the continent of North America, the most developed parts are USA and Canada, both of which belong to the temperate region of the globe. In the continent of South America, we see the same picture unfolding; the most developed parts are countries like Argentina which are in the temperate region of the globe.  Look at Asia too. There is a reason why the impoverished countries are clustered in between the temperate regions, around the equator where there is perpetual summer.

There are other explanations for these besides the climate. I mean real explainable explanations that can be explained  with lots of real life examples and support and orishirishi. Civilizations learn from their neighbors. They trade with other cultures, and ideas, goods, technologies etc move around. Those regions may be more developed because they have been civilizations, and been around other ones, for longer; they may have benefited from slave labor (especially from those lazy africans with no work ethic); they may have common history with some earlier civilizations; they may have been close to the industrial revolution when it happened and benefited; they may have embraced western technology when it came their way and made it their own (as in the case of japan) etc etc. I'm just tryin to list some possible explanations for certain cases. Each situation will have to be dealt with by itself if we want to get any real answers IMO. One size fits all theories are almost always bull$hit when it comes to this kind of stuff.

The problems with sub saharan Africa and South America are very complex, and very real. It's kinda laughable that you are trying to blame it on the weather.

justcool:

The bottom line is that changes in whether( winter, summer, fall, spring) forced the people who evolved in such areas to develop, use their brains or perish; as opposed to people in the equatorial areas where the weather is always warm and conducive for life, people in these areas can afford to be lazy.

Do all countries in the "temperate" regions have a history of technological innovation and advancement? If not, why not?  If some do, how far back in history does this culture of technological ingenuity go?

Why does Europe,  a current tech powerhouse, only start to show up on the technology radar around the 15th century CE. Did the seasons just start to change then? Didn't they have winters prior to this? What triggered this sudden cultural change? Why do China and Mesopotamia / Arabia), which had been world champs when it came to technology for over 2500 years, fall off the radar? What was happening live on the ground.  . . Did the climate change all of a sudden? I don't think so. . . do u?

I'm asking because I want to know how your theory explains stuff like this?

justcool:

You cannot use 1900-2008 because at this time the world has become a global village and this prevents people from directly being compelled by natural disasters. I will give an example: If it starts to snow in Nigeria today, you don’t expect this natural change to have, on Nigerian, the effect that it had on the early Europeans. Why? The inventions made by the Europeans are already available and easily accessible to Nigerians. So rather than racking their brains on inventing means to survive the snow, the Nigerians will simply employ or buy the means that the Europeans provided. The Nigerians wouldn’t have to invent the heater because it already invented and available. You see how the present era changes things; it was different in the past eras when people were isolated and had to deal with their problems themselves.

If any regions were isolated, imo, it was SUb saharan Africa that was Isolated from other civilizations (tbh i know very little of african history  ). EUROPE WAS NOT. MESOPOTAMIA WAS NOT. CHINA WAS NOT. It is almost impossible for a civilization to come about without contact with the outside world. Arable land, Water source, trade routes, defendable location. . . u can't have a civilization without those. No contact, no civilization, no development. Understand this dynamic well, and the chronology of the periods of technical innovation in the various ancient civilizations, and u will understand how, imo, misguided it is to say climate difference is responsible for one world region being developed and another not. I swear I still think you are joking.

justcool:

The same old Nigerian or sub-Saharan African mentality, “give it to me on a platter of Gold.” You don’t have to wait for anthropologists or any academics to do your thinking for you. You are an intelligent and educated person, you can do this research on yourself; perhaps you may be the first to develop a theory and that will rank us(Nigerians) higher in the eyes of the world.

Trust me I've done research. your theory isn't the one.

justcool:

But in this case it is not a question of developing a new theory; Science has confirmed that organism, including man, adapt to its environment. The weather, and natural catastrophes peculiar to a place are parts of the environment which the organism adapt to.  Haven’t they said it all; what else do you want academics to say. Fishes adapted to living in water by developing gills; Europeans adapted to the winter by using their brains and inventing heaters, or by developing a resourceful culture of invention; apart from developing narrow noses and etc. Culture is also a form of adaptation, not all adaptations are biological.

Like i said, a theory based on climate, while disregarding other factors that affect social change isn't saying anything as far as human culture and the development of new technology  goes.

Cold regions like mongolia, siberia are badly underdeveloped today. Greece, carthage and italy centres of classical civilization were temperate regions. While the gauls and the germanic tribes were considered as barbarians. The goth and vandals were europeans. Vikings.

Krayola:


Let's say only countries in the "temperate" parts of the globe contributed significantly to tech advancement. I'll even go a step further and grant you that ONLY countries in temperate regions have EVER EVER contributed anything to tech advancement of mankind. . . So what?

