Where did deepsight show this? That winters make man develop technology. Una just dey concoct stuff we no dey

Whatever u say mehn. . God bless u.

The North Pole is the most technologically advanced place in the world.

@ Krayola

I'm not continueing the arguement about wheather climatic changes triger technological advancements, I believe you already know that it does. I just observed a few things in your post that I think its nessacery to bring to your notice.

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

Sorry I couldn’t let the above go. Don’t tell me that you don’t know that technological ingenuity and advancement is part of civilization! Read the definition of civilization from the dictionary:


1.An advanced state of intellectual, cultural, and material development in human society, marked by progress in the arts and sciences, the extensive use of record-keeping, including writing, and the appearance of complex political and social institutions.
2.The type of culture and society developed by a particular nation or region or in a particular epoch: Mayan civilization; the civilization of ancient Rome.
3.The act or process of civilizing or reaching a civilized state.
4.Cultural or intellectual refinement; good taste.
5.Modern society with its conveniences: returned to civilization after camping in the mountains.
Read more: http://www.answers.com/topic/civilization#ixzz19X28wae9


Please consider the bolded part of definition 1. Is technology not a product of science?  
Okay let’s consult the dictionary for the meaning of technology:

1.
a. The application of science, especially to industrial or commercial objectives.
b. The scientific method and material used to achieve a commercial or industrial objective.
2. Electronic or digital products and systems considered as a group: a store specializing in office technology.
3. Anthropology. The body of knowledge available to a society that is of use in fashioning implements, practicing manual arts and skills, and extracting or collecting materials.
[Greek tekhnologiā, systematic treatment of an art or craft : tekhnē, skill + -logiā, -logy.]
Read more: http://www.answers.com/topic/technology#ixzz19X32Me9D

Please consider the bolded parts. It shows that technology is a product of science, or an application of science.
It’s okay to disagree with me or anybody, but it’s not okay to twist, turn and lie just to win the argument. Pretending not to know that civilization involves technology is just being dishonest.


Also this is what triggered the argument; a gentle man “Mazaje” tried to say that there are things in the universe which has no purpose. Here is what he wrote:
Quote from: mazaje on December 23, 2010, 02:42 PM

Yes and I repeat, I dont know is the most rational position to take, you claim to know that everything that is alive has a purpose, so pls tell me what is the purpose of a hurricane and the purpose of your life here on earth. . . .

And I replied to him saying that

Isn’t this obvious? It’s quite simple. Necessity is the mother of all inventions. Hurricanes, tornadoes and etc gives man the impetus to evolve, to use his brain, to seek out and understand the laws of nature that guides these processes so that he can control them, predict them and escape them…,   

https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-570326.128.html#msg7398880

Then you said the following to me:

Quote from: Krayola on December 24, 2010

No offence but I think this is pretty bogus.  Now technological advancement is as a direct result of occurrence of natural disaster in a specific area? Puhleeaaasssee.
Capitalism, greed, curiosity are better explanations for tech advancement than natural disasters IMO. I'm yet to see technology that helps curb natural disasters. A house will keep u dry in the rain, but will collapse on u in an earthquake  

https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-570326.128.html#msg7400639

You also said:
Quote from: Krayola

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.

https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-570326.192.html#msg7427886

you also said:

Quote from: Krayola
If any natural disaster contributed greatly to it, it was the black plague. . .and even then there was a lot of other stuff going on in the background that influenced the way things turned out.

https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-570326.160.html#msg7412815

It is oblivious that in the posts above, especially the bolded parts that you refute the fact the occurrence of natural disaster has in any way instigated people to technological advancement; and climatic changes, which include natural disasters, have no purpose and do not fit into a universe designed for life. This is your main point since in this thread we are dealing with weather the universe was designed or not and whether it has a purpose.

After saying the above quote, when Deepsite had shown you multiple proves you turned around and said this:

Quote from: Krayola

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.  

https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-570326.192.html#msg7428710


You see in the above, especially the bolded part, you told a deliberate lie or you shifted your post.  You claimed that you never argued that climate has no impact on civilization!!! A fact you refuted and called bogus many times in this particular thread! If you believe that climatic changes which inculde natural disasters contributed to civilization then why are that climatic changes have no purpose or do not fit into a universe designed for life? You see how you contra tic yourself!!

Like I said earlier, it’s okay to disagree with me or anybody, but it’s not okay to twist, turn and lie just to win the argument.


Thanks

Pastor AIO:

The North Pole is the most technologically advanced place in the world.

Is the north pole part of the temprate regions? The north pole remains pretty much at the same temperature throughout the year, just like the equatorial areas(sub Sahara Africa). While the poles (North and South) remains cold and frozen through-out the year, the equator remains warm throughout the years. Both parts of the globe are not as seasonal as the temprate regions.

I maintain that seasonal changes of the temprate regions contribute to the peoples awakening, behaviour, and development, or technological development. The most innovative and progressives cultures of the world evolved in the temprate regions; this is a fact that nobody can deny.

Climate no only affects the mood, behaviour and look or color of skin, it also affects the way of thinking.

You guys just keep postin and avoid the issues raised.

Why was western Europe not involved in the development of new technology till the 15th century?
Why did china stop being a hub for technological innovation?
Why are countries like Mongolia and Siberia not involved in this tech craze?

