NationStates Jolt Archive

Well, Trig/Algebra and Paper yes, I can agree.

Steam Power has it's good points and bad.

Gunpowder, that's mostly just a bad thing when you get down to it.

... Do you know how important explosives can be for construction?

Yes, and Ferrous Oxide here seems to think they had it bad.

It was hardly great if you were a peasant. Why do you think socialism took off there? Massive class disparity. A lot like Russia.

It was hardly great if you were a peasant. Why do you think socialism took off there? Massive class disparity. A lot like Russia.

Life was hardly great if you were a peasant ANYWHERE! It was even worse in Europe if you were a peasant. Your debating tactics have more holes than swiss cheese.

Arguments of massive class disparity is yet another one of them. Life sucked if you were a peasant, like it did everywhere else, but if you passed the imperial tests, which beat the pants off any contemporary academic standard, you were guaranteed a good governmental post.

And then of course there were the artisans, craftsmen, smiths and all manner of professions who did fairly well in China.

But ohh noooo. You have to pick the lowest class for comparisons. Then clearly because there's beggars and billionaires in Europe and America, they should both be socialist paradises right? Oh wait, they aren't!

Are you just being obtuse to the facts, or are you that desperate to hide your lack of knowledge by scurrying from one inane comment to another?

What exactly was your point again? You argued that poverty was what held back the Africans. I'm pointing out that Europeans and Asians were just as dirt poor.

What exactly was your point again? You argued that poverty was what held back the Africans. I'm pointing out that Europeans and Asians were just as dirt poor.

And I'm saying you're peddling a sack of lies by claiming that Europeans and Asians were just as poor. They weren't.

And I'm saying you're peddling a sack of lies by claiming that Europeans and Asians were just as poor. They weren't.

Uhh... yeah. They were. Probably more poor.

Uhh... yeah. They were. Probably more poor.

Prove it.

Prior to the industrial revolution, life for 99% of the world's population was peasant-style sustenance farming.

It took from the discovery of farming in 8000 BC to 1500AD for farming to spread to 99% of the world's population.

In other words, it took 9,500 years for 99% of the planet to adopt farming.

That said, why are we shocked that industrialization (the next step up from farming) is taking longer than 300 years to spread across the planet? For a collection of peoples who have not invented industrialization, the Africans are sure adopting the new technology with ahistorical speed.

Prior to the industrial revolution, life for 99% of the world's population was peasant-style sustenance farming.

Riiiight. So the large scale rice fields of Japan, China, wheat and corn fields of the Americas prior to the industrial revolution didn't exist. And by that logic, neither did any cities, or towns either, since clearly there wouldn't have been enough food to sustain a population density of that scale if all they had was sustenance level farming.

What a load of bollocks.

Riiiight. So the large scale rice fields of Japan, China, wheat and corn fields of the Americas prior to the industrial revolution didn't exist. And by that logic, neither did any cities, or towns either, since clearly there wouldn't have been enough food to sustain a population density of that scale if all they had was sustenance level farming.

What a load of bollocks.

Perhaps I should clarify: 99% of the world's population lived on the income of a sustenance farmer. One Famine hits, and everybody in the town dies...

What I was trying to say, is that the overwhelming majority of the world's population lived like the worst of the 3rd world countries exist today. Clearly, the peasants in France, Russia, China, Ireland, etc. etc. etc. did not see their lives improve with technology prior to the industrial revolution. The industrial revolution brought a serious improvement in quality of life to the poor (over time) in addition to the rich.

The average joe in a 1st world country lives in more luxury than the aristocracy 400 years ago...

Perhaps I should clarify: 99% of the world's population lived on the income of a sustenance farmer. One Famine hits, and everybody in the town dies...

Hmm, China has gone through several notable famines. They didn't all die off. Heck, even the worst mass death toll which caused by the black plague didn't even halve the total population. Clearly something is wrong with your little theory here.


What I was trying to say, is that the overwhelming majority of the world's population lived like the worst of the 3rd world countries exist today.


This is clearly bollocks. Unless you are saying that the overwhelming majority of the world's population lived through a state of constant warfare and privation, in which case, they would have died out in the long run from lack of healthy people and farmed crops.


Clearly, the peasants in France, Russia, China, Ireland, etc. etc. etc. did not see their lives improve with technology prior to the industrial revolution.