It doesn't follow that they contributed the most BECAUSE of the climate. You still need to demonstrate how this occurs and you have not.

Your theory sounds very superficial to me. You have made a direct link between climate and ingenuity, at least as far as technology goes, with total disregard for all the other factors that can cause, or affect, social change.

. . . imo, misguided it is to say climate difference is responsible for one world region being developed and another not. I swear I still think you are joking.

The relationship between climate and the development of technology is elementary. It is a well established and also painfully obvious fact.

I am frankly astonished that you do not know of this.

The requirement for heat was the impetus for most technological innovations. Virtually everything springs from heat-related innovations.

Deep Sight:


The requirement for heat was the impetus for most technological innovations. Virtually everything springs from heat-related innovations.

For example? 

I think your above statement is ridiculous. I want to give you guys a chance to explain yourselves so please give me something besides your opinion. I'm almost embarrassed for you. What is this relationship between needing heat and technological development/innovation? Give examples. . several.

btw fire was most likely invented in Africa. Go figure.   anyways, I'm waiting for something i can work with.

Krayola:

For example? 

I think your above statement is ridiculous. I want to give you guys a chance to explain yourselves so please give me something besides your opinion. I'm almost embarrassed for you. What is this relationship between needing heat and technological development? Give examples. . several.

btw fire was invented in Africa. Go figure.   anyways, I'm waiting for something i can work with.

Me sef, I dey embarrased for you. no need to give me a chance to explain nada bro, I owe nobody no explanations, cos i'm not being paid for it.

If you dont believe it, fine.

haha. ok. But na debate we come debate for here o.

Didn't Europe need heat before the 15th century?

What did the plow, the water mill and the printing press have to do with heat? Whole civilizations were based on some of these inventions. . .

How do you make a connection between heat and most technological innovation?

It seems like Abdrushin has made you think human behavior can be explained by a bunch of "natural laws". It doesn't work like that mehn. . . logic or laws can't explain most human behavior, especially in a social setting. YOu consider their ideologies, their political structure, their geograpgy, their language their interaction with others etc etc without these u have a culture in a vacuum. U can't isolate a culture from other factors and pin a drastic change on one factor. Thats not how it works. Your "isn't it obvious" arguments are for philosophers. . .not for social scientists. 

Deep Sight:

Me sef, I dey embarrased for you. no need to give me a chance to explain nada bro, I owe nobody no explanations, cos i'm not being paid for it.

I swear if there is a real verifiable direct link between climate and technological ingenuity, I will pay cash to learn about it. Name your price  . . .but make i sample the product first to make sure say na original . . abeg o. . u no owe me explanation but make u explain this one. I don search tire I no fit find anything wey support your theory and i swear i've really looked hard.

Krayola:

haha. ok. But na debate we come debate for here o.

Didn't Europe need heat before the 15th century?

What did the plow, the water mill and the printing press have to do with heat? Whole civilizations were based on some of these inventions. . .

How do you make a connection between heat and most technological innovation?

It seems like Abdrushin has made you think human behavior can be explained by a bunch of "natural laws". It doesn't work like that mehn. . . logic or laws can't explain most human behavior, especially in a social setting. YOu consider their ideologies, their political structure, their geograpgy, their language their interaction with others etc etc without these u have a culture in a vacuum. U can't isolate a culture from other factors and pin a drastic change on one factor. Thats not how it works. Your "isn't it obvious" arguments are for philosophers. . .not for social scientists. 

You dey yab philosophers o!

Pastor AIO:

You dey yab philosophers o!

haha At all o. To be honest i dey jealous philosophers gan. They way dem dey organize their thoughts and express themselves na real american wonder.

I just believe that when it comes to history, or explaning cultural phenomena,  philosophy can't do much of significance. Except maybe provide nice deep-sounding one liners to start and end our essays with lol

Harsh climate change was the primary driver in the development of civilization, according to new research by the University of East Anglia.

http://news.softpedia.com/news/Severing-Climate-and-Civilization-35804.shtml

Deep Sight:

Harsh climate change was the primary driver in the development of civilization, according to new research by the University of East Anglia.

http://news.softpedia.com/news/Severing-Climate-and-Civilization-35804.shtml

That deals with the development of civilizations. i.e cities. Large communities of people living together.  with what caused people to need to form large communities. . This is what ur source says

These first large urban, state-level societies appeared because failing resources forced previously migratory people into close proximity in areas where water, pasture and productive land was still available

It has nothing to do with winter, technology, or innovation. It does not support your claims  Just explains why people accumulated around a specific kind of location.   Thanks though. . it was an interesting read.