U have not shown any link between winters and development of new technology. None. And that is indisputable. The rest na story.

Krayola:

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?

The above, especially the bolded part, shows that you do not know which regions of the globe that are temperate. I gave you a link to a map; I guess you didnt look at it.

China and Mesopotamia belong to the temperate!!

In the map below the parts highlited in purple are the temprate regions.

Jesu kristi!! U still dont get it. Do u?

The point I'm making isn't about location. . I'm trying to get u to see that people living in the same locations over very extended periods of time, go thru periods where they are very innovative and creative. China excelled over a period of thousands of years and suddenly stopped. The Islamic empires excelled for a shorter period, very close, in fact, right beside western Europe, and were very innovative and creative. Then a sudden decline. Meanwhile western Europe was burning scholars and anti development (that's why it's called the dark ages). All of a sudden Europe gets very creative. Climate did not change, but obviously something triggered these changes in these societies. What factors caused this drastic change in culture since there were no sudden changes in climate. ThatS what I'm getting at.

My point is that we have to look deeper if we want to answer these questions. It's very superficial IMO to just say it's because of the climate the got creative. They had been in the same location for millennia without that creative impulse. There was a cultural revolution that was triggered by certain factors. That's what I'm asking you to consider. And also consider what happened to china and Arabia that caused them to stop being to innovative.

I think just insisting that climate triggers a creative impulse, while not addressing these issues is both superfial, and to some extent intellectually dishonest. That's just my opinion on the matter. I'm not questioning your integrity. I know u are a very open minded and intelligent individual. I'm just trying to get u to take a holistic approach when considering cultural phenomena. U shouldn't IMO  isolate individual factors and just attribute a change in culture to them while ignoring everything else.

One more thing I want to mention. . Early anthropology worked based on a certain premise. That western culture of innovation and conquest was the ideal, and everything else was inferior. A lot of these theories reinforcing the idea that people from a certain part of the world are intellectually and morally superior to others originated in this period and were used to further imperial agendas. If u look on the previous page u will see a post deepsight made about a book review from a book written in 1924. . Claiming that climate can account for lazyness and stupidity etc etc. Those theories have been shown to be biased and not based on fair, objective methods. I'll elaborate later. I'm on my phone now and citing sources and stuff is a little difficult but I promise to back all this up later.

Im just trying to get u to consider other factors u seem to be overlooking. Cheers.

@Krayola

Krayola:

Why was western Europe not involved in the development of new technology till the 15th century?

Dude you most be kidding!!! Europe was not involved in the development of technology till the 15th century

Please read the following:
Manufacture of silk began in Eastern Europe in the 6th, in Western Europe in the 11th or 12th centuries. Imported over the Silk Road since antiquity. Technnology of "silk throwing" mastered in Tuscany in the 13th century. The silk works used waterpower and some regard these as the first mechanized textile mills.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_technology
There are many others in that sight; I suggest you read the entire sight.

Krayola:

Why did china stop being a hub for technological innovation?

China contributed a lot to technological development and she still does so today. Read about China’s contribution to technology here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_science_and_technology_in_China

Krayola:

Why are countries like Mongolia and Siberia not involved in this tech craze?

Please read about ancient Mongolia! Don’t let country names which are recent deceive you; there was a lot of technological innovation and development in that area called Mongolia today. Ancient Mongolians contributed a lot in the technological development of warfare and weaponry. Haven’t you ever heard of the Mongolian empire, which spread across most of Asia?

Please read about Mongolia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongolia

Mongolian painting began to develop more than two thousand years ago from simple rock drawings. Uighur paintings of the 8th century prove that this art was flourishing in Mongolia and Asia long ago. http://www.nominsky.com/about_mongolia.htm

Read: http://www.mongolzuuch.mn/main.php?page=mongoliancitysites.htm


Also read:
  In 2006, Mongolia celebrated 800 years since Genghis Khan established the unified kingdom that made it a superpower. His successful integration of different political, economic, religious, and cultural systems and traditions of those he conquered was without precedent in history. However he may be viewed as a conqueror, it is undeniable he was a major force in opening lines of cultural communication and trade between Asia and the West. For example, important technologies developed in China, such as gunpowder, the magnetic compass, mechanical clock, and printing press made their way to Europe as a result of his conquests. Scholars even credit the Mongol Empire for spurring the Renaissance in western Europe
http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Mongolia

Now coming to Siberia.
Are you kidding me!!! Don’t you know that Siberia were parts of the Soviet Union??  Do you question the contribution that Soviet Union made to technology??

Krayola:

U have not shown any link between winters and development of new technology. None. And that is indisputable. The rest na story.

Don’t single out winter. We are talking about climate and climatic changes such as natural disasters. Winter is part of the climate/weather, and winter has instigated man towards a lot of technological innovation. Deepsight has shown you enough links, you just refused to see it.  Winter added appliances like the modern heater and air conditioners to technological developments.

Thanks

Wow!! U are highlighting imported technologies. I already said earlier trade and exchange of ideas and technologies was necessary for civilization, and part of what explains the development or most of europe. That countrie learned and borrowed From and copied from their more successful neighbors. I'm talking about new technologies. Cultures isolated from all this are the ones that had to play catch up. Some successfully, some failed woefully.


