Why europe?

[Flareon]

Technological advancement is a marathon, not a race; there have been societies more advanced before the time of European leadership, and there will be societies more advanced after. Maybe in the future the world will even become a global homogenized society much like the futures depicted in the Star Treks , where no single continent, race, or society will lead the technological progress.

 

To answer the original question: what do I attribute Europe's (relatively recent) success? I would say 99% dumb luck and 1% inspired vision.

[Aardvark]

Technological advancement is a marathon, not a race;

 

The Ancient Greeks, the Romans, the Byzantines, the Holy Roman Empire, the Renaissance, the Industrial Revolution.

 

It seems that Europe has a track record worthy of any marathon runner.

 

what do I attribute Europe's (relatively recent) success? I would say 99% dumb luck and 1% inspired vision.

 

For Europe to have consistently been the cradle of great advances of civilisation over a period of more than 3000 years seems to require more of an explanation than 'luck'.

 

Geographys the answer.

[ydoaPs]

In a very broad sense' date=' as humans originated in Africa all human achievements could be considered to be based on the actions of the African progenitors.

 

However, it is clear that Europe did develop a highly distinctive and original culture and civilisation in the tens of thousands of years after the original settlers left Africa. Therefore it is fair to talk of European civilisation as an seperate cultural construct rather than a transplanted civilisation.

 

 

 

True. I fail to see your point, much of European civilisation is based on rediscovered Ancient Greek writings. As the Ancient Greeks were Europeans this in no way reduces the European nature of European civilisation.[/quote']

so, you imply that europe was transplanted civilization, but you say that it isn't. what's the deal?

[ed84c]

To answer the original question: what do I attribute Europe's (relatively recent) success? I would say 99% dumb luck and 1% inspired vision.

 

Ouch.

 

The most arable and mineral rich contintent has nothing to do with it? Thought not.

[ed84c]

Also you may want to consider that infact the US is infact a european transplanted civilisation, far more than europe is of africa.....

[ydoaPs]

really, i say america is just as much an idependant civilization from europe as europe is from africa.

[Flareon]

The Ancient Greeks' date=' the Romans, the Byzantines, the Holy Roman Empire, the Renaissance, the Industrial Revolution.

 

It seems that Europe has a track record worthy of any marathon runner.

[/quote']

 

True, but that sounds a tiny bit Eurocentric (which I can understand, as you were probably educated in a 'western' society.)

 

 

For Europe to have consistently been the cradle of great advances of civilisation over a period of more than 3000 years seems to require more of an explanation than 'luck'.

 

Geographys the answer.

 

That's exactly what I mean by 'luck.' The environment (variably temperate to chilly climate, abundant shorelines, mountainous terrain, etc...) has much to do with the fate of nature rather than human control. By luck, I didn't mean that Europeans blindly stumbled upon inventions ("Hey look, an aquaduct!") But by existing in a kind of environment that fueled it ('necessity is the mother of invention'), they were ripe for the developing of new technology.

[Rekkr]

Somehow I find it hard to believe that EVERYTHING can be attributed to geography. Surely there must be other variables involved.

 

North America is similar to Europe's geography around the Great Lakes area (Mediteranean + North Atlantic = Great Lakes + Hudson Bay). Sure, it is a little cold in Canada, but not much colder than northern Germany and southern Sweden and Norway (all successful European areas). Look at the Vikings for example. They thrived in cold weather, even venturing as far north as Greenland. North America also has very good farming soil (and I'm sure around the Great Lakes area also). There are plenty of deer in North America; they should have been perfect for sustaining food. I can't think of any milk-producing animals from North America which could have served an equivalent function as Old World cows and goats, but is milk really THAT important? Milk isn't a requirement for life; water should have worked just fine (and there is plenty of that around the Great Lakes). I'm surprised there were no somewhat advanced civilizations around the Great Lakes area.