The book Civilization & Climate, by Ellsworth Huntington puts a great deal in perspective and is also very balanced and objective. Whilst it accomodates your views, you will see within the extensive study that climate is certainly a key driver of civilization.

http://books.google.nl/books?hl=nl&lr=&id=9hEagEFuhxYC&oi=fnd&pg=PR7&dq=climate+and+civilization&ots=jFD_9UfNQB&sig=kRdfJmKjdpnEtq2D4Pk5LCc6lYk#v=onepage&q&f=false

I would be an  heediot to argue that climate has no impact on civilization. I have never made such a statement.

My position has been that any theory that isolates climate, while ignoring other drivers of social change, is IMO bogus.

The claims made earlier are pretty much this. . . winter makes people more technologically ingenious. Countries that are technologically advanced are so because of their harsher weather. Out tropical climate makes us lazy and lack creativity. This is what needs to be argued for. Not that climate impacts people. If u like make snow dey fall make u no run inside. 

Deep Sight:

The book Civilization & Climate, by Ellsworth Huntington puts a great deal in perspective and is also very balanced and objective. Whilst it accomodates your views, you will see within the extensive study that climate is certainly a key driver of civilization.

http://books.google.nl/books?hl=nl&lr=&id=9hEagEFuhxYC&oi=fnd&pg=PR7&dq=climate+and+civilization&ots=jFD_9UfNQB&sig=kRdfJmKjdpnEtq2D4Pk5LCc6lYk#v=onepage&q&f=false

Being a key driver of civilization is different from being responsible for technological ingenuity.

"The archaeologial and paleoenvironmental evidence is consistent with the notion that the development of complex societies in the Middle Holocene was largely the consequence of the responses of the precursor societies to deteriorating environmental conditions associated principally with the orbitally-driven weakening and southward retreat of the northern hempisphere monsoon belt."

http://www.salon.com/technology/how_the_world_works/2006/11/17/accidental_civilization

Krayola:

That deals with the development of civilizations. i.e cities. Large communities of people living together.  with what caused people to need to form large communities. . This is what your source says

It has nothing to do with winter, technology, or innovation. It does not support your claims  Just explains why people accumulated around a specific kind of location.   Thanks though. . it was an interesting read.  

Will you deny that such urban growth triggered by climatic conditions further drives the development of new technologies?

Deep Sight:

"The archaeologial and paleoenvironmental evidence is consistent with the notion that the development of complex societies in the Middle Holocene was largely the consequence of the responses of the precursor societies to deteriorating environmental conditions associated principally with the orbitally-driven weakening and southward retreat of the northern hempisphere monsoon belt."

http://www.salon.com/technology/how_the_world_works/2006/11/17/accidental_civilization

hahaha. u see now u are just blowing grammar.  


The technological dominance of europe has little to nothing to do with winter or climate change.

More to do with the rise of science. . . a desire to expand and increasing pressure from the expanding Islamic empires in the north. . . forced them to have to go outwards . . . they had to go Naval. Then the competition between the states. . .a wealthy merchant class that was willing to invest and sponsor thechnological creativity. . etc etc. There are real answers to these questions. Sure climate affects people, but not to the end that they decide to go and continously invent new stuff. The idea of systematically applying our brains in an attempt to create new products to solve problems came to Europe with the birth of science, amongst many other factors (socio-economic-political-military, etc etc). Not a cold winter or anything of the sort. thats just bogus stuff IMO.

U owe me twice as much Gulder now. If u want me to give u a whole essay, na to buy me cow.

Krayola:

I would be an  to argue that climate has no impact on civilization. I have never made such a statement.

My position has been that any theory that isolates climate, while ignoring other drivers of social change, is IMO bogus.

The claims made earlier are pretty much this. . . winter makes people more technologically ingenious. Countries that are technologically advanced are so because of their harsher weather. Out tropical climate makes us lazy and lack creativity. This is what needs to be argued for. Not that climate impacts people. If u like make snow dey fall make u no run inside. 


Being a key driver of civilization is different from being responsible for technological ingenuity.

Climate is not just "one of" the factors that drive the development of technology. It is the principal factor. Take some time to skim through Huntington's book.

Also as I said in my last post, the development of urban civilizations is absolutely integral to technical advancements and I hope this is not something you will dispute.

Now there is no doubting the pivotal role of climate in the development of such urban civilizations, thus climate remains the root key impetus for the resultant technical advances. Again, as I said before, it is frankly starkly obvious.

Krayola:

hahaha. u see now u are just blowing grammar.  


