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.

@ 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

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.

haha just saw it now.

Na jealousy dey catch am

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

Pastor AIO:

To what end?  Will the abolition of religion get people to stop saying things like "all yorubas are illiterates". 

I think yourubas are legendary  One day we will rule the world.


I think imperialism destroys the world. Religion has been a part of the whole process so in a way it is a big part of the problem imo. So Yes. Maybe the world will be a better place if religion gets "wiped out" . .At least institutionalized religion. I just hope by wiped out u don't mean rwanda part 2, or holocaust reloaded.

I think when we die consciousness ends. We decompose and feed some soil or plant and just help keep life going. Just my opinion tho.

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.

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:


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.

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.

justcool:

@Krayola,

Thanks for your response, I will treat the points you raised accordingly:

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.

Hi, correct guy. Hope u are having happy holidays.  Thanks for your response. Today na boxing day so na so so running up and down with family peoples but I promise to give a detailed response. I know most of my recent posts have been in haste and maybe I was not as clear as I could have been in expressing my concerns.

Just one quick point tho. or two, or three    I think what u are doing is what is called reductionist history. Suggesting phenomena like technological innovation can fit nicely into some straight forward "logical" explanation. Most historians or anthropologists will tell you that stuff like that do not fit into tidy little theories like that, but are as a result of a complex matrix of factors interacting with each other. What triggers a culture of innovation in culture a at location a, might have an opposite effect on culture b in location b.

Another point that you seem to be overlooking is that Europe arrived late on the scene as far as technological innovation. In fact for a while Europe was anti-innovation. There have been great civilizations with great technological innovations. . . several of them, long before Europe became a technological powerhouse. The renaissance ushered in this culture of innovation you speak of, and I can guarantee you that earthquakes and winter had little to do with it. 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. In North America, a culture freedom of thought combined with capitalism and stuff like the railroads that turned that huge land mass into one big market gave new incentives for innovation. The promise of wealth . . can also inspire people to be very innovative. The Islamic empires that went thru a golden age of innovation, right beside, and during Europe's dark-ages, are another example that give me reason to doubt this your theory of "earthquake  and winter are coming let's get smart and invent stuff" theory.   

And I also don't understand how tha world was a global village in 1900, but I will deal with that when I respond  later.

Thanks 

Stop this moderator nonsense and become my publicist.

Abandon the scum from Manchester and move to Catalunya!

Joagbaje:

He doesnt make sense to me. His problem is inferiority complex. There is no black brain. Many nigerian students abroad are doing far better than their mates. So there's no brain problem.

The next issue has to do with our system . And we should know that every developed nation had their troubles in time past. Before white men came. We had great empires and kingdoms in Nigeria. We had the Egyptians and ethiopean kingdoms.Where was America then? The westerners didn't do a good finishing when they left. It left us in division as a nation without ideology. People were bought together without purpose. But we are awake now. The old generation of politician are beirng replaced with the fresh blood and broad minded people. We don't buy everything the world dumps on  us any longer. We are embracing technology . Africa is fast developing now. In the next few years we will take out place in world affairs.

The Arabians were once seen as morons. Now the Arabian world is a high-tech tourist centre .we must believe in ourselves and our future. It is not about the colour of the skin. They once used pit latrine in the Uk. Others have passed our phase before. We don't need preachers like this who destroys hope in a people that needs to believe in themselves that they matter in this world. Has he been to Nigeria ?.  He only watch CNN report.     

Thanks for this post. I was getting depressed reading some of the stuff that has been posted about Africa in the last 24 hrs or so on a couple of threads.

justcool:


Look at countries where there are a more dangers of natural disasters; these countries are the most technically advanced countries today;

Do you have any data correlating frequency and/or severity of natural disasters to level of technological advancement?  

I did some checking and the far East and middle east are historically the worst hit areas for natural disasters. . except diseases which are more evenly spread.  SO far I can find nothing to support your theory. This site has a very very comprehensive, detailed list of worldwide disasters from 1900-2008. It's a file you have to download and I've been going through it like say I no get life for a while but your theory is not supported at all. http://infochimps.com/datasets/disasters-wordwide-from-1900-2008

For example, the areas most frequently and severely hit by earthquakes are indicated on the maps. Besides Italy, nowhere in Eurpoe even shows up on the radar. California no even pop.  scroll halfway down this page to see the maps http://redmonk.com/sogrady/2010/01/15/earthquake-data/

And based on your theory Africa should have space age flood prediction/prevention technology because flood don dey show us pepper since nineteen gbogboro.