 

Plus, no one should ever underestimate the power of religion. Christianity told the Europeans to go out to all areas and spread the religion. It also didn't hold nature in a very high regard compared to most non-Christian/pagan religions.

 

I think European success can be attributed mostly to religion and the numerous wars which took place between, generally, north and south europe. Both of those are social influences, not geographic.

[Sayonara]

so, you imply that europe was transplanted civilization, but you say that it isn't. what's the deal?

Because there is a difference between transplanting a population, and transplanting a civilisation.

 

A BIG difference.

[ydoaPs]

well europe is both.

[Sayonara]

That's funny, because history records Europe civilising Africa.

[ydoaPs]

so europeans brought tools to africa? i remember history saying the opposite

[Sayonara]

Unless your overall aim is to prove that the civilisation of the United States was not transplanted because of the tools it uses, rather than anything to do with the source of its civilisation, then I really don't see what that was meant to achieve.

 

The European nations arose and developed after the populations had migrated from Africa. Hundreds of minor civilisations and several big whoppers (most of the "all time top ten greatest and most influential", in fact) reared up in Europe, while Africa went on much as it had been doing for centuries. It was largely the British and French empires that took civilisation to the African nations.

 

Do you see how that works? The source of the population does not also have to provide the civilisation - a nice choice of tools is not necessarily going to lead to Pythagoras theorem, astronomy, the Renaissance and the Industrial Revolution, is it? If it was a given, then we might well ask why these things never emerged in Africa (and, in fact, nothing remotely like them did either. Not a bean. Ever), seeing as the remaining population weren't wasting their time wandering around looking for new places to live.

 

Having said that, in the case of the colonisation of the Americas, it is not exactly secret that the British, French, Spanish, Portugese, Irish and Italians brought their technologies, religion, education and social systems with them. See how that's different? Both the populations and the civilisations moved together.

[ydoaPs]

hmmm, ever hear of Egypt? what is you definition of civilized anyway.

 

america long ago differentiated itself from the european civilization. you make it sound like we didn't do anything. what about powered flight, incandecent bulb, electricity, telephone, motion pictures, traffic lights, assembly lines, open heart surgury, ...? hell, most of europe copied our declaration of independance

 

also, i never said they continued to grow after european civilization was transplanted.

[Sayonara]

hmmm, ever hear of Egypt? what is you definition of civilized anyway.

Yes, which is not representative of Africa, on account of being a country and not the entire continent, and also on account of not being the wellspring of the European races.

 

america long ago differentiated itself from the european civilization. you make it sound like we didn't do anything. what about powered flight, incandecent bulb, electricity, telephone, motion pictures, traffic lights, assembly lines, open heart surgury, ...?

I don't think I did suggest that "You didn't do anything" at all, in fact. I have consistently being discussing where the incumbent civilisations come from, not who has got the biggest invention claiming penis.

 

Compared to continental Africa, "America" (by which I mean the United States) is virtually identical to Europe in terms of civilisation. The differences are tediously trivial.

 

hell, most of europe copied our declaration of independance

For example..?

[Ophiolite]

you make it sound like we didn't do anything. what about:

powered flight: Not the Wright's but Gustav Weisskop a German

incandecent bulb: In 1860 English physicist Sir Joseph Wilson Swan, produced his first experimental light bulb using carbonized paper as a filament.

electricity: Ampere, Priestley, Ohm, Joule, Faraday etc, all Europeans

telephone: A.G.Bell (Scottish)

motion pictures: Augustin Le Prince's 'movies' preceeded Edison's kinetoscopes

traffic lights: installed outside the House of Commons in 1868

assembly lines: established in Venice for construction of ships

open heart surgury(sic): Christian Barnard (South Africa)

 

Sorry. No prizes there. Non-Americans were first in each instance.Try again?

[Sayonara]

open heart surgury(sic[/i']): Christian Barnard (South Africa)

The operation at Groot Schuur was the first heart transplant - not sure if it was also the first open heart surgery.

