[Mabeavyledlib]

Okay, I'm sorry blacks did everything.

NO OFFENSE but peanut butter is hardly an invention and imagine any other black invention without the solid foundation of a previous white invention.

Peanut butter was invented by an African?

No sarcasm, Sirs, just wondering. I have heard its inventor was an American of British ancestry.

[StitsVobsaith]

Okay, I'm sorry blacks did everything.

NO OFFENSE but peanut butter is hardly an invention and imagine any other black invention without the solid foundation of a previous white invention.

I don't know why people say Carver created peanut butter. I believe Carver found other uses for peanut butter and the peanut shells. That would be more interesting than developing peanut butter. I vaguely remember he came up with a way to produce more output from crops through peanuts that was highly beneficial to southern agriculturalists but I can't recall what it is. I don't pay much to attention to agriculture.

[valentinesdayyy]

Peanut butter was invented by an African?

No sarcasm, Sirs, just wondering. I have heard its inventor was an American of British ancestry.

Who?

[DextExexy]

Who?

I do not remember... That is the reason of my question.

Nevertheless, I DO remember that Inca people had something called "mantequilla del Inca" made with peanuts... But I really do not know if it is the same or even similar stuff.

Sorry.





Edit. - "Mantequilla" means butter...

[allvideO]

Is it genetic? Look at the British, French, Spanish/Portuguese, Germans, Italians, etc... and then look at Estonians and Latvians and Belorussians. Same race yet totally different levels of innovative output. Why? Look at Europeans as a whole and compare their collective creative output to that of Sub-Saharan Africans. There's no comparison. Why?

Lifeways, Education?

[ZX3URrBH]

Look at the British, French, Spanish/Portuguese, Germans, Italians, etc... and then look at Estonians and Latvians and Belorussians. Same race yet totally different levels of innovative output.

You are comparing Estonia to Germany? Germany has 63 times the population of Estonia. Estonia had to start from scratch 20 years ago. I think were doing rather good, if you look at the conditions.

[russmodel]

You are comparing Estonia to Germany? Germany has 63 times the population of Estonia. Estonia had to start from scratch 20 years ago. I think were doing rather good, if you look at the conditions.

His post s on the level of first class of prmiary school 'mommy, why stewart has better bike than me'.
I could find and post 40 or 80 maps which would show corelation- positivie or negative- between GDP of regions and the third factor, but so what?

[Mypepraipse]

Culture of course.

Look at Korea; north vs south. Same people. Compleatly different production output.

So no. It's not "genetic".

Uum, that doesn't disprove a single thing about the value of genetics in the matter. What that does prove is that running your country as one big Stalinst cult will leave it in utter socioeconomic ruin.

Perhaps an analogy will help you understand. Imagine two siblings in high school who have been getting straight A's their whole lives. One of them falls in to bad company and starts using drugs, it escalates and she ends up dropping out of school and moving in with her new stoner-boyfriend. The other one however continues on the set successful path, goes to college and ends up with a fine education and well-paying job. Now this doesn't mean that school grades are useless as indicators of success, it just means that letting drugs get the best of you will fuck up your life.

[mincbiori]

Even the native animal and plant species can be an influence on the development of culture. Sub-Sahara Africa had native animal species, that are by most means, unable to become domesticated. Zebras are not like horses, as their skittish and wild. They can't be bred over generations as livestock. The African elephant is not like it's Asian counterpart being easily trainable. Gazelles, Giraffes, Rhinos, Hippos, Hyenas, Lions, are very difficult if not impossible to domesticate. Wheat and barley are native to the middle east and some areas around the Nile. Africa by and large didn't have such crops that could be mass produced. The Middle East is usually seen as the cradle of civilization because it was lucky to have so many native species easily adapted for human ends. Pigs, cows, sheep, horses etc, originated or populated there, which jump started the concepts of trade and industry. These techniques were brought to Europe during the Indo-European expansion, and developed independently in China and India. Perhaps Africans are more native hunters and gatherers.

