Is it fair to say that sub-saharan Africa never developped a high culture because it is relativly small compared with...

like civilization and shit

too hot in Africa to write, let alone think.

There is, of course, a lot of merit in the ongoing nature vs. nurture debate, but only for the purposes of practical, everyday applications. For as to the ultimate solution of the dispute, that's already settled. No research or experiments are needed: it is a simple philosophical problem whose solution I can provide with barely 5 seconds of thinking. So yes, culture does indeed influence human development, but who creates culture in the first place, if not humans themselves, and therefore human biology and genetics? It is true that SOME DAY our culture will hopefully get to the stage of directly determining our descendants' genetics, as opposed to leaving them up to the crapshoot of sexuated procreation, but even when that day arrives, it will still be our initial genetics that created the culture that reached the point of being able to directly influence our genetics (as opposed to, for example, the culture of African baboons or Greenlandic Inuits or whatever). In other words, the past, the past, the past, and nothing but the past: The moral in all this is that you can't flee from your past, gentlemen and gentlewomen, no matter how dearly you would like to! (which is what all appeals to the supremacy of culture over biology ultimately amount to). There are no "blank slates" or "new beginnings" — these conceptions are merely the delirious hallucinations of the genetically weak and culturally desperate among us: every step forwards and upwards will necessarily have to be built on every other step taken hitherto — all the way back to the Big Bang — and no wishful thinking or verbal gymnastics have ever or will ever suffice to make up for any deficiencies there. Or do you find that surprising the realization that the ultimate structural soundness of a building depends, first and above all, on the structural integrity of its foundations?

Did you copy this pasta or make it yourself?

Did you save this family photo of a wife's son, or take it yourself?

Did you find this meme or make it yourself?

This is like the Million time I have seen this thread since this board was created

really makes you think

You're on a white nationalist website, there are a handful of other history forums you cod go to if you want serious discussions

OP here, why are you guys so dismissive?
I think its a legitimage question, and I am not fishing for some /pol/ bullshit but hoping for a educated answere.

You got it , if you chose to focus your retardation elsewhere that's your problem.

They never developed high culture for the same reason other species of monkeys haven't.

/thread
Niggers are retarded

tldr

Civilization is not the "highest form of culture" or whatever these alt-right guys are saying.

Civilization doesn't require intelligence, if anything it requires less.

Farming and following decrees by a ruler require far less effort compared being a master hunter, master survivalist, and a genius about your local culture.

Civilization is just a high form of organization. Its the most effective method of looting your neighbors.

Surrounding tribes didn't civilize because they saw a better way of living, they just wanted to stop getting their asses kicked.

Sub-saharan Africa never civilized because it's geography isn't condusive to high degrees or organization.

Many other areas are like this like mountain ranges and islands.

And just because an area would seem like a civilization could arise easily like the Ganges or Mississppi river valleys, they don't anyway.

Inhospitable lands, poor conditions for agriculture, lack of domesticatable animals and isolation from the rest of the world.

>Civilization doesn't require intelligence, if anything it requires less.
then how comes animals, who are dumber than humans, have never acchieved civilization?

KINGZ N SHIT NIGGUH

:^)

pretty sure it doesnt count as civilization

Franz Boas go back to hell please.

It's an organized society were members specialize in specific tasks to serve the commune and has a clear social hierarchy and justice system. I'd say it counts.

checked

lack of domesticatable animals is not true though

oh geeze, guess you conviced me

There are some but it was definitely a lower number than most of Eurasia.

>I can't come up with a convincing counter argument.
>I'll make a sarcastic remark instead, that'll teach him.

>Blowing hot air; the post

Ever heard of the agricultural revolution? You're telling me it actually requires less intelligence to irrigate crops than to be a hunter/gatherer?
Not to mention all those warrior tribes simply followed the commands of their chief witch doctors, genocided and looted each other for slave labor.
>Genius about your local culture
Don't make me laugh

If sub-saharan africa isn't conducive to "high degrees or organization" then how did they ever get colonized by the evil white men?

i simply dont wanna discuss an argument when both me and you know its bullshit

Civilization is built on violence and slavery, and the African tribes were much more peaceful as a whole than European chimps

yes we have much to learn from those noble people

Are you seriously saying that ants don't have organized societies?

They only acquired this kind of behavior and culture because of violent European colonialists

whatever man, ants are more intelligent than humans. you win this argument

>Civilization is not the "highest form of culture"
The words are highly analogous at this point, so it's very suspicious to say such a thing.

>Civilization doesn't require intelligence, if anything it requires less.
Again.

>Farming and following decrees by a ruler require far less effort compared being a master hunter, master survivalist, and a genius about your local culture.
Under such a slavish perspective, having the most despicable life possible is intelligent, since it would entail extra efforts against you. The point of the civilisation is that earlier efforts are made redundant and replaced with new, higher ones.

>Civilization is just a high form of organization. Its the most effective method of looting your neighbors.
Similarly, only a slave would consider intelligence to be opposed to organisational and military power, being at the bottom of each.

>Sub-saharan Africa never civilized because it's geography isn't condusive to high degrees or organization.
We already dissolved the nature-nurture dichotomy here so whatever you say about a peoples' geography will tend to be reflected in their biology-culture. Which feeds back itself.

Not that guy but:
Inventing agriculture and irrigation? Yes that probably required a lot of effort and intelligence. Maintaining agriculture after it's developed. Probably the easiest fucking thing a human can do.

