"Guns, Germs, and Steel" and Geographic Determinism

[sgtmac_46]

1. The Europeans brought with them germs that killed over 90% of the people of the Americas. These germs developed because of the domestication of animals and the European dominance of the Americas would most assuredly have been more difficult with these germs. This was, by far, the largest factor.

That factor is actually a very minor one. European culture had advantages over American ones from the very beginning, far before the first Americans died of any germs.

2. The East/West axis made it easier to transport ideas and goods because environmental differences were more similar. The Europeans benifitted from a trade in technology that was not available in the Americas. The sheer number of cultures that lay along the east/west axis of Eurasia was staggering and all of these cultures innovated.

Glad you are finally acknowledging what I have been saying. That is, that it was the exchange of ideas that resulted more in Europes success than physical environmental materials. It was this lack of spreading of ideas that resulted in the stagnant state of the culture in the Americas. Ideas, it appears, are valuable afterall, even by your argument.

Western culture was privy to both physical and geographic resources and it was these resources that allowed it to succeed. If one looks at the actual ideologies that the cultures possessed, one will see that they had very little bearing on the outcome.

That's funny, by your own argument a paragraph earlier it was the geographic ability of these ideas to flow and spread that resulted in success. Now you claim that this proves that the ideas weren't important. I find the contradictory nature of your argument confusing. Before you start claiming your are being "taken out of context" you should explain what you mean by "geographic resources". I'll help you, you mean the geographic locations allow the spread of ideas and technology (which is an idea) to flow more easily. hmmm. I think your ship is sinking further.

The physical resources are only one peice. The other peice is the geographic resources. If one group of people lives within easy access of another group, then exchanges of ideas happen more readily. Any culture would benefit from this exchange. Europeans lived in close proximity to other cultures along an East/West continental axis this gave them the advantage of being able to accumulate technologic resources as a rate faster then native americans. Thus, the environment was a greater determinate of the Europeans success.

Ahhhh. So now you are admitting it is the flow of these ideas, which you first claimed are unimportant, that helped Europeans? lol. I think the boat is about to join the Titanic. Your original thesis was that ideas and ideology matter little. Now you've stated that the environment allowed certain socieities to succeed because they allowed these unimportant ideas to spread more easily. I believe I explained this concept earlier, and you decided to try and refute them. Now you are making the same claims, but still trying to make the same assertions. In reality, the argument you are making is directly out of Diamonds book, and it was made against racial differences not making a difference, not cultural. What has happened is that you've tried to adapt Diamond's arguments for a purpose he didn't intend. I can prove that, as well. Take this sentence

"Europeans lived in close proximity to other cultures along an East/West continental axis this gave them the advantage of being able to accumulate technologic resources as a rate faster then native americans. Thus, the environment was a greater determinate of the Europeans success." Really, a greater determinate than what? Certainly not culture as Diamond was just arguing that it was varied cultural influences that spelled success for Europeans. Clearly Diamond means "was a greater determinate of the European success than race".

The amount of physical resources did not decide this contest. It was the geographic resources as was pointed out above. Access to technology is determined by the a gift of environment in the form of geography. This is still geographic determinism. Western cultures rose to prominance because of these gifts, not because the inherit superiority of its abstract ideals.

Yes, by geographic resources Diamond meant the easy spread of "abstract ideas" such as technology. Further, these abstract ideas were brought and applied to a new environment where they proved, also, to be positive adaptations. Ironic, no? It is you, not Diamond, inserting that this applies to culture. Diamond is clearly referring to racial differences not contributing to a cultures success. Diamond clearly views cultural phenomenon as being very important, otherwise he would not be talking about "geographic resources", which means the ability of ideas and technology to flow and be exchanged. Diamond clearly understands that these "abstract ideas" are clearly important a societies success or failure, he merely claims that they are not inherent in superior or inferior races, but are the result of the free exchange and evolution of "abstract ideas". I think you might be alone on this subject. I think even Diamond has abandoned you.

BTW - Native American culture wasn't as stagnant or stone age as you think. In mesoamerica the structures they built rival structures built in eurasia. Also, in the beginning, Europeans did not bring gold and silver back, they brought food. The native americans were geniuses when it came to food production. They domesticated a number of species that far out stripped what was domesticated in Europe (they relied on stuffs domesticated in the fertile crescent thousands of years ago). When native american species of domesticated food stuffs were spread across the world, a population explosion occurred. It has been argued convincingly that native american food stuffs were the primary factor that allowed societies to industrialize.

They certainly don't rival European structures of today. Your argument that post-Roman European civilization had not adapted much subsequently is nothing new, and really doesn't make your case. Further, your statement that Europeans brought food stuffs back isn't helpful to your argument either. It merely reflects how cultures adapt practices, technology and abstract ideas from other cultures. "When native american species of domesticated food stuffs were spread across the world, a population explosion occurred. It has been argued convincingly that native american food stuffs were the primary factor that allowed societies to industrialize." So, again, we see the power of abstract concepts. Native American adaptations were a primary factor that allwed societies to industrialize? I thought you assertion that success or failure was based on environmental factors, now you claim that adaptations were able to give an environmental advantage? In your attempt to corner me as some sort of Euro-centrist, you have, again, painted yourself in to a corner rhetorically.

All of this is still geographic determinism. The fact that western culture sat at a crossroads was a gift. The technologic gains were another "resource" that Europeans tapped into...and most of these technologies were not even developed by Europeans! Material ideas, like the domestication of horses are valuable. This was pointed out far earier in this thread by Hardheadjarhead. However, they are not the sole product of a group that happens to use them. They are a product of geography and they depend on physical resources for development. Western Culture had the benefit of both and thus rose to prominance because of that...not because of the inherit superiority of its cultural abstracts. I believe I made this distinction far upthread...

Geographic determinism would mean that any two cultures who existed in the same environment would exhibit the same cultural characteristics and the same success or failure in that environment. As we have seen that to clearly be untrue, your theory of Geographic determinism doesn't hold water. As noted before, European Culture utilized American resources far differently than native socities, and with a far different degree of success. This shows, clearly, that geographic location is not the sole deciding factor. Adaptive traits and their ability to give advantage within the environment is the deciding factor. Western Culture rose to dominance because of adaptive traits that allowed it to utilize varied environments to it's advantage. I think I made this distinction far upthread....

 

[Makalakumu]

I notice you buy-pass the inconvenient point that Western Culture living in the Americas was living in the same environment as the natives living in america, with access to the exact same resources. The only diffence between the two groups is the advantage given by access to a wider range of cultural influences in Europe. This, far from proving your, actually destroys it.