My battery on my phone is running low so I probably won't post till later. Ciao

Krayola:

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.  

What has Abd-ru-shin got to do with this issue? Why attack Abd-ru-shin because of what justcool said? Have I quoted Abd-ru-shin in this thread?
Please let facts speak against facts; and don't start attacking other peoples just because you are losing grounds.

Thanks

I did not "attack" abdrushin. U are makin stuff up now. And that's a fact. This is defamation of character. Show me where I attacked abdrushin

^^^^^^^^^^
@Krayola
I did not deform your character.

Here is what I mean by attack:

.
1. To set upon with violent force.
2. To criticize strongly or in a hostile manner.
3. To start work on with purpose and vigor: attack a problem.
4. To begin to affect harmfully: a disease that attacks the central nervous system.

Read more: http://www.answers.com/topic/attack#ixzz19XvS1d8h

Consider what I said in the light of the bolded parts. In the light of definition (2); you criticize or oppose the view that human behaviors can be explained by natural laws. If this is your view then you have the right to hold on to it, and I also have the right to hold a contrary view. So why accuse Abd-ru-shin of making Deepsight or Justcool to hold a view contrary to yours? How are you sure that we got this view from Abd-ru-shin? Why must everything I said be assumed as having been taught by Abd-ru-shin?

All these goes to make me think that you are more apt to deal with Abd-ru-shin than the issue at hand. Consider this in the light of definition (3). You are more apt to work (analyze, criticize, or deal with) on Abd-ru-sin than you are to deal with the issue at hand.

The statements that I have made so far in this thread are drawn from my looking around me, my investigations, and my intuition, by employing the principles taught by the Grail Message; but my statements are neither taken directly from the Grail message nor from Abd-ru-shin. Anything wrong in my statements should be attributed to me and not to the Grail message or Abd-ru-shin.

And indeed everything can be explained by the natural laws or the laws of creation, as nothing can deviate from them. The Grail Message maintains this, but the Grail massage did not exactly say that "technological developments are intigated by natural disasters". This is a conclusion that I arrived at by myself and hence anything wrong with this conclusion should attributed to me and not to the Grail message.

The fact that I am a crossbearer does not mean that everything I say or do should be attributed to Abd-ru-shin; another crossbearer may have a different view or perception on the issue of natural disasters/climate and technological development.

Thanks

Haha justcool I was just joking my broda. U didn't have to explain.

The abdrushin comment was just a friendly jab at deepsight. Kinda like he does on almost every Christian thread about superstition.

It seems everyone here lost their sense of humor or sumtin.

I just read thru this whole exchange of ours again because your last couple of posts made me realize u don't even understand what exactly I'm trying to say and where I'm coming from. It's all my fault really. I haven't been clear about what I mean and like idehn tried to communicate, I need to define some of the terms I'm using so u know exactly what I mean. I thought u guys were just being difficult but now I realize my posts just weren't clear. I just assumed u would know exactly what I meant.

I'll have to start all over and make things clear cause we're not on the same page at all and continuing could just lead to further confusion. At this rate we go soon start to dey throw blow sef.

Pastor AIO:

The North Pole is the most technologically advanced place in the world.

Ur sarcasm rebounds on you and you alone as it is trite that extreme environments are not conducive for survival ab initio

It seems to me that everybody on this thread is just misunderstanding everybody else.

I see technological developments all over the world. In the tropics the Binis and the Yorubas developed bronze casting that they used to make great art. The Nok did great work with terracotta. I don't think any of it is less impressive than what the Mongolians did or what the Chinese did in their temperate regions.

I think that what Krayola is trying to say is that everywhere in the world there are periods of technological advancement and periods of stagnation and that these have nothing to do with changes in climate or natural disasters. The Romans were great engineers but when Rome fell the german and gothic tribes that took over Western Europe were backward. Same climate, different level of technological brilliance. Europe was in the dark ages. The Dark ages only subsided after the christians pushed the Moors out of Spain and unearthed all their knowledge, and when they invaded palestine during the crusades. This close encounter with Islamic culture is what triggered the quest for learning and technological advancement in europe again.

The Arabs themselves have always been in temperate zones yet they were not technologically advanced beyond anyone else until they started empire building and they invaded Egypt (the city of Alexandria) and other Greek cities from which they learnt of Aristotle and ancient greek philosophers. It is the adoption of this tradition that triggered the advance in Arab civilisation.

Personally I do not see the link between climate and technology, or the ability to think, or laziness etc.

What seems obvious to me though is that there is a certain tradition that exists in this world, and however ever comes in contact with this tradition and partakes in it will become a force to be reckoned with in technology and creativity. This is the common denominator that I see. I could call it the Philosophic tradition. Or maybe even the Hermetic tradition.

^^^ So the map in Justcool's Post #229 above speaks nothing to you?

Siberia is just like the north pole. Almost inhabitable. Innovations and technology is common all peoples even savages have a moment of ingenuity. The silk road simply connects china with mid east, it does not run across europe justcool.

Pastor AIO:


Personally I do not see the link between climate and technology, or the ability to think, or laziness etc.