The technological dominance of europe has little to nothing to do with winter or climate change.

More to do with the rise of science. . . a desire to expand and increasing pressure from the expanding Islamic empires in the north. . . forced them to have to go outwards . . . they had to go Naval. Then the competition between the states. . .a wealthy merchant class that was willing to invest and sponsor thechnological creativity. . etc etc. There are real answers to these questions. Sure climate affects people, but not to the end that they decide to go and continously invent new stuff. The idea of systematically applying our brains in an attempt to create new products to solve problems came to Europe with the birth of science, amongst many other factors (soco-economic-political-military, etc etc). Not a cold winter or anything of the sort. thats just bogus stuff IMO.

U owe me twice as much Gulder now. If u want me to give u a whole essay, na to buy me cow.

1. Did you read the link?

2. How can you say its down to "the birth of science." That addresses nothing. What I am trying to show you is that there was an impetus for "the birth of science." That impetus at its deepest root was climatic.

Deep Sight:

What I am trying to show you is that there was an impetus for "the birth of science." That impetus at its deepest root was climatic.

Please explain, using historical events. I appreciate ur logical connections, but like I said that does not apply in these types of situations. History does not follow logic!!! Because something seems to make sense does not mean that it what happened.

A review of Huntinton's book on Climate & Civilization -


Civilization and Climate-By Ellsworth
Huntington, Research Associate in Geography,
Yale University. Third Edition Revised
and Enlarged. New Haven: Yale
University Press, 1924. 453 pp. Price, $5.00.

The first edition of this book appeared in
1915. Its value and the reception accorded
to it are attested by the fact that in nine years
the first edition was reprinted three times and
two new editions found necessary. It is unquestionably
the standard authority on this
most interesting subject.
A number of changes have been made in the
third edition, the most important of which, for
the readers of this JOURNAL, are those devoted
to the relation of climate to health. In this
part of the book we find a number of statements
which will astonish the average reader,
and which are absolutely contrary to what has
been held and taught for many years. The
author gives evidence that dry climates are not
so favorable for respiratory diseases as moist
ones, and he attributes the good effects of outdoor
living to the increased moisture which one
gets outside of houses. He considers it probable
that the good reputation of dry climates
for respiratory troubles is due to the fact that
people live more out of doors in such climates.
He holds that lack of moisture does almost
as much harm in winter as the low temperature,
while in spring it does only a little less harm
than the higher temperature in summer. Unusually
dry weather is responsible for more
trouble than unusually moist weather, and conditions
are better when storminess is unusually
abundant, except in the late fall. Admitting
that there are many puzzling facts in regard
to humidity, he holds that " the same conditions
of temperature, humidity and variability which
cause people to work quickly or slowly in the
ordinary affairs of life seem also to cause their
health to be good or poor." His final conclusion
that man is more closely dependent upon
nature than we have realized is hardly open
to question, nor is there any doubt of the
truth of his statement that what we call character
in the broad sense, in all walks of life,
is closely dependent upon bodily condition.
Idleness, dishonesty, immorality, stupidity, and
weakness are caused in some peoples by the
climates in which they live, and for this reason
the world will be a better place if the ill effects
of climate can be conquered.
This last edition does not insist so strongly
as the former ones upon the supreme importance
of climate, but the author holds that
climate ranks with racial inheritance and cultural
development as one of the three main
factors in determining the distribution of
civilization.
It requires some assurance to criticize a book
which has had such cordial reception and which
is so full of evidences of an enormous amount
of research and painstaking study. The only
feature which we venture to criticise is the
apparent oversight of agencies dependent upon
climate which are injurious to the human body
and which have a corresponding ill effect on
character. It is well known that the distribution
of many diseases depends upon the fact
that certain insects can thrive in certain climates.
The tropics particularly have always
had to fight insect-borne diseases. It is easy
to point out the influence which insect-borne
diseases have had on civilization and the distribution
of population. The poor whites of
the South and some tropical countries are ill
developed morally, mentally and physically because
of hookworm infection. Malarial fever
has led more or less directly to the downfall
of several civilizations. The author does not
seem to us to give proper consideration to such
facts as these. Otherwise the conclusions drawn
seem to be entirely justified, and no one can
read this book without gaining a broader point
of view and better understanding of facts of
extreme importance.
The make-up is excellent. Figures and
charts illustrate the text.

Climate change helped the Incas build civilisation

Their warfare, building and agricultural skills may have been impressive but, according to scientists in Peru, the Incas would have been nothing without good weather induced by climate change.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/5916353/Climate-change-helped-the-Incas-build-civilisation.html

Climate Changes Affect Ancient Civilizations: The role of climate in the development trajectory of the Near East, Greece, and Rome is discussed here -

http://www.suite101.com/content/climate-changes-affect-ancient-civilizations-a107526

Still waiting for a paper that links climate directly to a culture of technological advancement.