Hardly. Culture is comprised of abstract ideas that dictate how people interact, how they worship, what they find funny, what is artistic. Technology is not an abstract idea. It is a material idea whose origin is NOT linked to any of the above abstract ideas. The origin of technology lies in us all regardless of these abstract ideas, because all people use it survive. Europe had access to many other peoples technology and was privy to a faster flow of ideas then the people of the Americas. This geographic/technologic resource helped the European culture rise to prominance over the cultures of the americas.

btw - this process is not adaptation in the sense that the environment is exerting pressure to force people to change. That is negative pressure. This process is akin to building a better mousetrap and then watching as the new design spreads among all people regardless of cultural groupings. This is positive pressure...group selection. More on this later.

As far as the racecar analogy applies to the competition between native americans and europeans, if the native americans build their race car in their garage and the europeans in an advanced engineering lab, when one wins the contest, it is no surprise. The one that benefitted from the technologic resources has a distinct advantage. For the Europeans, the technologic resources were geographically determined. They were not products of the European culture itself. In fact, if one examines the rennaisance period one will see a drawing together of technology that originated in cultures that were vastly different then the European cultures.

One of us has missed the point. I think the majority of others following this post are quickly determining who that is.

Lets reexamine the two arguments in question....

Sometimes when you chop an argument up, you miss the point because the context of the points are linked together. You missed the point of this reasoning by attempting to address each peice separately. The point of the reasoning that culture and not race makes a better thesis because it explains more of the data. I will address the points you made below though...

Actually, this is another error. Societies rise and fall not because they are comprised of a superior race, but because their ability to develope adaptive traits that allow them to interact advantageously with their environment. The environmental factors are the factors with which the society must contend. It's much like saying "An animal is successful or not because of environmental factors". It's really a non-sensical statement. In order to make sense it must say "An animal is successful or not based on it's ability to adapt behaviors that allow it to interact advantageously with the environment."

An individual animal is not a group. They do not adapt in the same way. Natural selection deals with animals on an individual level and it depends on the negative pressure of the environment to weed out individuals who are lesser adapted. Group adaptation is different. Negative pressure exists on smaller scales, but on larger scales, positive pressure determines competitive outcomes. Positive pressure comes from multiple sources. It can come in the form of energy. It can come in the form of resources. It can come in the form of technology. Groups that have a wealth of these have a greater chance of passing on the culture of their groups. This is the concept of group selection and it is used by evolutionary anthropologists to describe cultural replacement. Diamond makes use of this concept in his book.

If that were the case, then Diamond would not have spent so much time arguing against racial primacy. The fact that Diamond refutes old race issues is his only real point. His successful begins and ends with that point alone. That is why his (and your) overall argument IS weaker and not stronger. Don't blame me for this fundamental flaw in your argument. Diamond inadvertantly showed this flaw when he pointed out that native american societies didn't have access to varied cultures that carried new ideas to them like Europeans. It is these new and varied ideas that gave the advantage to European culture, and it is that fact that destroys your original thesis.

You are collapsing concepts. Culture and technology are not synonymous. Culture is comprised of the abstract concepts of human life like the laws we choose to live by, our religion, our humor, our art, our ideology. Technology is comprised of material ideas that translate into actual things that humans use...like food production, domestication, mining techniques, etc. All of this stuff is culturally independent. Technology trades like any commodity and it flows between cultures at a rate that is exponentially greater then the rate at which abstract cultural ideas flow. The two are obviously separate phenomenon because they are governed by such obviously different rule sets. An anthropology professor in my undergrad made this distinction in an entry level, general education class. It's not rocket science, its only logical, because one cannot begin to discuss cultural anthropology without making this distinction.

Here is an example of what I'm talking about. We'll take the often brought up example of Japan. This tiny nation somehow grew powerful enough to take on large neighbors and dominate them. How did this happen? They were not privy to any vast wealth in natural resources. The answer is that they had a technologic revolution. The process started with Commodore Perry fired off his cannons and scared the crap out of Japanese, thus causing them to engage in a wild race to gather up as much technology as they possibly could. While this was happening, the culture was changing, but not because any abstract cultural ideas were attached to the items of technology. Their cultural revolution re-installed an emperor and expanded the samurai ideals to everyone. These were big changes in culture, but they paled in comparison to the changes in technology. In the end, Japan retained its art, its religion, the overall structure of how the people interacted, and its ideology. The cultural "revolution" was more of a "tweak" in comparison with the technologic revolution. The differing revolutions of culture and technology cannot be explained adequately if they are collapsed into one.

You claim that the environment will decide success or failure. How do you explain the success of the United States. European cultural influences with an American environment, the same environment you claim results in a lack of success. The only advantage the United States had was European cultural influences, the environment was the exact same possessed for thousands of years by the native population.

Part of the environmental factors that I noted from the beginning were geographic. Europeans took their culture to America and their culture supplanted the Native Culture because of the geographic advantages that the Europeans enjoyed. They had a wealth of technology that was separate from cultural ideas like Christianity, Liberty, Capitalism, and Democracy. The best thought experiment that one can do in order to understand just how much of an advantage these geographic phenomenon gave the Europeans is to imagine that ideals like this arose in a culture that was not privy to the technologic/geographic resources. These ideals would not have been successful.

Culture and Civilization provide an ideological foundation required to utilize resources.

No group of humans on this planet can be successful if it does not incorporate technology. Of all of the overarching commonalities between cultures that cultural anthropologists have identified, one of the strongest is that ALL cultures exploit technology to the greatest degree that they are able. This exploitation depends on natural resources - btw and that played an important role in determining the outcome of other historical conflicts in history. Namely, the Cold War. This peice was not as big of a factor for native americans. That outcome was determined by technologic advantage and the action of microbes. The common thread through both of these is geographic determinism.

Equal playing fields have nothing to do with this discussion.

It has everything to do with the discussion. If the European culture existed in the americas and the native american culture arose in Europe with all of the geographic/technologic resources, then it would be the European culture that was replaced. Abstract cultural ideas that would have the advantage would be things like theocracy, human sacrifice, and slavery. Christianity would be a footnote and we'd have temples dedicated to the Winged Serpent...