This thing does not happen over-night. It is an influence that moulds the direction of imperative needs over generations. The influence of climate in this regard is simply and utterly undeniable. Climate is the first determinant of most cultural practices, certainly determines the diet available in an environment and accordingly influences even the health of a community and its susceptibility to specific dieseases. All of these factors are directly relevant to what needs, what imperative necessities any given community will have and imperative necessities are the clear and certain drivers of invention. Through this obvious causative chain each people will be driven over the course of time towards the developments of the improvements which have been made imperative by the limitations or abundance of their environment.

In colder parts of the world the imperative for heat and warmth is a great motivating factor that leads to such activities as set the tone and the pace for later industrial development. You are very unlikely for example to find a hot part of the world where coal mining historically thrived: it is most natural that people seek natural fuels such as coal more ardently when they live in a punishingly cold climate and have greater need to burn such fuels more consistently.

Now you need to understand that each of these needs and its fulfillment has a ripple effect. In particular the pursuit of mining and such other activities is a great industrial spur: people will develop blacksmithing furnaces at a greater pace: that will in turn lead to ironworks in larger numbers: these would trigger developments in armaments, utensils, the list is endless: and you will find that the spur for a society that becomes increasingly driven by original heat-based technologies is very very great indeed: such societies cannot but be impelled gradually over time to industrial development in a fashion that nature would simply not impel a society that has been living in a hot part of the world, who have very little need to explore ever new and continuous sources of heat generation.

This is so simple, and can be observed in such diverse and manifold instances that I am still surprised that the point could be contested. I could cite a zillion different manifestations of this obvious fact, but I hope you catch my drift. If you look again at that map in post #229, the fact is glaring and undeniable: the richer cultural and technological advancements in the world have occured within the temperate zones, and virtually to an inch, the non-temperate warmer climes have been so significantly behind in this respect that the co-relation between climate and development should not be missed.

I already provided many links to scientific stuidies in this regard in my posts above. I emphasize again particularly that the imperative of heat-generation is a huge spur for the gradual development of industrial tendencies.

^^the climate plays a big role. But to insist colder regions solely stimulate inventions is false because warmer climate demand also a great measure of ingenuity. Demands such as need for shelter from heat, irrigation, water preservation etc. Climate in general plays a role. At least man is a thinking animal and confronts his problems with head.

Kay 17:

Demands such as need for shelter from heat . . .

Him go siddon under tree, get better breeze.

But the man wey dey run from cold no fit do like that. Him go gas no choice other than to construct beta beta house wey thick well well.

I mean, even the very limited use of proper stone construction in the generality of warmer climes should be suggestive. We see the Zimbabwe ruins and we are so excited exactly because such is rare in pre-colonial sub-saharan africa!

Why the rarity of stone buildings? Stone is afterall, widely available, no?

Does it seem a wild coincidence that the man living in colder parts had an imperative to build thicker dwellings? Is it not obvious that the very act of having to do such necessitates myriad other innovations in the process?

This thing is really so simple.

I actually had in mind a desert. Nevertheless. . .

Kay 17:

I actually had in mind a desert. Nevertheless. . .

And what thrives in the desert? Go there today, it remains desolate. Even the North African civilizations developed around the Nile Delta and other Oases. The very simple imperative to settle in a habitable environment alone is enough to settle this discussion. It is clear that the nature of the habitable environment will determine what must be developed in order to dwell successfully therein.

I mean, this this is indeed very very simple and straigh forward!

Menh, I never said that climate has nothing to do with culture etc. Why are you twisting things? We are talking about technological advances.

Deep Sight:

This thing does not happen over-night. It is an influence that moulds the direction of imperative needs over generations. The influence of climate in this regard is simply and utterly undeniable. Climate is the first determinant of most cultural practices, certainly determines the diet available in an environment and accordingly influences even the health of a community and its susceptibility to specific dieseases. All of these factors are directly relevant to what needs, what imperative necessities any given community will have and imperative necessities are the clear and certain drivers of invention. Through this obvious causative chain each people will be driven over the course of time towards the developments of the improvements which have been made imperative by the limitations or abundance of their environment.

To jump from culture is influenced by climate to climate is what drives invention is ridiculous. I don't even know where to start with that.

Coal and other fossil fuels such as Crude Oil etc only came into use during the industrial age. I could be wrong in which case I'll take it back. But from what I know before the discovery of Coal the europeans burnt wood to keep themselves warm.
So digging for Coal is not due to needing to keep warm but rather due to needing to fuel an industrial revolution.

Africans mine too. And so did native american injuns. And so did Cave men as a matter of fact. They mined for tin and copper to make bronze and other alloys.
I remember reading a book about Ogun practice and coming across a section about mining in ancient yoruba. I was surprised that we actually mined. Then I thought, of course we did. What did the Alagbedes work with? how did we make hoes and swords etc. Then I wondered why I had such a daft notion of my ancestors abilities when it is something that even cave men did. Then it was obvious that I had been brainwashed to think a certain way about Africa.

So mining is not an exclusively european activity.

oh yeah, btw, North america is a very temperate zone where the native american tribes lived. However they were not technologically advanced.

The bottom line is why is it that within the same temperate zone, over the course of history we can find both technological advancement and technological backwardness. I would conclude from that that the climate is not the crucial factor but something else which came into that zone.

Pastor AIO:

Menh, I never said that climate has nothing to do with culture etc. Why are you twisting things? We are talking about technological advances.