The wheel, watermill, windmill, saw, plough, and numerous other implements used to improve farming and base level production were made long before the industrial evolution.


The industrial revolution brought a serious improvement in quality of life to the poor (over time) in addition to the rich.


No. All the industrial revolution did was increase the production capability of a manufacturing line exponentially.

No. All the industrial revolution did was increase the production capability of a manufacturing line exponentially.

"No. All the printing press did was increase the rate at which books could be copied."

Just for a moment, imagine eliminating everything you own that was produced in a factory, or transported by a factory-made vehicle? Why do I, a common citizen, have all these goods? Because it doesn't take 10 hours to make a spoon anymore...so metal spoons for everyone!

You and I, we are kings! The very basics of living that we take for granted today simply could not be maintained for a large population without the advancements known as industrialization. Surely, you see this?

"No. All the printing press did was increase the rate at which books could be copied."

Just for a moment, imagine eliminating everything you own that was produced in a factory, or transported by a factory-made vehicle? Why do I, a common citizen, have all these goods? Because it doesn't take 10 hours to make a spoon anymore...so metal spoons for everyone!

You and I, we are kings! The very basics of living that we take for granted today simply could not be maintained for a large population without the advancements known as industrialization. Surely, you see this?

How nice of you to avoid all the other facts I've raised, only making issue of a factual statement without the embellishments that are built on it.

Only on NSG can a thread on "Geneticist who claims blacks are inferior discovers black genes in own family" can turn into "Blacks have not made technological or cultural advances so they're inferior to other humans, hur hur hur."Are you sure? I don't doubt Stormfront could manage a similar feat in fewer pages.

Post Laerod. Posts, not pages.

Neon green :pPlease... :rolleyes:

http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a205/ulteriormotives/F_200607_July26biza_197737a.jpg
What exactly was your point again? You argued that poverty was what held back the Africans. I'm pointing out that Europeans and Asians were just as dirt poor.Nono, my point was that poverty holds African Americans back and is a factor in the high crime rates among black men in the US. You've set up a strawman.

Post Laerod. Posts, not pages.
Do I look like I care =P

Riiiight. So the large scale rice fields of Japan, China, wheat and corn fields of the Americas prior to the industrial revolution didn't exist. And by that logic, neither did any cities, or towns either, since clearly there wouldn't have been enough food to sustain a population density of that scale if all they had was sustenance level farming.

What a load of bollocks.

Not really. For example in Roman times, 8 peasant families working their respective farms would be able to scrap up enough surplus food between them to feed one extra family. For all intents and purposes they were sustenance farming

Uhh... yeah. They were. Probably more poor.

You will notice that during times when the majority of the population of Europe was piss-poor, Europe didn't make any great scientific leaps either.
Yes, intelligence does have to do with affluence, as it is a human feature that only comes into its own when the intelligent human in question has the times and the means for idle thought. As long as he/she's struggling for survival, all mental effort is focus on the immediate future.
The brightest mind can't change the world when its owner is busy with something else.

Not really. For example in Roman times, 8 peasant families working their respective farms would be able to scrap up enough surplus food between them to feed one extra family. For all intents and purposes they were sustenance farming

And ancient Roman agricultural methods and yields were universal until the industrial age? I doubt that.

Riiiight. So the large scale rice fields of Japan, China, wheat and corn fields of the Americas prior to the industrial revolution didn't exist. And by that logic, neither did any cities, or towns either, since clearly there wouldn't have been enough food to sustain a population density of that scale if all they had was sustenance level farming.

What a load of bollocks.

Take a good look at Japan, just at it's geography. That ought to answer your question right there and then. Yes, rice farming did exist. But there was nowhere near enough arrable areas to sustain a significant non-farming population, such as was the case in Europe from the late Middle Ages onwards.

And ancient Roman agricultural methods and yields were universal until the industrial age? I doubt that.

No. There was a rather massive leap forward, duely followed by a population explosion, during the late Middle Ages when metal plows were invented and caught on.
This increased population was severly reduced again shortly afterwards by the arrival of the plague, it took Europe a good while to recover from that.