It's interesting that you are now trying to distance yourself from natural selection. It is clear to me that you see your argument is fundamentally flawed unless you are able to attack the concept of adaptive traits. It is also clear that your argument to defend this distancing is completely contrived. You have no foundation with which to discuss "negative" or "positive" pressure. Moreover, it is also clear you have no understanding of the phenomenon or "group selection" nor what effect it has on cultural success.

The concept of group selection has been revived by Harvard scholars Richard Dawkins and EO Wilson. It is used heavily in evolutionary psychology to explain the evolutionary root of our behaviors. Natural selection runs into problems when it attempts to explain the action of groups...your view of adaptation is based on natural selection and it does not explain the phenomenon that groups exhibit.

 

[Makalakumu]

That factor is actually a very minor one. European culture had advantages over American ones from the very beginning, far before the first Americans died of any germs.

90% of native americans died from these germs. This happened in the span of a generation. Europeans encountered empty cities when they explored the americas. The greatest advantage that the native americans had was the distance europeans had to travel in order to come to america. Their technology could only transport small numbers of people at a time. These small numbers of people could not have replaced a population of more then 20 million.

The European germs took away the advantage of numbers and greatly increased the impact of superior technology. The effect of the germs took away the native americans largest advantage over the Europeans.

Diamond goes on to show how these germs were geographicaly determined side effects of domestication technology.

In reality, the argument you are making is directly out of Diamonds book, and it was made against racial differences not making a difference, not cultural. What has happened is that you've tried to adapt Diamond's arguments for a purpose he didn't intend. I can prove that, as well. Take this sentence

"Europeans lived in close proximity to other cultures along an East/West continental axis this gave them the advantage of being able to accumulate technologic resources as a rate faster then native americans. Thus, the environment was a greater determinate of the Europeans success."

Really, a greater determinate than what? Certainly not culture as Diamond was just arguing that it was varied cultural influences that spelled success for Europeans. Clearly Diamond means "was a greater determinate of the European success than race".

The argument against superior race is a poorer thesis then the argument against superior culture because it doesn't fit the examples where culture jumps racial boundaries. Race is implied in the passage you quoted, but so is culture. It is purposely written to imply both and Diamonds thesis supports both equally. The bottom line is that European means many more things then race and Diamond illustrates this in the latter chapters of his book.

"When native american species of domesticated food stuffs were spread across the world, a population explosion occurred. It has been argued convincingly that native american food stuffs were the primary factor that allowed societies to industrialize."

So, again, we see the power of abstract concepts. Native American adaptations were a primary factor that allwed societies to industrialize? I thought you assertion that success or failure was based on environmental factors, now you claim that adaptations were able to give an environmental advantage?

A potato is not an abstract concept. It is a peice of agricultural technology that leaped across cultural lines. Europeans benefitted from this peice of technology greatly and it was NOT part of European culture. This example illustrates how the material ideas of technology are different from the abstract ideas of culture. A potato is a technologic resource that is geographically determined.

1. Geographic determinism would mean that any two cultures who existed in the same environment would exhibit the same cultural characteristics and the same success or failure in that environment. As we have seen that to clearly be untrue, your theory of Geographic determinism doesn't hold water. As noted before, European Culture utilized American resources far differently than native socities, and with a far different degree of success. This shows, clearly, that geographic location is not the sole deciding factor.

2. Adaptive traits and their ability to give advantage within the environment is the deciding factor. Western Culture rose to dominance because of adaptive traits that allowed it to utilize varied environments to it's advantage. I think I made this distinction far upthread....

1. Geographic determinism deals with natural resources and technologic resources that come available due to favorable geography. The example of the European replacement of Native American culture is a perfect example of how a cultures greater access to material technologic resources through geography allowed it to rise dominance. The abstract culture itself was not a determining factor.

2. Your understanding of adaptation is flawed. Think of the potato. People who used the potato experienced an inflation of population. This positive effect allowed a group to flourish and compete regardless of the fittness of the individual. That is the big difference between natural selection and group selection. A potato is an adaptation, but it has a direction effect that is completely opposite of the adaptations that occur in an individual.

 

[Makalakumu]

I think the previous exchange will be the last on this thread. I'll be out of town for a while and I won't have a lot of time when I get back. Good discussion. Good points on all sides. Maybe we can pick this up when I finish Diamond's new book...

upnorthkyosa

 

[Marginal]

So if you buy this "theory" what does this all mean?

Im sure there is some social engineering soon to be voluntered based on this "ground breaking", "earth shattering" revalation......or is it just hand wringing apologetics with no solution from a "white guy"?

The converse to the "It's our really great morally superior ideaology that made us strong!" is, since China's existed for ages now, and it's rapidly becoming a superpower now, does than mean that China's ideaology is superior? What if China surpasses the US? Where does that leave that particular mode of apologist thinking then?

At worst, geographic determinism undermines the idea that one country needs to impose their will on another because their vision is purer and truer.

 

[Tgace]

No..it just says that one country can impose their will on another because they have the geographic resources to do so. As it was Chinas ideology/politics that has held them back for the last however many years I dont know if they are a shining example of the theory.

 

[sgtmac_46]

Hardly. Culture is comprised of abstract ideas that dictate how people interact, how they worship, what they find funny, what is artistic. Technology is not an abstract idea. It is a material idea whose origin is NOT linked to any of the above abstract ideas. The origin of technology lies in us all regardless of these abstract ideas, because all people use it survive. Europe had access to many other peoples technology and was privy to a faster flow of ideas then the people of the Americas. This geographic/technologic resource helped the European culture rise to prominance over the cultures of the americas.

The ability to develop technology is the very definition of an abstract idea. Perhaps this is part of your misunderstanding. Creativity, by it's very definition, is abstract. There is no such thing as a "material idea" as no ideas are "material". You can't see, touch, taste or hear an idea, it exists only as an abstract concept. The very concept of "material idea" is ludicrous and shows a basic misunderstanding of the terms. You have no basis for calling technology concrete other than the knowledge that this is a weak point in your argument and you HAVE to try and prove it is concrete. Again, the very concept is absurd.

btw - this process is not adaptation in the sense that the environment is exerting pressure to force people to change. That is negative pressure. This process is akin to building a better mousetrap and then watching as the new design spreads among all people regardless of cultural groupings. This is positive pressure...group selection. More on this later.

Of course it is adaptation. Cultures shift and adapt in response to environmental pressures. Concepts and ideas that do not give an adaptative advantage tend to die out. those that do, however, tend to be adopted. This includes technological advantage, which i've already established are part of a culture.