[WoCTrt0X]

Even the native animal and plant species can be an influence on the development of culture. Sub-Sahara Africa had native animal species, that are by most means, unable to become domesticated. Zebras are not like horses, as their skittish and wild. They can't be bred over generations as livestock. The African elephant is not like it's Asian counterpart being easily trainable. Gazelles, Giraffes, Rhinos, Hippos, Hyenas, Lions, are very difficult if not impossible to domesticate. Wheat and barley are native to the middle east and some areas around the Nile. Africa by and large didn't have such crops that could be mass produced. The Middle East is usually seen as the cradle of civilization because it was lucky to have so many native species easily adapted for human ends. Pigs, cows, sheep, horses etc, originated or populated there, which jump started the concepts of trade and industry. These techniques were brought to Europe during the Indo-European expansion, and developed independently in China and India. Perhaps Africans are more native hunters and gatherers.

There's no reason why many of these African animals couldn't be or can't be domesticated.
The domesticated animals of the Asia were once wild and skittish too (after all these traits evolved to help preserve the prey from predator attack), but they were breed by man for more favourable traits. It's like looking at Wolf and claiming it could never be domesticated into a Guide dog, obviously a lot of breeding over centuries produced these so-called lucky species.
Do you honestly believe Asia/Middle East was a literal Garden of Eden where the native species were all inherently imbued with traits useful to human kind? More like PC lies banded around to mitigate the general failure of African civilisations to progress.
There is absolutely no scientific reason why the rich biodiversity of Africa should be any less rewarding or yielding to man's hard work than anywhere else.

[Xzmwskxn]

Uum, that doesn't disprove a single thing about the value of genetics in the matter. What that does prove is that running your country as one big Stalinst cult will leave it in utter socioeconomic ruin.

Not sure if serious...

If North- and South Korea have the same people (genetically), yet compleatly different production: How can that POSSIBLY not disprove the moronic idea that "GDP output is because of gentics"?

Perhaps an analogy will help you understand. Imagine two siblings in high school who have been getting straight A's their whole lives. One of them falls in to bad company and starts using drugs, it escalates and she ends up dropping out of school and moving in with her new stoner-boyfriend. The other one however continues on the set successful path, goes to college and ends up with a fine education and well-paying job. Now this doesn't mean that school grades are useless as indicators of success, it just means that letting drugs get the best of you will fuck up your life.

I got a good laugh out of reading that conclusion when you had written all the other stuff that was actually on topic


Donno if I'm getting trolled here, but I'll answer anyways:

You're using an example of two siblings who have complealty different values. The very definition of culture (in the sociological context) is centered around that. Culture is the 'mental programming' of a group; their shared values and beliefs, customs etc. It determines/influences how they behave.

Basically, if you're brought up by gypsies, then chances are you'll act like one. If you're brought up in a very high-class society then chances are you'll act accordingly. The same goes for countries. In a country with a very strict work-ethic (such as Japan) with a mentality of favoring development, chances are they'll succeed.

Obviously culture is not the only factor though. Natural resources, the treatment you get from other countries and so on can of course also play a huge part in a country's success.

[LymnInvinny]

His post s on the level of first class of prmiary school 'mommy, why stewart has better bike than me'.
I could find and post 40 or 80 maps which would show corelation- positivie or negative- between GDP of regions and the third factor, but so what?

Yeah, silly op.

[phenterminediett]

religious Catholics/Muslims will tend not to use birth control while Protestants or people from very secularised countries like Belarus, will use it and have less children.