Sorry but I fail to see how he was pwnd as the title suggests, so he has 16% black genes so what? He can still say that Blacks are less intelligent then other races. After all he was 84% non-black, and he could argue that the black 'dumb' genes are recessive, and I believe that he did made the claim of 'dumb' genes after conducting scientific tests, and I am not saying his tests were conducted correctly and I am not saying they were not I am just saying I fail to see how he was pwnd. It sounds like another little insignificant piece of unimportant news that 'lefties' like to hear and tell everyone they can with a smug smile on their face in their little fairytale world

And another thing there have been a lot of arguments especially in the first seven pages of this thread claiming one thing and counter claiming the other, but I must say they are all wrong in varying degrees but I can't be bothered going through and quoting all of them and showing them where and unfortunately I came into this thread too late, but next time these people begin this same crap and I am sure they will on a similar thread, so I will give them my rebuttal then.

Take a good look at Japan, just at it's geography. That ought to answer your question right there and then. Yes, rice farming did exist. But there was nowhere near enough arrable areas to sustain a significant non-farming population, such as was the case in Europe from the late Middle Ages onwards.

Japan was just one of the areas mentioned. And my dispute is Gardiaz's 99% sustenance farming comment.


No. There was a rather massive leap forward, duely followed by a population explosion, during the late Middle Ages when metal plows were invented and caught on.
This increased population was severly reduced again shortly afterwards by the arrival of the plague, it took Europe a good while to recover from that.

This clearly indicates then that, disaster withholding, the ratio of people needed to provide food to sustain themselves and non-food producing people would have been lower no?

Japan was just one of the areas mentioned. And my dispute is Gardiaz's 99% sustenance farming comment.



It's an exponential curve, not a linear one. It's not a steady increase but rather a production level and consequently population number doubling at more or less regular intervals.
And looking at the current population of the planet and the level of agricultural productivity we've reached, I'd say those 99% sound like a good estimate.


This clearly indicates then that, disaster withholding, the ratio of people needed to provide food to sustain themselves and non-food producing people would have been lower no?

Yes. However, these developments went in leaps and bounds, jumping forward with the new plough (I spelt the wrong earlier, didn't I?), falling back drastically with the plague, moving forward again, pushed back by warfare, etc.

Japan was just one of the areas mentioned. And my dispute is Gardiaz's 99% sustenance farming comment



Did you know that 83.7% of percentages are pulled out of thin air?

Did he just say that whites were cleverer than blacks or did he have something that he at least thought was evidence?

I just think the whole genetics business about which race is more intelligent is a bit stupid really cos at the end of the day we're all human beings and there are some pretty thick white people out there! LOL! I have no clue how much of me is Northern European, and whether I have any African or Asian in me, and personally, I am not particularly fussed either way! Anyone who gets all purist about these things is evidently on some kind of psycho Aryan Race trip and needs to wake up and look at the colourful world around them!:) After all, genetically, we aren't much different from monkeys..........hehehe! :D

On the subject of Africa, two things have continued to stifle its development: the legacy of colonialism and persistent shoddy leadership, although as time goes on, the latter is more and more to blame. Two books I would recommend are Martin Meredith's The Fate of Africa (originally published as The State of Africa in the U.K.) and George B.N. Ayittey's Africa Betrayed, which details how the African people were betrayed by the post-independence leaders who promised them prosperity and freedom.

I just think the whole genetics business about which race is more intelligent is a bit stupid really cos at the end of the day we're all human beings

QFT.

Colorblindness FTW!

I remember learning about this study in class, if memory serves.

Population geneticists can do R^2 analysis of various traits. What that tells you is, based upon genetic variation within/between populations, how much genetics affect a trait vs. upbringing and socialization.

Watson did such a test to determine the R value of IQ scores. If I do recall, Watson found that genetics accounts for approximately 33% of the variation in IQ scores. In other words, if you come from a low IQ family, 33% of the blame for your low IQ lays on genetics, while 67% on poor education/socialization.

Racist as he was, he then continued to draw a conclusion that the low IQ scores among the African American population is 33% due to their genetics. That conclusion nearly got him attacked, of course.

This analysis is irrelevant, IMO, because the IQ test is not an effective or complete tool for gaging intelligence. There is much more to intelligence and the use of the brain than the limited IQ test can probe. That said, odds are that African-American families are slightly less proficient at IQ tests than the average partially because of their genetics, but it is also quite likely that they perform better at other intellectual tasks due to genetics.