As far as the racecar analogy applies to the competition between native americans and europeans, if the native americans build their race car in their garage and the europeans in an advanced engineering lab, when one wins the contest, it is no surprise. The one that benefitted from the technologic resources has a distinct advantage. For the Europeans, the technologic resources were geographically determined. They were not products of the European culture itself. In fact, if one examines the rennaisance period one will see a drawing together of technology that originated in cultures that were vastly different then the European cultures.

And again, that has no bearing the superiority of the design. I guess it might make the losers feel better, but a superior design is a superior design as far as your race car analogy goes. Again, your comment about the Renasaince period is nothing but a backdoor admission to my point, which was....the true advantage Europeans had was in being a cross-roads of cultural ideas and concepts, including technological ones, not their concrete resources. Even you are increasingly acknowledging that point, although reluctantly i'll wager.

One of us has missed the point. I think the majority of others following this post are quickly determining who that is.

I think it's probably clear by this time.

Sometimes when you chop an argument up, you miss the point because the context of the points are linked together. You missed the point of this reasoning by attempting to address each peice separately. The point of the reasoning that culture and not race makes a better thesis because it explains more of the data. I will address the points you made below though...

So because I dissected your argument and dealt with each aspect logically, I missed, what, the holistic message of your argument? What I did was logically dissect your argument and show it's inconsistency when in examined in depth. The problem with most fallacious arguments is that they appear true when examined at a distance. It is after they are dissected that their fallacious nature becomes painfully apparent.

An individual animal is not a group. They do not adapt in the same way. Natural selection deals with animals on an individual level and it depends on the negative pressure of the environment to weed out individuals who are lesser adapted. Group adaptation is different. Negative pressure exists on smaller scales, but on larger scales, positive pressure determines competitive outcomes. Positive pressure comes from multiple sources. It can come in the form of energy. It can come in the form of resources. It can come in the form of technology. Groups that have a wealth of these have a greater chance of passing on the culture of their groups. This is the concept of group selection and it is used by evolutionary anthropologists to describe cultural replacement. Diamond makes use of this concept in his book.

So you're claim is that such things as disease,starvation and war are "positive pressures"? It must be so, because these phenomenon have swallowed up countless civilizations, and your argument is that with groups it is only "positive pressure" that determines the outcome. Your argument is becoming more convoluted by the minute. Really, your argument is based on an absurdity. Simply put, the idea that animal competition is decided by "negative pressure" and group competition is decided by "positive pressure" is contrived. Positive or negative really depends on who is receiving the outcome.

You are collapsing concepts. Culture and technology are not synonymous. Culture is comprised of the abstract concepts of human life like the laws we choose to live by, our religion, our humor, our art, our ideology. Technology is comprised of material ideas that translate into actual things that humans use...like food production, domestication, mining techniques, etc. All of this stuff is culturally independent. Technology trades like any commodity and it flows between cultures at a rate that is exponentially greater then the rate at which abstract cultural ideas flow. The two are obviously separate phenomenon because they are governed by such obviously different rule sets. An anthropology professor in my undergrad made this distinction in an entry level, general education class. It's not rocket science, its only logical, because one cannot begin to discuss cultural anthropology without making this distinction.

Culture is a carrier for abstract concepts and ideas, one of which is technology. Technology is part of culture, it is NOT culture, it is an aspect of culture. We have already established that technology IS an abstract concept. Technology is not concrete, it is an idea carried by the carrier of culture between peoples. Again, it is required for the sake of your fallacious argument to prove that technology is concrete (and not an abstract concept) because your whole argument is sunk by technology. A car is concrete, the idea of a car is not. A car did not magically spring forth from the environment, it was created by the human mind and existed only as an idea until human creativity produced it from raw materials. By your definition, however, a car suddenly sprung forth from the ground, whole and intact, having nothing to to with human abstract creativity. Again, contrived arguments.

Here is an example of what I'm talking about. We'll take the often brought up example of Japan. This tiny nation somehow grew powerful enough to take on large neighbors and dominate them. How did this happen? They were not privy to any vast wealth in natural resources. The answer is that they had a technologic revolution. The process started with Commodore Perry fired off his cannons and scared the crap out of Japanese, thus causing them to engage in a wild race to gather up as much technology as they possibly could. While this was happening, the culture was changing, but not because any abstract cultural ideas were attached to the items of technology. Their cultural revolution re-installed an emperor and expanded the samurai ideals to everyone. These were big changes in culture, but they paled in comparison to the changes in technology. In the end, Japan retained its art, its religion, the overall structure of how the people interacted, and its ideology. The cultural "revolution" was more of a "tweak" in comparison with the technologic revolution. The differing revolutions of culture and technology cannot be explained adequately if they are collapsed into one.

Yes, and the Japanese were able, through cultural advantages, to utilize this new technology in creative (abstract) ways to gain an advantage. Score another victory for culture over environment. Thank you for playing. I think I have finally figured out the basic source of your misunderstanding, however, it is the failure to understand the definition of "abstract" and "concrete". Apparently you are unable to differentiate the physical car from the concept of the car as an idea. The abstract idea came first and was the most important part of the equation. The material car is a product of the idea, not the other way around. This is commonly understood, I would have thought, my most rational people. Cars do not reproduce like cattle. Furthermore, the ability to build a car, even post idea, must be taught and carried forward. It is this group learning phenomenon that is one of the most important aspects of a culture.

Part of the environmental factors that I noted from the beginning were geographic. Europeans took their culture to America and their culture supplanted the Native Culture because of the geographic advantages that the Europeans enjoyed. They had a wealth of technology that was separate from cultural ideas like Christianity, Liberty, Capitalism, and Democracy. The best thought experiment that one can do in order to understand just how much of an advantage these geographic phenomenon gave the Europeans is to imagine that ideals like this arose in a culture that was not privy to the technologic/geographic resources. These ideals would not have been successful.

No, because of the cultural advantages that Europeans enjoyed. At that time they were living in the exact same environment. You'll noticed they moved, so they no longer enjoyed the same geographical advantage. Ironically, their new environment (America) was even MORE geographically advantageous...if you had the cultural advantages to exploit it. "Christianity, Liberty, Capitalism, Democracy," technology, a whole host of other concepts. I still see your only hope is distancing technology and science from concepts you want to point out as irrelavent. In reality, the point of your argument is an attempt to prove "Christianity, Liberty, Capitalism, and Democracy" are irrelavent. To do so, however, you've tried to create a false reality where they are what is considered culture and abstract concepts, but you've attempted to seperate technology and science from your broad brush strokes by calling them "concrete concepts", and absurd term given that those concepts only exist within the human mind as abstract concepts. It is only the results of those concepts, not the concepts themselves, that can be seen, touched, felt, heard, etc. Again, a fallacious argument.

