NationStates Jolt Archive

Recently i have read two great books by Jared Diamond, "Guns, Germs and Steel, and also "Collapse". Now the topic of these two books focuses on why some societies succeed and why others don't...Now i am thinking about it and there are really 3 things a society needs to succeed..

1)Access to resources. Face it without resources how is a society supposed to industrialize or even make simple tools.

2) Agriculture. Before ag came around, man was nomadic and did various foraging and hunting to supply nutrition. When ag became well devoloped is when we see the first permanent civilizations, cities.

3)access to water...i dunno if that counts as access to resources..but lets say it doesn't...water is need obviously to sustain life and to water the crops.. Also it allows for trade eventually. Which is necessary for growth of a society


ok those are pretty common sense...I wonder though, if there has been a society to succeed without one of those three and also if there is anything else that helps determine whether a society succeeds or fails.

ok those are pretty common sense...I wonder though, if there has been a society to succeed without one of those three and also if there is anything else that helps determine whether a society succeeds or fails.
A bigger part of success is interaction with as many neighbouring groups out of their own control as possible. One part of it is the ability to steal from them, the European powers were so goddamn nifty because they got the University from the Moores, gun powder from the Chinese, etc. However, there is also the advantage in having constant contact with people who want to kill you; it forces nations to be powerful, wealthy, creative, and continuously look for ways to trump the other guy.
Without this conflict and trade the Abroginals and various American empires stagnated early on and were easy pickings for the more seasoned European powers.

A bigger part of success is interaction with as many neighbouring groups out of their own control as possible. One part of it is the ability to steal from them, the European powers were so goddamn nifty because they got the University from the Moores, gun powder from the Chinese, etc. However, there is also the advantage in having constant contact with people who want to kill you; it forces nations to be powerful, wealthy, creative, and continuously look for ways to trump the other guy.
Without this conflict and trade the Abroginals and various American empires stagnated early on and were easy pickings for the more seasoned European powers.

yes that is very true..Thats like the key aspect of society even steal...Like the industrial revolution..people stole the idea of the factory from others to benfit themselves..

doesnt it depend on what you mean by succeed? people have moved to just about every godforsaken niche on the planet and have survived for long periods of time.

ok those are pretty common sense...I wonder though, if there has been a society to succeed without one of those three and also if there is anything else that helps determine whether a society succeeds or fails.
Not really - until a "society" (really a tribal group living in the listed circumstances) either encounters another group or growsto the point where survivalis determined by the tribe's ability to develop a healthy balance between community support (infrastructure/cooperation) and Individual Rights (Don't fu*k with what is Mine).

Dictatorships (no Rights) will eventually fail, either from within or without. Total Rights (Anarchy) will likewise fail either from without or from enviornmental factors (plague/famine).

Only mixed systems survive. Some providing more Freedom (early US) some Less (China).

Despite "Chaos Theory," As with all things in the Universe, Equilibrium is the goal.

Between Chaos and Rigidity lies Equilibrium. Given that paradigm, NO society has really succeeded...

doesnt it depend on what you mean by succeed? people have moved to just about every godforsaken niche on the planet and have survived for long periods of time.


by succeed i mean formost not to become killed off...but also progression...why do some societies have all the technology and riches while other have dirt and poverty? thats really the main focus of those books

Not really - until a "society" (really a tribal group living in the listed circumstances) either encounters another group or growsto the point where survivalis determined by the tribe's ability to develop a healthy balance between community support (infrastructure/cooperation) and Individual Rights (Don't fu*k with what is Mine).

Dictatorships (no Rights) will eventually fail, either from within or without. Total Rights (Anarchy) will likewise fail either from without or from enviornmental factors (plague/famine).

Only mixed systems survive. Some providing more Freedom (early US) some Less (China).

Despite "Chaos Theory," As with all things in the Universe, Equilibrium is the goal.

Between Chaos and Rigidity lies Equilibrium. Given that paradigm, NO society has really succeeded...


wow...never thought about that....hmm

...

There were large pre-Columbian intercontinental trade networks. Archeological finds have consistently confirmed this.