If u can show me some kinda paper or report from anthropologists or any academics or sumn that shows a corelation between natural disasters and technological advancement I will really really appreciate it. I don't want to dismiss your theory until I'm sure it deserves to be dismissed. My own sense tells me it's not valid. . . but what do I know  

To be honest this theory of yours is so out there that I don't even know how to respond to it.

justcool:

I never said that ALL inventions are instigated by natural disaster. Like they say “necessity is the mother of all inventions”. Survival of natural disasters is a necessity for the survival of humans; hence natural disaster gave humans the impetus to so many inventions.

But even the things that you mentioned above are driven by mans urge to deal with nature and natural disasters. Let’s quickly go through the items you presented.

Gun—Part of the reasons why guns are invented was to secure one from threats in the environment like enemies and etc; also included are natural threats like wild animals and etc. It also helps man in hunting wild animals, in dealing with very fast animals. Nature definitely is definitely one of the factors that instigated man to make advancement in weaponry.

Printing Press—Helps man spread the news of an oncoming natural disaster faster than he would have been able to. Men that have survived natural disasters can write a book about how to deal with such disasters and hence preserve their knowledge and also circulate it easier. Natural disasters may not directly be the instigator to the invention of the Printing press but it definitely contributed in the evolution of printing. Some books are printed to survive natural disasters like rain and extreme cold.

Washing machine – Isn’t this obvious!!!! Our forefathers didn’t have to invent a washing machine because they didn’t have as much impetus or need for it as the European had. Rivers always flowed in Sub Sahara Africa, and the sun is always there to dry your cloths after washing them; while in Europe during winter the rivers and lakes are frozen.  How do you was your cloths in a very cold water or in a frozen water. They had to invent machine that heats up the water, washes cloths and dries the cloths for them. Otherwise how do you dry cloths in winter when the sunlight is hardly felt?   

Toilet Paper – Isn’t this obvious. In Africa due to the perpetual summer and evergreen forests and ever flowing rives, our forefathers had very little impetus towards looking for alternative means to wipe themselves. They can relieve themselves in the next forest and take a bath in the next river. What do they need toilet paper for? Nature gave it all to them.  In Europe during winter everywhere is frozen, it is extremely uncomfortable and injuries to health to take off your cloths in the cold weather to relieve yourself. And afterwards you wouldn’t find rivers or liquid water to wash off with. Hence they had to think of a way to relieve themselves inside the warmth of their houses, and invent material in place of water with which they can wipe themselves.

Automobile—Isn’t this obvious!! Have you ever tried traveling in winter? No matter how warmly you are dressed after a while of walking in the cold winter you will start freezing. Hence they had to look for a way to travel in a container in which the temperature is controlled. Even the ancient roman horse driven vehicles, some of them have a cubicle enclosed and protected from the elements. All these contributed in the development of automobiles.

Air conditioning – Here you are definitely kidding!! The temperatures pretty much remains at the same comfortable zone all year round in Africa, hence the African has the least need to control or condition the temperatures of the air in his environment. In Europe during summer it’s very hot and during winter it’s very cold. Europeans in their quest to achieve a relatively stable temperature invented air conditioners. Since they are used to a relatively cool weather, with an air conditioner they can maintain this coolness during summer, and maintain it also during winter. The air conditioner helps to maintain a narrow range of temperature in a room by giving out cold air when the room is hot and giving out warm air when the room is cold.

Moreover even if natural disaster instigated them to only a few inventions; by inventing these few inventions they developed a culture of invention, while the African remained in the state of relying on nature to provide for him.

Nature is too kind to Africans. The harshness or severity of weather in Europe is the best thing that ever happened to cultures that evolved in Europe. Histories have been wondering why some tribes of people ventured into the cold, severe and unmerciful hands of European weather, while some remained in the warm and comfortable cradle of mother Africa.

Thanks

WOW!!  WTF?!?!

justcool:


Every creature is INDISPENSIBLE to an Eco system because the creatures don’t just contribute to the ecosystem but they are part of the ecosystem. So if any creature is removed that particular ecosystem collapses in that it changes.

Ok. A change in an ecosystem is the same as a collapse. If you say so.  

justcool:

Yes Zebras developed the stripes in as a strategy to evade preys like lions. But your argument here has no bases because even if the strips appeared by chance the fact remains that the existence of lion in the environment affected the evolution of Zebras. If there were no lions then the Zebras that evolved didn’t evolve strips may have survived along with those that did. In the end the resultant of would have been very different from what it is today.