Farming is not fucking rocket science, most modern humans can make a backyard garden if they want to and if they can't you can teach them pretty easily. But do you think every modern human would actually be able to learn how to hunt? How to track down pray, killing it with nothing but a spear or a bow? Do you think that's actually easy.

Living in a hunter gather society requires a lot higher average intelligence than a primitive agricultural society.

I literally never said that. I just said that ants have organized society, I never said they're more intelligent than anything.

...

primitive agriculture society: creates stonehenge

primitive hunter gatherer society: put stick into deer

this is bait/troll

>put stick into deer
Go out and hunt down a deer for us then, I'm sure it will be easy.

>creates stonehenge
A few smart people figuring things out while bumfuck farmers are doing simple menial work their lord told them to do.

>A few smart people figuring things out while bumfuck farmers are doing simple menial work their lord told them to do.

You're a retard.

In early agricultural societies people knew how to farm and how to hunt too, they still used bows, and often they fished additionally, plus they developed axes, swords and metal working.

Also given the number of megaliths in some places I doubt it was just a few people figuring things out.

>The words are highly analogous at this point, so it's very suspicious to say such a thing.
see pic

>Under such a slavish perspective, having the most despicable life possible is intelligent, since it would entail extra efforts against you. The point of the civilisation is that earlier efforts are made redundant and replaced with new, higher ones.

Earlier efforts being replaced is innovation not civilization and can happen independently of it.

Agriculture was an innovation and did not require any complex organization to occur.

>Similarly, only a slave would consider intelligence to be opposed to organisational and military power, being at the bottom of each.

Except I'm not a slave and far from the bottom of society.

Based user

Forgot pic

But the farmers and the hunters were usually not the same people, same with fishermen, miners, metalworkers, etc. In agricultural societies it's much easier and beneficial for people to specialise. This mean the average person only has to be good at one specific thing and thus doesn't need to extremely smart to contribute to their society. You can't do this in a hunter gather society, at least not as effectively. There, every member needs to be at least somewhat proficient at every task. Everyone had to be able to hunt, gather, build etc.

I'm not saying that this makes hunter-gathers better than modern humans. Agriculture is what allows us to have such an advanced civilisation. Like the original guy, I'm just trying to say that, agriculture doesn't require a high average intelligence, the same way hunter gathering does.

>see pic
Not a response. If you invert the value or meaning of intelligence then obviously you can redefine it as primitive.

>Earlier efforts being replaced is innovation not civilization and can happen independently of it.
But on the same scale? No.

>Agriculture was an innovation and did not require any complex organization to occur.
If reality is flux then there are no 'leaps', it is continuum. In the same way, only a lowly perspective would consider any massive innovations to be an accident.

>Except I'm not a slave and far from the bottom of society.
I didn't specify economically.

A big mistake ITT is the idea that the removal of everyday challenges means a civilisation has become stupid. Apparently that we can now tolerate homeless people, the disabled, etc counts as a step down in intelligence. Because before they would have needed to compensate to survive. That's judging a society from the ground up, where the lowly start. The whole point of a civilisation is that all kinds of delegating takes place, some people are slaves, some are parasites, some are specialists, some are mediocre. All this enables the absolute peaks of the same culture.

Seems ITT people think having a middling hunter-gatherer average is more intelligent than having than having Beethoven and Von Neumann.

Doesn't change that fact.

Not SSA

Get used to it dude
Those people will never go away

Why would Franz Boas go to hell?

Do all people who were wrong about things go to hell?

Shitposting: the thread

the banter is unreal

Were not talking about peaks of intelligence, we're talking about average intelligence. There will be outliers in any society no matter what. no one's arguing that civilization is less advanced. I know that agriculture and specialisation allows for a much more complex society. I'm arguing that if a person is specialised in a specific task while being relatively secure for survival, then it requires less intelligence and thus the average intelligence in an agricultural society falls.

>Apparently that we can now tolerate homeless people, the disabled, etc counts as a step down in intelligence.
Caring for pack members does not require high intelligence, this is just a general trait in most group forming predator species.

>people think having a middling hunter-gatherer average is more intelligent than having than having Beethoven and Von Neumann.
Those people are outliers not a representation of the general public. Besides, these people were building upon already existing technology and culture. I'm sure there were hunter gatherers who were extremely intelligent but because they had less to build upon, their innovations were less significant.

Africa has pedos like every part of the world? Wow you learn something new everyday!

I agree, and I live there.

Why are people talking in terms of hunter gatherers when 99% of Africans were agricultural by 3000 BC?

Sub Saharan Africa or North Africa? Huge difference.

No, because the population density was absurdly small compared to Eurasia, which limits urbanization and central government control

Where in Africa?
It's a fuckhuge continent, second largest on the planet.
That's probably part of the reason that it didn't turn into a massive hub for advanced civilizations, because it's an insanely large, inhospitable continent.

My guess is the Sahara Desert caused quite a bit of isolation from trade and the rest of the world, for a while anyway. Also you can't farm in the jungle, so that's something. Still, the Sudanic States eventually took off, and the Swahili Coast wasn't half bad either (though they just took Arab culture).

I can tell that you grew up in a city.

>diseases like malaria
>jungle
>terrible soil quality
>lack of horses and other animals that would be easy to domesticate
>straight coast

why does everyone shit on lack of a civilization
nothing wrong with that

Strawman