You did not read my post. I strung it all together. These things are interlinked. A certain elusive friend of mine once wrote on this forum "Everything is everything." I wonder who that friend is?

To jump from culture is influenced by climate to climate is what drives invention is ridiculous. I don't even know where to start with that.

I did not jump. I drew a careful causative chain, one factor building into another. You did not read my post.

Coal and other fossil fuels such as Crude Oil etc only came into use during the industrial age. I could be wrong in which case I'll take it back. But from what I know before the discovery of Coal the europeans burnt wood to keep themselves warm.
So digging for Coal is not due to needing to keep warm but rather due to needing to fuel an industrial revolution.

Maybe they said to themselves - "O, remember that coal we left beneath the ground, let go get it to help build our industries!"

Now you are the one making leaps in thin air. Where is your causative chain?

Africans mine too. And so did native american injuns. And so did Cave men as a matter of fact. They mined for tin and copper to make bronze and other alloys.
I remember reading a book about Ogun practice and coming across a section about mining in ancient yoruba. I was surprised that we actually mined. Then I thought, of course we did. What did the Alagbedes work with? how did we make hoes and swords etc. Then I wondered why I had such a daft notion of my ancestors abilities when it is something that even cave men did. Then it was obvious that I had been brainwashed to think a certain way about Africa.

So mining is not an exclusively european activity.

You did not read my post. If i said anything about mining being exclusively european, please show me.

My words were simple: I said such mining did not thrive as much in warmer climes. Is this a lie?

oh yeah, btw, North america is a very temperate zone where the native american tribes lived. However they were not technologically advanced.

You have to contextualize their presence on that continent with history. I said already that these things do not happen over night. There is a long causative chain. So its not like one moment its cold and - PING! - the Industrial revolution starts.

It seems to me you are deliberately reading absurdity into my post.

The bottom line is why is it that within the same temperate zone, over the course of history we can find both technological advancement and technological backwardness. I would conclude from that that the climate is not the crucial factor but something else which came into that zone.

Nobody denies the existence of other factors. However the evidence is legion that climate leads the pack.

Pastor AIO:

Coal and other fossil fuels such as Crude Oil etc only came into use during the industrial age. I could be wrong in which case I'll take it back.

You are definitely wrong, so please do take it back:

Outcrop coal was used in Britain during the Bronze Age (3000–2000 BC), where it has been detected as forming part of the composition of funeral pyres.[5][6] In Roman Britain, with the exception of two modern fields, "the Romans were exploiting coals in all the major coalfields in England and Wales by the end of the second century AD".[7] Evidence of trade in coal (dated to about AD 200) has been found at the inland port of Heronbridge, near Chester, and in the Fenlands of East Anglia, where coal from the Midlands was transported via the Car Dyke for use in drying grain.[8] Coal cinders have been found in the hearths of villas and military forts, particularly in Northumberland, dated to around AD 400. In the west of England contemporary writers described the wonder of a permanent brazier of coal on the altar of Minerva at Aquae Sulis (modern day Bath) although in fact easily accessible surface coal from what became the Somerset coalfield was in common use in quite lowly dwellings locally.[9] Evidence of coal's use for iron-working in the city during the Roman period has been found.[10] In Eschweiler, Rhineland, deposits of bituminous coal were used by the Romans for the smelting of iron ore.[7]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal

The Industrial Revolution only signified large scale use of coal on a massive industrial scale. Coal was already in use hundreds of years prior. It was already being used in hearths to keep warm as far back as AD 400 in Northumberland! Maybe that is when you imagine the Industrial revolution started. Please joo.

Deep Sight:

This thing does not happen over-night. It is an influence that moulds the direction of imperative needs over generations. The influence of climate in this regard is simply and utterly undeniable. Climate is the first determinant of most cultural practices, certainly determines the diet available in an environment and accordingly influences even the health of a community and its susceptibility to specific dieseases. All of these factors are directly relevant to what needs, what imperative necessities any given community will have and imperative necessities are the clear and certain drivers of invention. Through this obvious causative chain each people will be driven over the course of time towards the developments of the improvements which have been made imperative by the limitations or abundance of their environment.

In colder parts of the world the imperative for heat and warmth is a great motivating factor that leads to such activities as set the tone and the pace for later industrial development. You are very unlikely for example to find a hot part of the world where coal mining historically thrived: it is most natural that people seek natural fuels such as coal more ardently when they live in a punishingly cold climate and have greater need to burn such fuels more consistently.

Now you need to understand that each of these needs and its fulfillment has a ripple effect. In particular the pursuit of mining and such other activities is a great industrial spur: people will develop blacksmithing furnaces at a greater pace: that will in turn lead to ironworks in larger numbers: these would trigger developments in armaments, utensils, the list is endless: and you will find that the spur for a society that becomes increasingly driven by original heat-based technologies is very very great indeed: such societies cannot but be impelled gradually over time to industrial development in a fashion that nature would simply not impel a society that has been living in a hot part of the world, who have very little need to explore ever new and continuous sources of heat generation.

This is so simple, and can be observed in such diverse and manifold instances that I am still surprised that the point could be contested. I could cite a zillion different manifestations of this obvious fact, but I hope you catch my drift. If you look again at that map in post #229, the fact is glaring and undeniable: the richer cultural and technological advancements in the world have occured within the temperate zones, and virtually to an inch, the non-temperate warmer climes have been so significantly behind in this respect that the co-relation between climate and development should not be missed.