The strips made Zebras what they are today, it helped them survive some of the threats of being eaten by lions; weather this strips came by chance or not does not matter here. What matters is that the danger presented by lions affected the evolution of Zebras.  

If I go to intentionally disrupt an ecosystem, destroying some species in there, and new species come about eventually as a result of my willful disruption of the ecosystem, wouldn't you be able to make this same argument that my purpose is to help new species spring up? That if Krayola did not exist we would have had a different result?

You see what I'm getting at when I say this theory is too convenient? It wouldn't matter how things turn out u can always fit it into your worldview.

Natural and artificial factors affect what species come about and what go extinct. . . It's a complex matrix that can yield lots and lots of different results. I think nature is indifferent. . . it just does it's thing. .  species try to survive and some are successful while some fail.

justcool:

Is our earth not part of our universe? The fact that there are parts of the universe hostile to life does not disprove that the universe is designed for life. You car is designed to accommodate you, but you can only be accommodated in a small potion of the car, in the seats; the fact that other parts of the car, like the engine, the tires and the roof, are uncomfortable and inhabitable to humans does not mean that the car is not designed for humans.

I don't have to disprove anything. I'm not even trying to disprove anything. I'm just asking you to explain how you came to realize that the entire universe is designed for the life in it to thrive?

My car is designed to get me and my friends around. I am aware of the functions of most of the parts of my car and I can explain how they help my car to do what it does. What data do u have about the entire universe that lead you to believe conclusively that it was designed for the life in it to thrive? Can you honestly say you know what most of the parts of the universe do, and why they do them?

Jenwitemi:

Black people don't understand the world!! That's right! How the hell are they going to understand the world now when they have all kinds of religions, which take away their creative powers, right up their behind?

- How can black people understand the world when they do not know how to take responsibility for the way they want to live?
- How can they understand the world when they spend their entire existence clinging on to the frocks of all kinds of "african gods", including jesus, jehovah, mohammed and allah?
We have no power of our own, they say! Only jesus can do it for us, they say. Only allah can help us only if we can just stick our face on the dirty floors in worship 5 times a day, they say.
- How can black people understand the world when they have been stuck up in a tiny box all their lives with nothing but tunnel vision?
-People who believe solely on some gods to come down from heaven to help them do anything and everything cannot be expected to build seafaring boats. It takes self-belief to do that.

The pastor says that blacks need to talk to jesus. Is that not THE problem? Where is the jesus that blacks need to talk to? Is he the same one that has not been here since almost two millenia? Is that the one? Well, i wish them goodluck in their "discussions" with him.

Black folks are Zap.e.d, alright, and that includes the pastor himself.

Jenwitemi:

^^^^Yes, Ghana. Forgot about those people. Very technologically advanced and scientifically accomplished black folks. Don't they build their own ships and commercial planes? The other black african nations are very proud of them and should imitate them.

Hellooo  hope u are henjoying your holidays?

I'm  not sure what the point u are making is. Are u sayin that if black people didn't believe in God or god's they would be technologically advanced and build chips and boats  and rocket launshers? What are u said?

Jenwitemi:

Meaningless and purposeless CHANCE is the God of the atheists.

Aliens from planet coocoo is the God of the theists

I think any world view that gives life (on earth), or humans, some special standing in the entire universe is most likely distorted.

That seems to suggest that if some comet landed on earth and wiped out all life, the universe would have been a failed venture. Dunno about that. . . What would the universe do differently if life on earth were wiped out?

Thank goodness for Ghana!!

justcool:

The universe is designed for the life in it to thrive; for the creatures in it to evolve, or come into being. Everything in the earth is so precisely geared to accommodate life.

This is the part of your post I had difficulty with. What do u mean by "life" and what do you mean by "thrive"? The first part is about the universe. . . How do you know this about the universe? The part about the earth is ok. . . though the "precisely" part is debatable. But how do you know this about the whole universe (designed for life in it to thrive)?

These are quotes from the wikipedia article u referred me to.

Introduction of new elements, whether biotic or abiotic, into an ecosystem tend to have a disruptive effect. In some cases, this can lead to ecological collapse or "trophic cascading" and the death of many species within the ecosystem. Under this deterministic vision, the abstract notion of ecological health attempts to measure the robustness and recovery capacity for an ecosystem; i.e. how far the ecosystem is away from its steady state.
Often, however, ecosystems have the ability to rebound from a disruptive agent. The difference between collapse or a gentle rebound is determined by two factors—the toxicity of the introduced element and the resiliency of the original ecosystem.

If every species was indispensable like u say, the extinction of one would be the collapse of the ecosystem, I think. That does not seem to be the case.