No group of humans on this planet can be successful if it does not incorporate technology. Of all of the overarching commonalities between cultures that cultural anthropologists have identified, one of the strongest is that ALL cultures exploit technology to the greatest degree that they are able. This exploitation depends on natural resources - btw and that played an important role in determining the outcome of other historical conflicts in history. Namely, the Cold War. This peice was not as big of a factor for native americans. That outcome was determined by technologic advantage and the action of microbes. The common thread through both of these is geographic determinism.

Saying ALL cultures exploit technology is like saying ALL cultures have the same culture. It's non-sense. All cultures do no create steam engines, all cultures do not create rocket ships and jet airplanes. It's an absurdity designed to conceal the obvious advantage created by technology which IS an abstract concept resulting from cultural advantages. It is Aristotle and the greeks who set in motion modern science and logical inquiry. All cultures do not engage in an active exploration of our world in a logical manner. Some cultures attempt to explain phenomenon by super-natural means. That cultural trend retards a cultures ability to advance because the belief in super-natural agencies prevents them from an understanding of the world in a rational way which, ultimately, allows them to advance in technology and understanding.

It has everything to do with the discussion. If the European culture existed in the americas and the native american culture arose in Europe with all of the geographic/technologic resources, then it would be the European culture that was replaced. Abstract cultural ideas that would have the advantage would be things like theocracy, human sacrifice, and slavery. Christianity would be a footnote and we'd have temples dedicated to the Winged Serpent...

Again, that argument only applies to race. You keep denying it, but aside from racial differences the statement

"If the European culture existed in the americas and the native american culture arose in Europe with all of the geographic/technologic resources, then it would be the European culture that was replaced."

Is non-sensical. Aside from racial differences, if European culture existed in Americas it would be Amercian culture and European culture would still be European culture, albeit a different race. Europeans (your racial native americans) would still have a more adaptive culture than native americans. As we have already established, is the adaptive traits of culture, not race, that is important. This analogy of yours illustrates, further, that have simply substituted race for culture.

The concept of group selection has been revived by Harvard scholars Richard Dawkins and EO Wilson. It is used heavily in evolutionary psychology to explain the evolutionary root of our behaviors. Natural selection runs into problems when it attempts to explain the action of groups...your view of adaptation is based on natural selection and it does not explain the phenomenon that groups exhibit.

It runs into problems ONLY because it doesn't fit your hypothesis...that is not a problem. Groups are an individual adaptation. The only reason that animals created groups to begin with was to gain an individual advantage. Wolf packs make it easier to hunt, humans found cooperation able to gain an individual advantage. Cultures spring out of individual adaptation. You keep wanting to create a duality where none exists for the purposes of this argument.

 

[sgtmac_46]

The converse to the "It's our really great morally superior ideaology that made us strong!" is, since China's existed for ages now, and it's rapidly becoming a superpower now, does than mean that China's ideaology is superior? What if China surpasses the US? Where does that leave that particular mode of apologist thinking then?

At worst, geographic determinism undermines the idea that one country needs to impose their will on another because their vision is purer and truer.

I'm not sure who made the argument that "superior technology" equals "morally superior ideology". It certainly wasn't me and it certainly wasn't Tgrace. What morality has to do with this discussion, I have no idea. Maybe you could explain further.

 

[Tgace]

Im still waiting for the shoe to drop....what is this theorys point where the rubber meets the road? Is it just pure observation or is there some action the author wants to make things "more fair" to the "geographically challenged"? Some sort of "global welfare state"?

 

[Makalakumu]

I just wanted to check sgtmac_46 rebuttle.

It seems as if this argument hinges on the idea of technology. Is technology part of culture or is it separate? Is technology an abstract idea or is it concrete?

sgtmac_46 plays a game of semantics in order to back up his claim that it is abstract, however, if one knows anything about science, one can surely see the difference between a potato and a prayer. Technology is a concrete idea in every sense of the word. What do others think about this?

As far as collapsing culture and technology is concerned, one has some difficulties that must be explained...

1. First, they must show how technology can be the "property" of a culture.
2. Second, they must explain why technology jumps cultural lines so much more readily then things like art, humor, or religion.
3. Third, they must be able to provide historical cultural links between cultures that developed technology in places separated by large distances.

These are the three major hurdles that resist the concept of including technology into the cultural sphere. The last point is the most difficult. If the same technology arises in two dissimilar cultures that have absolutely no way of communicating, then the idea of technology being a part of culture is refuted. No one culture can own an idea that develops independently in two places on earth that have no connections to each other. Try if you want, but there is no logical way that you can pin a technology like this as being the property of one culture and not the other.

Thus they are separate...

Ee gads! I only meant to check! I gotta go. I'll see ya'll in a week or two!

upnorthkyosa

 

[sgtmac_46]

I just wanted to check sgtmac_46 rebuttle.

It seems as if this argument hinges on the idea of technology. Is technology part of culture or is it separate? Is technology an abstract idea or is it concrete?

sgtmac_46 plays a game of semantics in order to back up his claim that it is abstract, however, if one knows anything about science, one can surely see the difference between a potato and a prayer. Technology is a concrete idea in every sense of the word. What do others think about this?

As far as collapsing culture and technology is concerned, one has some difficulties that must be explained...

1. First, they must show how technology can be the "property" of a culture.
2. Second, they must explain why technology jumps cultural lines so much more readily then things like art, humor, or religion.
3. Third, they must be able to provide historical cultural links between cultures that developed technology in places separated by large distances.

These are the three major hurdles that resist the concept of including technology into the cultural sphere. The last point is the most difficult. If the same technology arises in two dissimilar cultures that have absolutely no way of communicating, then the idea of technology being a part of culture is refuted. No one culture can own an idea that develops independently in two places on earth that have no connections to each other. Try if you want, but there is no logical way that you can pin a technology like this as being the property of one culture and not the other.

Thus they are separate...