I already provided many links to scientific stuidies in this regard in my posts above. I emphasize again particularly that the imperative of heat-generation is a huge spur for the gradual development of industrial tendencies.

There is nothing simple about explaining human behavior. We are very complex and dynamic and besides the basic need to eat, drink, be happy and stuff like that, one size fits all theories usually fail to explain human behavior. There are too many factors that shape human life and experience.

Let me try to give a simple example. It might not be the best example but maybe it'll help me get a point across. If you wake up one morning and there is light, for once, you might be able to iron your clothes and not have to wear rough clothing. You day starts off well and you are in a good mood. YOu open the fridge and discover your roommate finished the milk and so you can't have breakfast. downs your mood. you look outside and it is raining, and that might affect your wardrobe choice. It might be a reason to use that nice waterproof jacket your girlfriend got u and u haven't yet had a chance to wear which might lift your spirits, or you might not have a coat, and had left your umbrella in your friend's car the previous day which might further dampen your spirits. YOu go to work and u win new accounts for your company, that sexy secretary invited you for lunch. YOu get off work and on your way home some okada guy scratches your car which messes up your mood again, and so on and so forth. If someone else had to evaluate your day, how much info would they need to have a complete picture of how your day went? If allshe know is that there was no light and it was raining it may be reasonable for her to conclude that your day went horribly. But the more she starts to get info about the specifics, the more accurate an assessment she may be able to make.

Same applies to human culture. We are social creatures and our lives do not take place in a vacuum. To formulate a theory about human behavior, we need to take a holistic approach or we won't be saying much. When we zone in on one variable, without considering others, we get an incomplete, even distorted picture. We need to know the climate, the geography, the type of government, the kinds of policies, the kinds of religion, the dominant worldview of the population. the cultures of their neighbors and trading partners, the size of their army and their security concerns. The temperament of their leaders, their approach to problem solving, and so on and so forth. . .  and understand how these shape the cultures. it is an interaction of all these that determine how the cultures will evolve.

Two countries can have similar geography, similar climate, but different types of government and different policies and ideologies etc, and as a result turn out to be different over time. Imagine we were having this debate in the European dark ages. How would you explain the innovation of the Muslims living right beside them, and the European's own stagnation. Climate? Geography? I doubt it.  One will need to understand the religion, the type of government and what their priorities were, the response of the people, etc. Any theory that does not go that deep, is just playing games. It isn't really serious about gaining insight into these cultures. IMO it will be superficial nonsense. It might be well written, it might have the most brilliant presentation. . . but like i stated earlier, a theory, especially about human behavior and culture, is worthless without the empirical studies that flush it out. Human behavior is too complex to just make broad generalizations like that. We need to know the specific condition, the details, the who, whats when and how. .  before we can say anything that can be taken seriously by the critical mind. That's my opinion, and I think it is a well informed one.

Think Ghana and Nigeria. Think 20-30 years ago, and think about 2010. Ghana now on the upswing, Naija spiraling into the bottomless abyss. . . Climate? Geography? How can you explain this? Now think about the debate we have been having and try to put these things in context. Can you honestly say one can narrow down the differences amongst all these civilizations over such extended periods of time to their climate? Who ruled China during their ancient times of prominence, what had changed during their decline, did they come under totalitarian rule, did the Arabs have a policy that encouraged interaction between people of different cultures and religions and did they put intellectual endeavors high on their  agenda? What about the Greeks during their times of conquest. . . why was their civilization so successful and dominant that even after their decline the Romans adopted their ways rather than try to erase them? Was it due to their policy of tolerance and freedom of thought and expression, or was it because they had cold winters. Without that kind of data, we are not really saying anything. Looking at a map and saying that because developed countries seem to be in a certain region means the climate is responsible for it is IMO a very superficial type of assessment, and I honestly can't take such seriously.

Pastor AIO:


I think that what Krayola is trying to say is that everywhere in the world there are periods of technological advancement and periods of stagnation and that these have nothing to do with changes in climate or natural disasters.  The Romans were great engineers but when Rome fell the german and gothic tribes that took over Western Europe were backward.  Same climate, different level of technological brilliance.  Europe was in the dark ages.  The Dark ages only subsided after the christians pushed the Moors out of Spain and unearthed all their knowledge, and when they invaded palestine during the crusades.  This close encounter with Islamic culture is what triggered the quest for learning and technological advancement in europe again.  

The Arabs themselves have always been in temperate zones yet they were not technologically advanced beyond anyone else until they started empire building and they invaded Egypt (the city of Alexandria) and other Greek cities from which they learnt of Aristotle and ancient greek philosophers.  It is the adoption of this tradition that triggered the advance in Arab civilisation.  

Thank you sir.

Without understanding the specific histories of these societies, and having info on as many of the relevant variables as possible, how can we theorize? How can one say something about decline in ancient chinese civilization  without understanding Qin Shihuang conquered six chinese kingdoms and created a totalitarian empire, and centralized control? A people once ruled by philosopher kings in a dynamic and vibrant society that inspired creativity and free thought were brought to a stand still. It wasn't the climate. How can we speak of the changes in western Europe without understanding how the black plague led people to question and doubt the church's power, the rise of an aristocratic merchant class that placed high value on intellectual achievement, the influx of classical knowledge that had been lost plus the knowledge the Arabs had accumulated. .  all flowing into a once closed and backward society that had just freed itself from the clutches of the catholic church which kept their minds in shackles.