Given the great diversity among organisms on earth, most ecosystems only changed very gradually, as some species would disappear while others would move in. Locally, sub-populations continuously go extinct, to be replaced later through dispersal of other sub-populations

Maybe there is something I just don't understand. I admit biology no be my specialty, but I think i still have a clue.


About the whole natural disaster being the driving force of technological advancement, i don't buy it. Maybe some technological advancements. . .but for the phenomenon as a whole, i think that is a very big claim to try to defend.

Rise of a merchant class in Europe, trade, the need to produce more for bigger markets, security from invading armies,humanism, mere curiosity and ingenuity of the human etc these kinds of factors have had more of an impact on technological advancement as a whole than any natural disaster IMO. During the dark ages the Europeans weren't inventing anything. . . . The arabs were though. What natural disasters were responsible for that?

justcool:

@Krayola

Here you are kidding right? I will give you a few inventions: weather Doppler, weather raiders, earthquake dictators, earthquake warning devices, accelerometers, seismology and etc.

How many cities in Nigeria have a sound fire department? Not many. Why? Because they can afford not to, since natural fire disasters hardly occur in Nigeria.

Places like California cannot afford not have a very very very sound fire department in all cities. Have you ever heard California wild fires?  How much advancement have our scientists in Nigeria done in understanding fire and how to prevent them? None.

How Seismologist does we have in Nigeria? Places like California cannot afford not have as many sound ones as possible. The threat of earthquake has instigated them to develop that field of knowledge called seismology. And yes technology helps in dictation natural disasters before hand; it helps in communicating to the people of the approaching disaster; it helps in preventing a lot of deaths and etc. I can go on and on and on.  In downtown Los Angeles they have skyscrapers that have pliers of shock absorbers so that during earthquake they never fail. What gave the engineers the urge to develop this technology?

Part of the reason why Africa is backwards technologically is that nature is too kind and gentle with us. While the ancient Europeans were racking their brains trying to figure out how to survive the next winter; our forefathers were happily basking in the all-year-round warmth of sub Sahara Africa. The Europeans had to invent thick clothing, they had to invent heaters or the winter will kill most of them. I can go on and on but I hope you got the gist.

Thanks

What about the gun, the printing press, the washing machine, toilet paper, the automobile, air conditioning  . . What natural factors led to these inventions and does the world outside Africa  have a monopoly on these factors?

justcool:

@Krayola

What is ecosystem? We live in the age of information; why don’t you type in ecosystem on your search bar and read the definition.

The eco system comprises the entire organism in an environment, if you remove one organism the ecosystem changes, the environment changes. Creatures evolve to survive their environment; in a different environment the evolution of creatures takes a different course. That’s why species that evolved in isolation, like islands, look different and behave definitely than their cousins in the mainland.

Please read the definition of the ecosystem here:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecosystem

I did not ask for the definition of an ecosystem. I asked u to explain how EVERY species in an ecosystem is INDISPENSABLE and what exactly u mean by the term when u use it. U did not deal with the question i raised. How is every species indispensable? Defining an ecosystem has nothing to do with what i asked u.

justcool:

Yes that’s how it works. Creatures adapt to their environments by developing traits that help them survive the dangers of the environment. Adaptation is a single step in the journey of evolution, although not all adaptations lead to evolution.

Zebras developed strips as strategy for their survival. Some scientists believe that it is a camouflage because a lion cannot make out one zebra from a herd of Zebras owing to the strips which confuse the lion. Do you ever watch National Geographic channel, discovery or science channel? A lion hardly ever chases a herd of Zebras, but when one ventures away from the heard that’s when the lion chases it.

But don’t take my words for it. Goggle it or visit an evolutionary biologist. You can start by reading this:
http://whyzz.com/why-do-zebras-have-stripes
http://whyzz.com/answer/detail/search/why+do+creatures+evolve/qid/133/subcategory/48/category/7

My question is that did the stripes appear BECAUSE they helped zebras avoid predators, or did they appear by chance and then helped those that had them outlive those that didn't and pass the genes on. That makes a big difference to your theory

justcool:

Honestly I have no idea what you are talking about here.

You said the universe is designed for the life in it to thrive. I'm saying how did u come to this knowledge of the universe. Not just our planet, not just our solar system, but the whole universe. . .

justcool:

Also it is not a good idea to use obscenities, like in a forum like this where under aged kids have access to.