Ee gads! I only meant to check! I gotta go. I'll see ya'll in a week or two!

upnorthkyosa

A concrete idea? lol. This is getting pretty silly. The whole argument is completely contrived and it's now getting to the level where you will do anything to escape the fundamental flaw in your theory, to include calling an idea "concrete". I especially like the idea that technology is not culture but religion is because technologies develop in seperate parts of the world? lol. So religion isn't cultural either, as concepts like monotheism, ancestor worship, polytheism and other religious concepts have developed by different and varied cultures independently. For that matter, language, art, and mathmatics have all developed in different cultures. They must not be cultural either. In fact, if you use that definition to determine what is and is not a culture, then nothing is culture. It's really an absurdly transparent argument designed try and hide the fundamental flaw in your overall argument...concrete ideas? lol, is that like jumbo shrimp?

 

[sgtmac_46]

Im still waiting for the shoe to drop....what is this theorys point where the rubber meets the road? Is it just pure observation or is there some action the author wants to make things "more fair" to the "geographically challenged"? Some sort of "global welfare state"?

Maybe we'll find out when northkyosa comes back from the vacation. Though, if I were to guess, looking at north's other posts, the answer has more to do with "more fair" to the "geographically challenged". Since when did science become about evening up the score? Perhaps when Marx told everyone that his philosophy was a science, and people started believing him. Oh, the irony. Doesn't matter how you dress up a pig, or what names you call it, it's still just a pig in a dress. That's the impression I get about north's arguments, that it is nothing more personal philosophy disguised in the trappings of "science" so as to convince the ignorant that it is "irrefutable fact" when it is nothing more than dogma. That's why northkyosa made the comment about my attacking the argument piece by piece, because dogmatic belief is a wholesale endeavor. When the argument is dissected and examined piece by piece, the deception becomes apparent. It's built on distortions and misapplied definitions. Take "Concrete ideas". Concrete means real, tangible. You cannot touch an idea, it exists in the human mind. The product of that idea can be made manifest in reality, but the idea itself is still abstract. The idea, not the concrete result, is the most important part of the equation. Northkyosa would have us believe technology springs from the ground like crops or exists underground like coal, instead of being the product of the human imagination and creativity. Truly bizarre.

 

[Marginal]

I'm not sure who made the argument that "superior technology" equals "morally superior ideology". It certainly wasn't me and it certainly wasn't Tgrace. What morality has to do with this discussion, I have no idea. Maybe you could explain further.

Seems to be the subtext. When the notion of cultural superiority gets taken away, a whole lotta folks get very defensive. Thing is, there doesn't seem to be an especially good reason for doing so. Instead it's very easy to digress to kneejerk shouts of "That's just relativism!". (While coyly advancing a might makes right relativist stance in its stead.)

Certainly the idea that there are no superior ideas -- only random chance and environmental factors -- will appeal to those whose inferior ideas have led them to view the world around them (and the success of those with superior ideas) with the grasping envy and subjectivism that so characterizes life's failures on the individual, national, and international levels.

Kinda like that.

 

[sgtmac_46]

Seems to be the subtext. When the notion of cultural superiority gets taken away, a whole lotta folks get very defensive. Thing is, there doesn't seem to be an especially good reason for doing so. Instead it's very easy to digress to kneejerk shouts of "That's just relativism!". (While coyly advancing a might makes right relativist stance in its stead.)



Kinda like that.

Actually, you miss the entire point of the argument. Morality has nothing to do with it. Pragmatics does. What offends me about the argument is the that the argument of the opposition is disingenuous and is designed strictly to attack a set of beliefs they disagree with, in order to replace it with an order of it's own. I don't believe the other side is relativisitic at all, merely attempting to be clever and use relativism to destroy one system in order to make way for another. Morality has really nothing to do with it. This is just the battlefield of ideas and I take a stand like everyone else. I will attack any argument that appears to be merely pre-text for a hidden agenda, especially if that argument is full of inconsistencies.

As far as your attack on "might makes right" I don't even accept the reality of the context of that statement. Right is relative, however, what works and what does not isn't relative, and can be illustrated by examining historical context. It actually appears to be you advancing a morality argument at this point, trying to paint those you are against as immoral for believing that "Might makes right". If that's your stand, fine, but I reject morality discussions wholesale as being irrelavent.

Again, what does morality have to do with any of this?

Further, I suggest we move away from ad hominem (i.e. a discussion of the morality of the opposition, rather than the argument) arguments as they serve no purpose but trying to derail a discussion. I'd prefer we get back to themes of the argument as it has been presented.

For example, Northkyosa has tried to make the point that technology and the ideas that produce them are concrete. It is my assertion that to call any "Idea" concrete is absurd, and is merely contrived to shore up a faulty and flawed argument that says that only concrete material and resources account for societies successes. In order to shore that argument up, Northkyosa was forced to construct a theory whereby things like Art, Religion, Philosophy, etc are "Abstract ideas", while Science, Technology, Creativity are "Concrete ideas". It is clear examing this argument that is absolutely absurd. I doubt Northkyosa would have even attempted to make the absurd distinction had Diamond not espoused the benefit that technological advancement had lent to Western Civilization. Even North was forced to acknowledge this, but then had to backtrack and form a qualifying argument to prevent this from destroying the overall argument: i.e. That concrete environmental factors, such as natural resources and geography, not Cultural factors, such as ideas and ideology, account for the success or failure. Therefore, using this logic, north has stated that religion IS an idea, but technology and science are NOT ideas and hence, not cultural. What think you?

 

[Marginal]

Actually, you miss the entire point of the argument. Morality has nothing to do with it. Pragmatics does. What offends me about the argument is the that the argument of the opposition is disingenuous and is designed strictly to attack a set of beliefs they disagree with, in order to replace it with an order of it's own.

Which set of beliefs are they designed to attack?

I will attack any argument that appears to be merely pre-text for a hidden agenda, especially if that argument is full of inconsistencies.

What's the agenda?

As far as your attack on "might makes right" I don't even accept the reality of the context of that statement. Right is relative, however, what works and what does not isn't relative, and can be illustrated by examining historical context.

Right's only relative when your ideas aren't universally correct.

It actually appears to be you advancing a morality argument at this point, trying to paint those you are against as immoral for believing that "Might makes right".

Actually, I'm more interested in pointing out the absurdity of hiding behind a relativist shield while attacking relativism.

If that's your stand, fine, but I reject morality discussions wholesale as being irrelavent.

It's not a morality question/discussion. It's just reducing the rhetoric to its essence. If we're just folks that happened across greatness through geographic location, then we're not that one glimmering speck that matters in God's eye. Hence the overemotional rhetoric attacking the notion.

Again, what does morality have to do with any of this?

Nothing except that the theory advanced REMOVES the issue of morality from the equation. Cultural development's mainly reduced to a blind algorhythmic process under the theory's view.