I think a lot of people think history of societies is like the sciences or math, where you can have a theory and formula, and just plug it into any problem and voila. . . u have the answer. Human behavior and culture does not work like that. No specifics= no plausible theory. At least that is what I think.

Deep Sight:

You are definitely wrong, so please do take it back:

Outcrop coal was used in Britain during the Bronze Age (3000–2000 BC), where it has been detected as forming part of the composition of funeral pyres.[5][6] In Roman Britain, with the exception of two modern fields, "the Romans were exploiting coals in all the major coalfields in England and Wales by the end of the second century AD".[7] Evidence of trade in coal (dated to about AD 200) has been found at the inland port of Heronbridge, near Chester, and in the Fenlands of East Anglia, where coal from the Midlands was transported via the Car Dyke for use in drying grain.[8] Coal cinders have been found in the hearths of villas and military forts, particularly in Northumberland, dated to around AD 400. In the west of England contemporary writers described the wonder of a permanent brazier of coal on the altar of Minerva at Aquae Sulis (modern day Bath) although in fact easily accessible surface coal from what became the Somerset coalfield was in common use in quite lowly dwellings locally.[9] Evidence of coal's use for iron-working in the city during the Roman period has been found.[10] In Eschweiler, Rhineland, deposits of bituminous coal were used by the Romans for the smelting of iron ore.[7]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal

The Industrial Revolution only signified large scale use of coal on a massive industrial scale. Coal was already in use hundreds of years prior. It was already being used in hearths to keep warm as far back as AD 400 in Northumberland! Maybe that is when you imagine the Industrial revolution started. Please joo.

Yes I was wrong about the use of coal in pre-industrial societies. However that doesn't change the main thrust of my point. The coal that was used is OutCrop coal. You know what that is. That is not coal that is mined, but a coal seam that is exposed to the surface of the earth. There is no difference between using this coal and foraging for sticks and bits of wood to burn.
Mined Coal is a different matter.
But having said that too, mining was common the world over. It seems even Neanderthal man mined. So mining is not dependent on climate.

I am yet to hear of a technology that developed due to the effect of the climate on the mind of the people that developed it.

Krayola:


I think a lot of people think history of societies is like the sciences or math, where you can have a theory and formula, and just plug it into any problem and voila. . . u have the answer. Human behavior and culture does not work like that. No specifics= no plausible theory. At least that is what I think.

This is a very deep comment that ties in neatly with the topic of this thread.  The formulas of which you speak are not just any mathematical formulas but specifically LINEAR Formulas. 

A linear equation is an algebraic equation in which each term is either a constant or the product of a constant and (the first power of) a single variable.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linear_equation

I personally believe technological advancement has more to do with LIBERTY than with any other thing.

Liberty of expression, liberty of thought (mental liberty), of speech, of choice of lifestyle, of anything in spheres related to mankind.

The more the liberty to encourage the human being, the greater the form of advancement.

The argument for climate has interesting points, but if there was no liberty to choose to resist the climate (e.g. in a rigid society that forces the members to resist change, for whatever reasons), there would be little or no technology.

Pastor AIO:


Yes I was wrong about the use of coal in pre-industrial societies. However that doesn't change the main thrust of my point.

It does. And aside this, the main point you make is altogether misfooted and betrays a failure to grasp the pith of the discourse.

The coal that was used is OutCrop coal. You know what that is. That is not coal that is mined, but a coal seam that is exposed to the surface of the earth. There is no difference between using this coal and foraging for sticks and bits of wood to burn.

Again you did not read my post. You did not read the extract. There was outcrop coal, but there has also been mined coal well before the Industrial Revolution -

These easily accessible sources had largely become exhausted (or could not meet the growing demand) by the 13th century, when underground mining from shafts or adits was developed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal

You are not concentrating.

But having said that too, mining was common the world over.  It seems even Neanderthal man mined.  So mining is not dependent on climate.

This is mildly irritating. You are not reading before responding. I have said TWICE now that nobody has said mining is limited to temperate regions. What I said  - and this is the second time I am repeating it - is that historically there was not much mining in the warmer regions as compared with the other regions. Dispute this if you will, but for heaven's sake read and digest the statement before responding.

Now frankly this is altogether beside the point, and this is why i said you have not grasped the pith of the discourse at all. Because the analogy drawn was not regarding the fact of mining by itself in the first place. If you had actually read my post you would see that what i discussed was the vareigated ripple effects that arise from the very fact of a society requiring constant and ever new sources of heat. That requirement is what i described as an impetus, a spur that invariably gravitates towards the development of systems that lead to industralization. So mining was only mentioned in that it is but one means that men have used to acquire fuels. The main point is not the fact of mining. The main point is the fact of having to constantly procure ever more sources of heat. This is a huge impetus.

Accordingly your response was irrelevant and off-tangent to the point made.

I am yet to hear of a technology that developed due to the effect of the climate on the mind of the people that developed it.