[Ophiolite]

Very good point. I'll claim the spelling of "surgery" distracted me! One out of eight conceded.

[BenSon]

Sorry. No prizes there. Non-Americans were first in each instance.Try again?

Snap...

 

The first open heart surgery was preformed by an American Dr Daniel Williams Still thats one for eight got to do better then that

 

~Scott

[atinymonkey]

hell' date=' most of europe copied our declaration of independance

[/quote']

 

That is possibly the most depressing thing I've heard all week. Don't they even try and teach history at Amercan schools anymore? I've drunk whisky older than the declaration of independace.

[swansont]

You need to define your terms - recent advances are separate from the advances over the much longer time frame of the past 10,000 years up through the colonial period.

 

So, if the question is basically, "why did Europeans manage to colonize Africa, the Americas and Australasia, and not the other way around? (and why didn't China?)" then the book I recommended is very good.

 

There are several reasons - one is geography. As was already mentioned, there is the competition angle - adapt or be invaded - makes sure technological advances get adopted. Advantage to Europe.

 

Europe has an east-west axis, meaning that it basically has the same kind of climate, so crops from one region can be grown elsewhere without too much problem. This means you can get good nutrition, grow extra crops and build cities without starving too much. America and Africa have north-south axes: you can't move a crop form one climate to another region with the same climate without encountering a mich different one. Australasia is a bunch of islands, so you have the ocean as a barrier. Lack of diversity of crops limits nutrition.

 

There's also the availability of suitible animals for domestication, to be used for food and as pack animals. Europe had a lot, helped by that east-west axis. North America had horses, but they native American killed them all off. South America has the alpaca, which isn't as suitible. So the Europeans could more efficiently till the fields - better crop yields, and had alternate food sources like beef.

 

Once you get people in cose proximity with animals, you get diseases that cross over. Add that to big cities, and the diseases can now fluorish because they can be transmitted. Eventually, though, the surviving people build up a resistance so the diseases generally aren't as bad. That was a huge "export" for the Europeans when the settled the Americas. The diseases killed off vast numbers of the natives, so invading later on was a lot easier. There are cultural effects too- basically the native Americans were too trusting, and the Europeans were backstabbing bastards, and they profited from that.

 

And there's more. Read Diamond's book.

[Dak]

monkeys spent aeons becoming adapted to their african climate. the first humans who evolved from monkeys benifited from this, and were perfectly suited to their environment. then, at some point, for some reason, some of these humans decided to leave africa, whose climate and ecosystem they were perfectly adapted to, and come to europe, which they were ill suited to survive in -- bad climate, big animals, lack of abundancy of food growing on trees etc. this probably drove the europeans to become much more aggresive, as they fought amongst themself for resorses, and theres nothing like war to drive the invention of new techniques, and the discovery of new facts; simply put, in europe there has always been a benifit to being able to build better castles, desighn bigger siege engines, better galleons and frigates -- whereas the humans that had the common sense to stay in africa, i would assume, had no trouble finding food and surviving in the climate and so had no need to discover and invent.

[ydoaPs]

how bout Jazz, basketball, lawsuits(lol), baseball, football, blues, ...?

[atinymonkey]

how bout Jazz,

Jazz is a blues derivative that was developed in the US. Music, however, is not an invention of the US.

 

basketball,

That's an Aztec, and South American, sport. It's older than Christianity.

 

lawsuits(lol),

The US judicial system is a facsimile of the UK.

 

baseball,

Every culture has a bat and ball game, but baseball is an adapted game of 'rounders' which is European in origin.

 

football,

Invented at Rugby school, England. Americans just changed the rules slightly and wore padding & helmets.

 

blues, ...?

Yes, well. Each country invents musical genres, it's not really a standalone development.

[Sayonara]

how bout Jazz, basketball, lawsuits(lol), baseball, football, blues, ...?

...do not a separate and original civilisation create.

 

You seem to be making an argument from denial. Stop being depressing and read swanson's posts.