Further, I suggest we move away from ad hominem (i.e. a discussion of the morality of the opposition, rather than the argument) arguments as they serve no purpose but trying to derail a discussion.

Ironic.

For example, Northkyosa has tried to make the point that technology and the ideas that produce them are concrete. It is my assertion that to call any "Idea" concrete is absurd, and is merely contrived to shore up a faulty and flawed argument that says that only concrete material and resources account for societies successes.

Gunpowder is concrete. It exists. It is not merely an idea. (Same thing with most technology) How it is put to use (rockets, fireworks, propellant for hunks of lead etc) is up to the culture that develops/encounters it.

For example, if you are first in developing gunpowder, but shrink away from using it on the battlefield due to how drastically it alters how a battle progresses. It doesn't matter much if you have it or not. If that idea doesn't change until faced with foe that does use the technology effectively, it's hard to justify the claim that all ideas are ever changing. That doesn't disqualify the notion that geography and resources will fuel or enable cultural change. China couldn't have retreated into itself if it was easy for Europe to influence it for example.

Therefore, using this logic, north has stated that religion IS an idea, but technology and science are NOT ideas and hence, not cultural. What think you?

Matching "logic" with "logic" doesn't generate a valid argument. It generates a similar "logical" argument.

 

[sgtmac_46]

Which set of beliefs are they designed to attack?

Based on many of Northkyosa's other posts, the argument seems designed to pave the way for a philosophical egalitarian view. In other words, the goal is to try and make egalitarian philosophy, somehow, scientific. I already outlined how it's merely a continuation of Marx did when he declared Marxism a science. It's designed to avoid any questioning of the philosophy by convincing people it is unassailable truth. Diamond himself admits that part of his motivation for writting, "Guns, Germs and Steel" was to attack racism and the believe that some races are superior to others. I have nothing wrong with that conclusion at it's face. Where I emphatically disagree is that idea that abstract human concepts, like philosophy, science, technology, have absolutely nothing to do with a societies success or failure. I find the argument ludicrous. I also believe that morality has no place in the discussion, open or veiled.

Right's only relative when your ideas aren't universally correct.

I'm not sure what your'e suggesting is universally correct. Perhaps you could expound.

None of this argument is about right or wrong, it's about a basic understanding of the function of societies, ideas, technology, environment, and how they interact to determine what cultures succeed and fail. A morality play is a redherring issue, it's a purely emotional argument which has absolutely nothing to do with the whole discussion. I have to question your motive in making this about morality at all.

Actually, I'm more interested in pointing out the absurdity of hiding behind a relativist shield while attacking relativism.

I have not attacked relativism, since I never once took a moral stand. So you might want to ask that question to someone it applies to. I'm concerned with logical conclusions that can be arrived at by the evidence, and it is that which Northkyosa has failed to support.

It's not a morality question/discussion. It's just reducing the rhetoric to its essence. If we're just folks that happened across greatness through geographic location, then we're not that one glimmering speck that matters in God's eye. Hence the overemotional rhetoric attacking the notion.

I have reduced the rhetoric to it's essence, a fact that annoyed Northkyosa. Further, god is irrelavent in this discussion.

What is your main flaw is the belief that I have any interest in proving that any group is "special". In fact, you may have answered your own question about the motive I referred to earlier...i.e., the goal of showing that "no one is special and everyone is special" by showing that everyone is where they are by accident, is irrelavent. I could care less that we all arrived, ultimately, by accident. In truth, i'm more interested in learning what cultural mechanisms were effective in giving a group advantage. If that's your position, fine, but accept it for what it is, a philosophical world view and don't go to the disingenuous extent of calling it "science" when it is clearly not supported by the evidence.

I could care less that we all arrived, ultimately, by accident. In truth, i'm more interested in learning what cultural mechanisms were effective in giving a group advantage. I am concerned with ideas, and which ones are better than others. I have an interest in fighting the idiotic idea that no group has adaptive cultural characteristics that can be emulated for success. I actually believe the core of Northkyosa's arguments is:

"Western Culture is bad, bad, bad, and Diamond and I have proven scientifically that there is nothing there to emulate, so we should just alter our culture to reflect my moral point of view since Diamond and I have proven that Western Culture has only been successful by accident, and that nothing cultural is irrelavent, so there's no reason to try and take anything useful from it, we can just start over." That is not a scientific argument.

Nothing except that the theory advanced REMOVES the issue of morality from the equation. Cultural development's mainly reduced to a blind algorhythmic process under the theory's view.

Actually, that's a bogus claim, because it does just the opposite. It attempts to set the stage for incertaining morality in to the equation. It was not a moral issue to begin with, so there is no need to remove morality. What Northkyosa's argument attempts to do is insert morality IN TO the equation, for the purposes of advancing a humanistic philosophy. If you want to spout humanistic philosophical perspectives, fine, but don't try and disguise it as science. Science should only be concerned with objective truth. A pursuit that is tainted when coupled with an agenda.

Gunpowder is concrete. It exists. It is not merely an idea. (Same thing with most technology) How it is put to use (rockets, fireworks, propellant for hunks of lead etc) is up to the culture that develops/encounters it.

Not an extremely clever argument. Find me a gunpowder mine. Not only how it is used, but THAT it exists, is up to the human mind and the culture that carries the knowledge. Gunpowder did not just spring out of the ground. It's much like claiming that the Space Shuttle is just a product of the environment. We just go to the Space Shuttle mine and find one. Inventions do not occur naturally, they are products of abstract thoughts. Do you wish to advance an argument otherwise. That would be the most argument of this whole topic.

For example, if you are first in developing gunpowder, but shrink away from using it on the battlefield due to how drastically it alters how a battle progresses. It doesn't matter much if you have it or not. If that idea doesn't change until faced with foe that does use the technology effectively, it's hard to justify the claim that all ideas are ever changing. That doesn't disqualify the notion that geography and resources will fuel or enable cultural change. China couldn't have retreated into itself if it was easy for Europe to influence it for example.

The interesting thing about both arguments that you made there is this...both of them point to cultural factors determine success or failure of a society, rather than purely geography and resources. That has been my argument all along, that declaring cultural factors are irrelavent has no scientific validity and is only designed to serve an agenda.