I guarantee u will NEVER find such a study. U will find some that tell u climate is very important for civilizations to thrive. . . but I can tell you that any academic that will say something like cold climate makes people more ingenious will be shot down by his peers in cold blood. lol

I'm just playing o. I'm just being lazy. I really want to make my argument in a more detailed organized form but the thought of sittin here for hours trying to organize my thoughts just seems very unappealing so i'm just catching fun.

I totally understand what you are trying to say. . . I've just done a lot of actual case studies on this kind of stuff and i know that's not how it works. There has to be a culture that encourages free thought and exchange of ideas. That is why we see the early islamic empires excel in technological developments while the west was killing for Jesus and burning scholars at the stake. That is part of why with the rise of humanism and the loss of power of the catholic church, we see the west's rapid rise to technological glory. There is a lot that goes into these kinds of changes in culture. The climate argument is overly reductionist. it just doesn't work imo.

@ deepsight. come on. We're looking for a link between climate and technological ingenuity. Not between climate and civilizations. All your posts are saying is that harsh climates can make people accumulate in a given area conducive for living. they say nothing about what we are debating here

Krayola:

Still waiting for a paper that links climate directly to technological advancement.

You dont need such links because that would be making a gargantuan leap across the inter-locking factors. Rather you will find that Climate is at the root of a tree of causative factors that ultimately lead to technical advancements.

Climate - - -> Habitable Environment - - - > Settlement of Populations - - - > Urban Developments - - - > Complex Society - - - > Group Needs [E.g: transported water] - - - >Inventions [E.g: Roman Aqueduct]

Krayola:

@ deepsight. come on. We're looking for a link between climate and technological ingenuity. Not between climate and civilizations. All your posts are saying is that harsh climates can make people accumulate in a given area conducive for living. they say nothing about what we are debating here

Will you seriously contend that such accumulation in groups and resultant urbanization is not key to technological advancements based on urban needs?

Besides if you read up all that I have given you will see many direct resultant technological advancements primed on climatic imperatives.

Deep Sight:

Y
Climate - - -> Habitable Environment - - - > Settlement of Populations - - - > Urban Developments - - - > Complex Society - - - > Group Needs [E.g: transported water] - - - >Inventions [E.g: Roman Aqueduct]

There you go again. . . . using logic to link changes in culture like it's one neat linear chain of events. Aight. . . I'll back off. This is pointless.

Hope u gbadun your holidays o. Happy New year in Advance.

The Long Summer by Brian Fagan

"The Long Summer: How Climate Changed Civilization by Brian Fagan is an excellent read. You will find yourself sprinting through this book and asking for more when you are done. Luckily, Brian Fagan also wrote The Little Ice Age . The focus of this article is The Long Summer and climate change. In Brian’s book he paints a picture of how earlier civilizations thrived and dived according to climate stability and climate change. In an era of seemingly rapid climate change this book is very timely.

Brian Fagan in The Long Summer takes us from the last ice age, through Mesopotamia and Rome and on into the Medieval Era. Throughout the ages, Fagan demonstrates how stable abundant climates led to the rise of great civilizations and then illustrates how those same civilizations were brought low due to climate change. Sometimes this climate change and civilizational decay was gradual, other times it was rapid and overwhelming.

The most important message of The Long Summer is that in the past large floods, droughts, cold periods or heat waves would kill thousands of people but today those same disasters would devastate millions. These natural disasters today result in a massive backlash after the immediate effect of the disaster. These dangerous after effects were experienced in Haiti after the earthquake, in New Orleans still today, and in many places across the world such as Indonesia. When disasters occur today they affect millions and lead to large societal, cultural, and political changes. During our era of rapid climate change Brian Fagan’s The Long Summer is a must read."

http://hubpages.com/hub/How-does-climage-change-change-civilization

@Krayola

I don't think there is any more need for me to continue my argument with you, I believe my point has been made; Deepsight has done a marvelous job proving to you that there is a link between the climate and technological advancement of mankind. If you refuse to see it then I can help you; we humans have free will, its up to you to open your eyes or close it.

The funny thing is that your argument is "anti-evolutionary," the theme of the theory of evolution is that humans and all organisms adapt to their environment. And adaptation leads to evolution. Now you are here refuting a well established fact that humans adapt to the climatic changes in their environment; and at the same you are claiming to be a proponent of evolution.

Thanks