Dreaming of a Wide Open Sky

Diamond describes how environmental variations drove the earliest of human development, following our species up to the European Industrial Revolution.  I am wondering how much his theory applies to our development after this point in time; and if it does not apply, what does?

The dreams of societies across the ages have a profound impact on their behavior and the way that they progress.  During the middle ages in Europe, the so-called "Holy Land" and the crusades into it altered the continent's history.  The ancient Greeks told legends of their Gods meeting mortals.  Perhaps it was this search for the divine in nature that led to their society's tremendous progress in mathematics and science.

One could say that society's dreams today have grown more primitive.  People hope for peace and unity - not only with their fellow man but also with the planet - as if it was another supernatural being that had to be ritually appeased.  This has been a goal for enlightened folks throughout history.  A person's influence in this respect has grown quite a bit today, as the internet allows one's opinions to be transmitted and shared quickly and widely.  The far corners of the world have now been mapped out and a citizen's freedoms have expanded.  It is now far easier than it has ever been to get on a plane and build a school or a house somewhere; to make a sign, tweet together a mob, and protest an issue on your government's doorstep.

People also dream of the stars, and of continuing humanity's journey from the African plains off of Earth completely.  This follows a bit more of the "frontier" mindset, very similair to the way European youth would dream of the "Land of Opportunity" on the Atlantic's other shore.

Unfortunately much of the enthusiasm that was felt in North America about space was lost after the Soviet Union collapsed and the Cold War's space race petered out.  Public opinion drives policy, and so - short of another Cold War or some massive shift in public thinking - it is unlikely that a government will be behind mankind's next push for the stars.  Getting into space requires a lot more than a boat, today it would have to be a collaborative effort between many nations and many citizens (an important distinction) to reach Mars or beyond.  More likely is the private sector seeing some opportunity for profit in space, which might (fingers crossed) drive a "gold rush" off-planet.

Homegrown Food Stuffs

Within the next few decades, the last few societies that survive as hunter-gatherers will make the switch to food production.  Humans began their struggle towards today as hunter-gatherers, indeed our closest relatives, the Chimpanzees, also exist as hunter-gatherers.

When the last Aboriginal Australian decides to buy food from a supermarket instead of gathering it as they traditionally would, when the last isolated tribe in the Amazon decides to begin growing the seeds that the "civilized" missionaries offer to bring them, humankind will lose the last of their commitment to the hunter-gatherer lifestyle.

Barring some world-wide natural disaster and the breaking down of food distribution from farms to the city's tables, humanities shift from living off the land, to cultivating the land will be permament.

Is this a loss we should be concerned with?

Or is this progress that we should celebrate?

I believe that this is definite progress, another sign that humans are not monkys with larger-than-average brains.  I am interested if any of you hold the opposite opinion, not just so I can argue the point more later (I kid, I kid), but mainly because I geniunly don't know if there is any way to prevent this loss.  How can we justify some people still living like this?

Atahuallpa

The largest population shift of the modern age has been the "discovery" and subsequent colonization of the New World by Europeans.  Nearly all of the natives of the New World were conquered, assimiliated, or gradually dissappeared under European influence.  Why were the Native Americans at such a disadvantage? Considering that they had colonized the New World over 13,000 years ago, why were they not able to repel the "invading" Europeans or at least welcome them as equals?

A stylized Atahuallpa, a Spanish soldier
is visible at the bottom left.

Jared Diamond presents the meeting between Atahuallpa and Pizarro as one of the defining moments of this seeming inequality.  Atahuallpa was the absolute monarch of the Inca empire, which at the time of his meeting with Pizarro was the largest and most advanced society in all of the New World.  Pizarro represented King Charles I of Spain, which at the time was the most powerful state in Europe.  While this seemed to be an important meeting of two superpowers, Pizarro had with him only a ragtag group of 168 Spanish soldiers while Atahuallpa was leading a trained and experienced army of 80,000 soldiers.  Why then was Pizarro able to capture Atahuallpa and hold him ransom for 8 months?

The reason, as Diamond explains, is mainly technological.  The Incan warriors carried clubs as their primary weapons, and wore quilted armor, which provided good protection against their type of weapons.  The Spanish wore metal armor and carried mainly metal edged weapons.  Their armor was good protection against the clubs, with most strikes leading to injury, not death.  The Spaniard's swords and daggers easily penetrated the Incas quilted armor.  And perhaps of greatest advantage to the Spanish, Pizarro's party had 68 horses.  The Incas had never domesticated a large animal, for farming or for combat.  The horse enabled the Spanish to travel longer distances than they would on foot, to attack quickly by surprise or flee successfully from a stronger force.

Francisco Pizarro González

It was ignorance of this technological disadvantage, and ignorance of the Spaniard's ambition to conquer their New World that led Atahuallpa to walk with only a small guard right up to Pizarro's force.  Then, still not understanding that the Spanish were a conquering force and not a raiding party, Atahuallpa naively offered (and did!)  pay Pizarro history's largest ransom*.  Pizarro's background included stories of Cortés and his conquest of the Aztecs.  European knowledge moved him to set an ambush, while Incan knowledge made Atahuallpa ignorant that such an ambush would take place.


* The ransom was the volume of the room where Atahuallpa was held prisoner in gold, and twice in silver.  It boggles the mind that the Incas were able to deliver this demand within two months of its asking.

Polynesian Development

Diamond puts forward the settlement of the Polynesian Islands as an "experiment" in the ways that geography and ecology can shape human development.

According to most evidence, the first islands of Polynesia were settled around 2000 years ago.  These islands, which included Fiji, Tonga, and Somoa, were where the distinctive Polynesian culture developed.  The people spread north and eastwards, eventually populating the Hawaiian islands 1700 years ago and Easter Island around 1200 years ago.

This is a good experiment in human development because the Polynesian settlers, as they spread out through the islands, all brought with them the same three domesticated animals (the pig, chicken, and dog) and were all - genetically and culturally - very similar.  Although they started out on a level playing field, their individual societies after several centuries would become vastly different.  The Hawaiian islands would support a vibrant society with intensive food production and a complex system of royalty while the settlers of the Chatham islands in the south would actually revert back to hunting-gathering even though their ancestors had a stable way of food production.

Diamond's hypothesis is extremely well supported by the settlement of the Polynesian islands.  They were all settled by the same culture and the same peoples, who spread east and north from the Melanesian islands, and they all ended up creating different cultures and completely different ways of survival.

While reading this, I wondered how much one can apply geography to the behavior of society today.  Can we still assume, as Diamond does, that humans everywhere are the same?

The movements that he studies in Guns, Germs, and Steel take place over hundreds of years.  Perhaps we now move to quickly for these ideas to apply.

Why in a hundred years we may have begun settling Mars.  Hey: I can dream too :P

Mr. Roboto

The question that should be asked of robotics today is not when an intelligent robot is created, but how long before a mob would tear it apart. This is what I do, I ask questions about questions that we haven't found the answer to. But don't thank me, thank my awesome powers of precognition.

Other stupid questions:

• Once space travel is commonplace, who will get sovernty on the moon? On the other planets? Other solar systems?
• If time travel supposedly is possible, why were there no grieving time-tourists watching as 9/11 took place?
• The end goal of capitalism is for everyone to buy from 'the company' and for everyone to work for 'the company.' Isn't this the same goal of communism? Only with 'the government' replacing 'the company.' Makes you wonder what the cold war was really about.
• If light travels slower through certain substances (refraction) shouldn't time move slower inside these substances as well? Remember, time slows the closer to the speed of light one goes.

Any stupid answers?