Obviously you did not bother to open any of the links i provided or even skim through Huntington's book on Climate and Civilization. It is starkly puzzling that you could write this and in another breath deny not appreciating the relationship between climate and culture. The truth is that you do not have a grasp of that relationship, because if you did you would not say this: because what is culture if not a manifestation of the mind in its environment? ? ? -: it is indeed the first expression of the mind on its environment.

Krayola:


There is nothing simple about explaining human behavior. We are very complex and dynamic and besides the basic need to eat, drink, be happy and stuff like that, one size fits all theories usually fail to explain human behavior. There are too many factors that shape human life and experience.

Nobody denies this. This does not mean that we can not observe factors that are more pre-eminent and more influential than others. And as far as the evidence goes, Climate is the biggest factor so far.

Two countries can have similar geography, similar climate, but different types of government and different policies and ideologies etc, and as a result turn out to be different over time. Imagine we were having this debate in the European dark ages. How would you explain the innovation of the Muslims living right beside them, and the European's own stagnation. Climate? Geography? I doubt it. One will need to understand the religion, the type of government and what their priorities were, the response of the people, etc. Any theory that does not go that deep, is just playing games.

How does this change the glaring fact that virtually all technological impetus has derived from the temperate regions of the world?

It is amazing to see people speak about the most extraenous things whilst ignoring the most simple and obvious pointers.

Think Ghana and Nigeria. Think 20-30 years ago, and think about 2010. Ghana now on the upswing, Naija spiraling into the bottomless abyss. . . Climate? Geography? How can you explain this? Now think about the debate we have been having and try to put these things in context. Can you honestly say one can narrow down the differences amongst all these civilizations over such extended periods of time to their climate?

It is most annoying when something is said repeatedly and yet repeated attempts are made to misrepresent what is said. Stop it. Nobody here attempted to state that there is no factor other than climate.

When it comes to arguing what is obvious, I don’t have as much patience as Deepsight does. I commend him for having answered all the questions raised so far on this issue, questions that I might have been too impatient to answer.

But one thing I noticed is that posters have shifted their post; they have shifted from saying that "climate or climatic changes does not affect technology" to "it does affect technology development but it is not the principle factor"; if so why are still arguing then? The argument was triggered by the statement that climatic changes like tornadoes have no purpose and hence does not fit into a universe designed for life. And finally even the posters that held such views have finally accepted that climatic changes do affect mankind’s technological development only that it is not the principle factor.

Whether it is the principle factor or not, the bottom line is that my point is made; "that such climatic changes are not purposeless but fit in very well in a universe designed for life to thrive." And I rest my case.

Actually I never said that climatic changes and natural disasters are the only instigators of mankind towards technological development. While I maintain that they instigated technological developments, and also affected culture, way of living, way of thinking, behavior, and even the color of the skins of humans, other factors did come into play as well.

From the types of arguments I see in this thread, I won’t be surprised if somebody tries to deny that climate has an effect on the color of the skin of humans. And also Krayola kept mentioning Geography as one of the factors, as if he doesn’t know that climate and climatic changes are parts of Geography or are inseparably linked with Geography.

InesQor:

I personally believe technological advancement has more to do with LIBERTY than with any other thing.

Liberty of expression, liberty of thought (mental liberty), of speech, of choice of lifestyle, of anything in spheres related to mankind.

The more the liberty to encourage the human being, the greater the form of advancement.

The argument for climate has interesting points, but if there was no liberty to choose to resist the climate, there would be no technology.

Yes but why do some cultures develop a tradition of liberty while others didn’t?  Liberty is part of the culture; the culture is molded by many circumstances including climate under which the culture evolved.

Posters act as if these factors are isolated, as if I dont acknowlege that there were other factors as well. These factors all work hand in hand and are intricately linked to each other, but the fact remains that climate or climatic changes a is one of them.

The point that posters are not seeing is that cultures in the equatorial regions developed the technology that they needed to survive too; but their climate did not require as much technological protection as was required by those in the temperate regions. Hence cultures in the temperate regions developed more technologically.

Somebody made mention about the need to shelter from heat; he forgot that our forefathers invented the mud house architecture. The mud house was enough to combat the need to keep from heat; it keeps you cool in the day and warm(to a certain degree) in the night. Such technology would not suffice to deal with climatic demands of Europe; the mud house wouldn’t be able to handle the heavy weight of snow deposits on its roof during winter. The mud house wouldn’t shelter you from coldness of winter.

The African had no need to think about supplying his mud house with running water because there was always a river not too far away, and the weather always allowed water to be in liquid form. The European had to think about how to keep the water liquid during winter; he had to think on how to make the water run in his house so that he wouldn’t have to go out in the cold during winter to fetch water; he even had to look for a way to bath and relive his bowls within the warmth of his house. You see his climate demanded a more sophisticated technology than the mud house.

This is just one example, I can go on and on but there is no need. Science has confirmed that climate has an effect on the mood of the people, and also on the color of people’s skin.
If climate can affect the mood, that means it affects the thinking, and disposition too. Things like “liberty, freethinking and etc” can be described or grouped under the mood of the culture; they all constitute to what we describe as cultural mood or behavior.

Every people, every culture responds or reacts to their climate; this response or reaction often leads to great inventions that make life easier. Hence climatic changes are not without a purpose; it does fit in perfectly with a universe designed for life.

Thanks