They are just words. context is everything. why is nudity in classical art considered beautiful, but an exotic dancer considered obscene by many? I was expressing myself in a way that comes naturally to me. They were not insults nor were they meant to ridicule anybody. I also think under aged kids have no business on a public internet forum. I get your point tho and i will tone it down. 

justcool:


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.

Look at countries where there are a more dangers of natural disasters; these countries are the most technically advanced countries today; as opposed to Nigeria where nature is always gentle, and hence the people are lazy and don’t have good work ethics. Compare California, where there are always earthquakes with Nigeria. Three days ago a huge tree fell and destroyed the power lines here in California, within minutes Edison(Electricity Power supply company) was already there fixing it; I remember in Nigerian if such a thing happens, you have to go beg and bribe NEPA before they will show up, and they usually show up after days or weeks. The constant danger of natural disasters has caused the western world to learn to always be ready, to advance in technology and etc.

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 

justcool:

Every creature on earth is an indispensable part of the eco system; every animal, even those invincible are of multipurpose.

I think this is just your opinion. If you have credible data to back this up I would love to see it. I don't think the ecosystem's health hinges on the survival of any one species, or even any several species. Certain species survival might hinge on the ecosystem continuing in a specific state, but I doubt it's the other way around. IMO there are lots of disposable creatures. Creatures may serve some "purpose" in the ecosystem, but that does not equate to them being indispensable. If you can elaborate on this "indispensable" part it would be great. I think it just sounds nice to think we are all special pieces of one puzzle. If a species becomes extinct. ,   others that need it to survive may be threatened, but this may just be an opportunity for others to thrive. The composition of the ecosystem may change, but thats about it IMO. I ain't no biologist or scientist tho so I could be wrong. I just don't buy that indispensable stuff.

IMO, wipe us out and neither the ecosystem nor universe would give a flyin pukc !!

justcool:

The danger that the mountain lion presents in its environment helped in guiding the evolution of other creatures, creatures like man. In the presence on such dangers, the creature can only follow these routes: (1) Evolve towards being almost invincible to the mountain lions; (2) evolve a more sublime body to aid its speed so that it can out run the mountain lion; (3) evolved larger brains so that it can out smart the mountain lion.

Here we have identified 3 major purposes that the mountain lion served in the preservation and evolution of life. Creatures like Zebras followed route (1), they evolved strips which makes them difficult to make out by the lions; lions have poor vision in the day time.
Creatures like humans followed route (3). The dangers presented by creatures like the mountain lion and the rattle snake it one of the impetuous that made prehistoric Homo sapiens develop huge brain; and we humans are products of this evolution. With our huge brains we are equipped with a greater intelligence which enables us to easily outsmart a mountain lion.

Some creatures are immune to the venom of the rattle snakes; some creatures like pigs have thick layers of fat on their skin that prevents the penetration of venom into the blood steam

I can go on and on; but the fact remains such dangers, as those presented by the rattle snake and the mountain lion, helped in making so many creatures what they are today. This danger causes creatures to be on the alert, to move, and their by preventing indolence; this alertness, this movement is very necessary for a healthy life. For where there is lack or movement, lack of exercise, the creature easily.

Is that really how it works? do species develop features to a specific end, or do the features occur by chance/accident and when beneficial, help those with the features to thrive? What I mean is, for ezzampul did zebras develop stripes in response to a threat, or did some just happen to develop stripes which helped them to outlive those that did not? Maybe someone that understands how this stuff works can explain to us. This explanation u have given seems too convenient. Nature isn't that neat/tidy. At least not IMO.

justcool:

T[b]he universe is designed for the life in it to thrive; for the creatures in it to evolve, or come into being. Everything in the earth is so precisely geared to accommodate life.
[/b]
The question is whether this life evolved as a result of the conditions or whether the condition is put in place so that life can thrive.

The possibility of these conditions coming into being by chance is extremely slim; I chose to believe that it was purposely planed to accommodate life.

Have you ever taken a look at the night sky? The stars and planets add to the beauty of the night sky.

Every planet has a radiation which it sends out to the entire universe; these radiations also help life on earth.

How much life is in the universe? WHat sort of data is this your theory about the universe based on, Life on earth? or have u access to some other life elsewhere in the universe that we do not? I don't think what happens on earth, or in our solar system, is enough to make any inferences about the universe as a whole. Earth may be in a slightly ordered part of the universe. . . doesn't make the entire universe that way, and could also just be a chance occurrence. What I'm saying pretty much is that even if the universe may not be a chance occurrence, the earth very well could be. How do u argue from a created universe (not that u have shown that, but we kinda need to move on from that) to a purposeful earth. One does not follow from, or even remotely suggest the other.