The argument has never been simply that "geography and resources" fuel or enable cultural change. If that were the case I wouldn't have bothered to argue. North's argument was that they were the only source of change. I have advanced the argument that the very idea is extremely reductionist and does not even come close to explaining the complex variables present in human cultures. Geography and concrete resources are far from THE agent of cultural success or failure. The fact that ideas and ideology were relegated to irrelavent status is what really baffles me the most, given that all the evidence suggests otherwise. Moreover, it has become obvious that the argument is fueled by ulterior philosophical motives.

Matching "logic" with "logic" doesn't generate a valid argument. It generates a similar "logical" argument.

So you're suggesting that you utilize another process other than logic to come to logical conclusions? I'd be very interested in hearing you explain this other method of arriving at understanding.

Bottom line, if you're looking for an argument about the fundamental moral superiority of western culture, you're barking up the wrong tree. I believe that it is the myriad of ideas and concepts that western culture was exposed to that made it successful.

But if you're trying to claim that cultural characteristics and abstract thoughts and ideas are irrelavent to our survival as a species, then i'll engage in that argument.

 

[Marginal]

Based on many of Northkyosa's other posts, the argument seems designed to pave the way for a philosophical egalitarian view. In other words, the goal is to try and make egalitarian philosophy, somehow, scientific. I already outlined how it's merely a continuation of Marx did when he declared Marxism a science. It's designed to avoid any questioning of the philosophy by convincing people it is unassailable truth.

Ah. So what then, is the unassailable truth?

I'm not sure what your'e suggesting is universally correct. Perhaps you could expound.

It's dependent on how you approach the argument. Sharp Phil for example seems to be taking a Kant angle, which involves setting up a bunch of universal ideals in an attempt to eradicate relativism. (Since nothing's ever accomplished while attempting to discuss a relativistic issue.)

I have to question your motive in making this about morality at all.

Attacking the person. (Thought you wanted to move away from this....)

I have reduced the rhetoric to it's essence, a fact that annoyed Northkyosa. Further, god is irrelavent in this discussion.

Just a metaphor.

What is your main flaw is the belief that I have any interest in proving that any group is "special".

You do have multiple groups that you blatantly consider not special. Would seem to follow that you're elevating something while busily attacking those groups.

could care less that we all arrived, ultimately, by accident. In truth, i'm more interested in learning what cultural mechanisms were effective in giving a group advantage.

Even if those mechanisms were dictated largely by a culture's reaction to an environment rather than culture?

If that's your position, fine, but accept it for what it is, a philosophical world view and don't go to the disingenuous extent of calling it "science" when it is clearly not supported by the evidence.

Still don't see a lot of support for the "not science" aspect.

"Western Culture is bad, bad, bad, and Diamond and I have proven scientifically that there is nothing there to emulate, so we should just alter our culture to reflect my moral point of view since Diamond and I have proven that Western Culture has only been successful by accident, and that nothing cultural is irrelavent, so there's no reason to try and take anything useful from it, we can just start over." That is not a scientific argument.

Ah. So you're defending western culture.

Regardless, the core of the theory, regardless of what one takes from it isn't really diminished. Social darwinism doens't discredit evolutionary theory for example.

Personally I don't see any real roots for it attacking western culture any more than it does say, islamic culture. (Does gut nationalism, but that's a dead end anyway, so huzzah IMO.)

Actually, that's a bogus claim, because it does just the opposite. It attempts to set the stage for incertaining morality in to the equation.

It's amazing how claiming amorality always makes people stand up and say, "That's an argument for morality!" Twice in one month.... Staggering.

Science should only be concerned with objective truth. A pursuit that is tainted when coupled with an agenda.

Or when it threatens western culture. Natch.

Not an extremely clever argument. Find me a gunpowder mine. Not only how it is used, but THAT it exists, is up to the human mind and the culture that carries the knowledge.

Silly me. I went and used a historical argument. (China came up with gunpowder first, but western culture took it to its current state of development) Once people know how to make gunpowder, it becomes a resource. Unless you manage to purge the formula from the culture entirely, it's going to be there. At that point, it is a concrete (as in, fixed, not going away) element that will influence cultural development as much as figurting out how to mine and refine iron changed the shape of many a culture.

You can't claim technology development is a fleeting intangible. Once it arises, it's pretty much there until something better supplants it.

Inventions do not occur naturally, they are products of abstract thoughts.

The bronze age, the iron age etc did not occur naturally either. Abstract thoughts give rise to material goods, which are then resources to that culture. If they existed purely as ideas, then they'd have no influence on the culture.

That has been my argument all along, that declaring cultural factors are irrelavent has no scientific validity and is only designed to serve an agenda.

Much like nurture vs nature.

The argument has never been simply that "geography and resources" fuel or enable cultural change. If that were the case I wouldn't have bothered to argue. North's argument was that they were the only source of change.

You're welcome to demonstrate otherwise.

The fact that ideas and ideology were relegated to irrelavent status is what really baffles me the most, given that all the evidence suggests otherwise.

Aren't going to invent a steel sword until you've figured out how to work iron. Aren't going to do either without the proper ore.

So you're suggesting that you utilize another process other than logic to come to logical conclusions?

There's logic and then there's "logic". Using bad logic to counter bad logic doesn't produce sound logic on its own.

Bottom line, if you're looking for an argument about the fundamental moral superiority of western culture, you're barking up the wrong tree. I believe that it is the myriad of ideas and concepts that western culture was exposed to that made it successful.

Never the resources? All mentalics? This discussion would work just as well if you were arguing for free will vs destiny.

But if you're trying to claim that cultural characteristics and abstract thoughts and ideas are irrelavent to our survival as a species, then i'll engage in that argument.

Such an argument's futile until there's some set of standard definitions. We can't do much more than quibble over what the term "resource" means at the moment...

For example, Edison was a resource. (People are definite things though their ideas may not be considered as such even though they puzzlingly persist long after the person, the actual thing is gone) He provided multiple concrete things to society which altered society. As Edison was a resource, he therefore was an environmental factor. Society didn't drive Edison to create the lightbulb, Edison directed society by inventing it. Either way, the lightbulb wasn't relevant to our survival as a species in the least, so I'm not sure what your point is. Unless humanity's survival exclusively hinges upon creating successful forms of government and fairy tales, those resources have to figure in heavily. Especially when determining how lasting those any given idea becomes. Humanity can survive as a species without light bulbs, cars, a definite system of government, or really much more than a consistent source that fufills basic survival needs. (Doesn't mean the people involved with such a mess would be happy, but they'd go on reproducing. Which would fufill the whole survival of the species issue.)

Whether it is our ideas that define us or who has the best culture etc are other questions entirely that really have no relation to our survival as a species at all.