Also, the Mesoamerican societies at the time of the conquest were hardly stagnant. Cortez wouldn't have gotten very far without highly cooperative native groups and smallpox.

There were large pre-Columbian intercontinental trade networks. Archeological finds have consistently confirmed this.
Nowhere near to the extent of social interaction that Eurasia had.
Also, the Mesoamerican societies at the time of the conquest were hardly stagnant.
Compared to what? Stood beside Europe, they were moving at a galcier's pace.
Cortez wouldn't have gotten very far without highly cooperative native groups and smallpox.
Another advantage that comes from having lots of interaction with other countries. In Europe the people had been swapping germs for so long that both their immune systems and their diseases were far more robust then their neighbours across the pond were prepared to confront.
This however, has nothing to do with the rise of society. People were being European for just as long as they were being American (Yes, I know about emmigration and the such, but, considering that Europeans also had to arrive from elsewhere, I think that such a headstart should have been minimal) without each others interference. So then there must be some other factor that led to bronze (I think) age natives on a big resource rich continent to be run over by gun weilding soldiers from a big resource rich continent.

You're definitely right about Europe having the developmental advantage of being in a hot spot for trade and cultural interactions spanning three continents. Native Americans had to internally create all of their cultural developments for several thousand years. No imported tech to speed things up.

Now i am thinking about it and there are really 3 things a society needs to succeed..

2) Agriculture. Before ag came around, man was nomadic and did various foraging and hunting to supply nutrition. When ag became well devoloped is when we see the first permanent civilizations, cities.

diamond would disagree, i think. he happens to think the agricultural revolution was inevitable, but he certainly doesn't think it necessary to be a successful society. as he wrote in an essay entitled The Worst Mistake in the History of the Human Race (http://www.agron.iastate.edu/courses/agron342/diamondmistake.html)

"Hunter-gatherers practiced the most successful and logest-lasting life style in human history. In contrast, we’re still struggling with the mess into which agriculture has tumbled us, and it’s unclear whether we can solve it."

Compared to what? Stood beside Europe, they were moving at a galcier's pace.

bullshit

Well if you're gonna say bullshit, you might as well explain your view :p

bullshit
Of course, how silly of me to believe that muskets and spears exist on drastically different technological levels. How foolish to believe that a group of people who were out strolling the world might be more advanced then a group who were content at home.
Whatever you may say about culture, morals, happiness, politics, or justice, the Euroasia moved at a faster technological pace than the Americas.

Well if you're gonna say bullshit, you might as well explain your view :p

could do that, but that would require effort.

basically, what exactly was so exciting about europe circa 1500? not fucking much. if they hadn't been a bunch of backwards, disease ridden, religious freaks they wouldn't have stood a chance against the awesome might of the inca and the aztecs. and while the urban cultures north of mexico were declining slightly before the euros got here in force, we still had the haudenosaunee confederancy creating a formal democratic system sometime between 1100 and 1500 (which still exists, btw). europe ain't no thang. they just had cooties.

Of course, how silly of me to believe that muskets and spears exist on drastically different technological levels. How foolish to believe that a group of people who were out strolling the world might be more advanced then a group who were content at home.
Whatever you may say about culture, morals, happiness, politics, or justice, the Euroasia moved at a faster technological pace than the Americas.

a hundred muskets were meaningless against thousands of people with spears (they took fucking forever to load). however, a disease that killed between a third and half of your population in one year - including most of the hierarchy - and utterly destroyed internal workings of the society like trade and agriculture and such, was a bit more than any population could survive very easily.

the technological gap between them was pretty much nothing. had small pox not been a factor, the gap would have closed immediately and the euros would have been driven off completely or only established a small, highly defended presence

... if there is anything else that helps determine whether a society succeeds or fails.
A communality of interest.

could do that, but that would require effort.
I suppose that a logical argument would really be a pain in the ass on this end as well. At some point tonight I have to go to sleep.
basically, what exactly was so exciting about europe circa 1500? not fucking much. if they hadn't been a bunch of backwards, disease ridden, religious freaks they wouldn't have stood a chance against the awesome might of the inca and the aztecs.
Yeah, because backwards religious groups always triumph over other nations, regardless of other circumstances. That's why the Taliban so totally kicked the US's ass and is currently occupying the White House.
europe ain't no thang. they just had cooties.
And superior fire-power, horses, a political/tactical talent that was at least equal to their opponents, a more advanced economy, etc, etc.
Face it, my ancestors so totally pwned your ancestors.
*Counts out his White Man's gold*

a hundred muskets were meaningless against thousands of people with spears (they took fucking forever to load). however, a disease that killed between a third and half of your population in one year - including most of the hierarchy - and utterly destroyed internal workings of the society like trade and agriculture and such, was a bit more than any population could survive very easily.
Diseases take time to spread, if the locals had had their shit together the Euros would have been well and gone before the pox started showing them up.
the technological gap between them was pretty much nothing. had small pox not been a factor, the gap would have closed immediately and the euros would have been driven off completely or only established a small, highly defended presence
The ability to blow a big hole in someone from several yards away vs sticking them from a few feet is a lot more then "nothing." Further, the concept of the gun would have taken time to be developed, even with working models to reverse engineer.
That's not even getting into the morale effect of suddenly running up against a weapon that you have never seen, heard, or even conceptualized before.
Further, as I have mentioned, the Europeans had the horse and superior melee capabilites (Damascus Steel, anyone?) to their unhappy hosts which put them even further ahead.

By the by, what makes you feel that the most scientifically advanced continent on Earth at the time was backward? Sure, when set beside modern anything, all of those empires are laughable in their puniness. However, back in the day, they were the top dog.

And superior fire-power, horses, a political/tactical talent that was at least equal to their opponents, a more advanced economy, etc, etc.
Face it, my ancestors so totally pwned your ancestors.
*Counts out his White Man's gold*

economy was about the same, if not leaning slightly towards the americas, actually. they had the larger cities and more people in specialized occupations outside of farming.

fire power levelled off rather quickly as guns were traded and stolen. and horses were obtained and spread at least a generation ahead of the europeans. the problem was that small pox spread just ahead of the europeans too, so that everywhere they went they faced people who's entire societies had collapsed just a few years before. but once they had gotten horses and guns, even with the utter social collapse, they were able to make a rather grand stand against the colonizers for generations.

euros had cooties from sleeping next to farm animals all the time, and it gained them a continent.

Diseases take time to spread, if the locals had had their shit together the Euros would have been well and gone before the pox started showing them up.

like when they kicked the crap out of cortez and pals as they ran away in the night? he only managed to survive because the aztecs were rather bastardly to the people they had conquered, so cortez got himself a whole bunch of allies beforehand.

when they went back into the city the next year with reinforcements, small pox had wiped out something on the order of half the population, while starvation was getting the other half. in the grand scheme, guns and horses were surprising once, while disease did most of the actual leg work for conquest.

By the by, what makes you feel that the most scientifically advanced continent on Earth at the time was backward?

the middle east is in europe?

edit: and i'm pretty sure the chinese would have something to say on the subject, while we're at it. things don't really take off for europe in the science department until 50 to 100 years after they get to the americas. there are a few early sparks, but the fire is slow to start.

A bigger part of success is interaction with as many neighbouring groups out of their own control as possible. One part of it is the ability to steal from them, the European powers were so goddamn nifty because they got the University from the Moores, gun powder from the Chinese, etc. However, there is also the advantage in having constant contact with people who want to kill you; it forces nations to be powerful, wealthy, creative, and continuously look for ways to trump the other guy.
Without this conflict and trade the Abroginals and various American empires stagnated early on and were easy pickings for the more seasoned European powers.

The Americas had access to generally fewer useful indigenous species to domesticate, this put them at a disadvantage compared to Eurasians and North Africans.

The Americas had access to generally fewer useful indigenous species to domesticate, this put them at a disadvantage compared to Eurasians and North Africans.

and were aimed the wrong way - north/south rather than east/west - which made the spread of what they could domesticate much much slower. it took a lot of selective breeding to make subtropical maize turn into something that can grow in wisconsin.

but it really is remarkable how few things there are that are able to be domesticated, and how many of them were located in central asia and northern africa.