[kasandrasikl]

There's no reason why many of these African animals couldn't be or can't be domesticated.
The domesticated animals of the Asia were once wild and skittish too (after all these traits evolved to help preserve the prey from predator attack), but they were breed by man for more favourable traits. It's like looking at Wolf and claiming it could never be domesticated into a Guide dog, obviously a lot of breeding over centuries produced these so-called lucky species.
Do you honestly believe Asia/Middle East was a literal Garden of Eden where the native species were all inherently imbued with traits useful to human kind? More like PC lies banded around to mitigate the general failure of African civilisations to progress.
There is absolutely no scientific reason why the rich biodiversity of Africa should be any less rewarding or yielding to man's hard work than anywhere else.

It's a small world today. Horses have been introduced all around the world as well as cattle. Wouldn't it be cool if we could ride zebras. Why don't we see cavalry leading the charge, or police covering the beat on Zebras? Because Zebras are not just skittish and very panic prone, but also very aggressive and tend to attack when spooked. Much, much, more than wild horses. Zebras can be tamed, which is different from domestication. That's why you see Zebras, and lions etc in circuses. The African buffalo is very aggressive towards humans, unlike it's Asian counterpart. Why are pandas so difficult to exhibit in zoos? They don't reproduce well in captivity. It's always international news when a panda gives birth in whatever lucky zoo around the world that houses them. It'd be nice to assume all animals work in essentially the same way as every other.

Hippos kill more people in Africa than crocodiles and lions and are extremely aggressive. They'll kill you just because they feel like it. As they're herbivores, there's no reason to do this but unpredictable aggression. If you think that's just PC excuses, let's see you try and breed and produce cute cuddly little lap hippos. You'll die. The animal is too hostile and dangerous to even start with.

From what I see, I don't think you understand what domestication is, or understand that not all animals can be domesticated. Do you just think that all animals can come under our charm? It is a fact that most sub-Saharan animals are just too aggressive and/or unpredictable and don't reproduce well under our control. It's this controlled reproduction which creates artificial selection which leads to domestication. That's taming an animal and getting it to produce continuous tame offspring. A 14,000 pound African elephant is a huge risk especially if there's a chance it's gonna gore you. Plus you have to wait some 15 years for the elephant to reach maturity.

[Fertassa]

There's no reason why many of these African animals couldn't be or can't be domesticated.

You have no idea how wrong you are. People would ride on Zebras if they could. Trust me.

Read "Guns, Germs, and Steel" by Jared Diamond, for instance. It deals with the entire subject of why some civilizations prosper while others don't.

[zooworms]

religious Catholics/Muslims will tend not to use birth control while Protestants or people from very secularised countries like Belarus, will use it and have less children.

I thought this thread is about a different type of production lol.

[Manteiv]

Not sure if serious...

If North- and South Korea have the same people (genetically), yet compleatly different production: How can that POSSIBLY not disprove the moronic idea that "GDP output is because of gentics"?

As I had a feeling that you would indeed have a hard time understanding this relatively easy concept I even provided you with an even easier analogy, and obviously did so in vain. Once again, the dramatic difference between these two societies is due to the simple fact that South Korea is a modern free-market democracy while North Korea is a brutal communist dictatorship at the whim of its "Great Leader". If you still don't understand I suggest you look up the words "communism" and "dictatorship" in the dictionary.

I got a good laugh out of reading that conclusion when you had written all the other stuff that was actually on topic


Donno if I'm getting trolled here, but I'll answer anyways:

You're using an example of two siblings who have complealty different values. The very definition of culture (in the sociological context) is centered around that. Culture is the 'mental programming' of a group; their shared values and beliefs, customs etc. It determines/influences how they behave.

Basically, if you're brought up by gypsies, then chances are you'll act like one. If you're brought up in a very high-class society then chances are you'll act accordingly. The same goes for countries. In a country with a very strict work-ethic (such as Japan) with a mentality of favoring development, chances are they'll succeed.

Obviously culture is not the only factor though. Natural resources, the treatment you get from other countries and so on can of course also play a huge part in a country's success. The fact that you so completely fail to even consider what I wrote in any meaningful way -- it is as if you simply lack the necessary cognitive tools for it -- leads me to believe that I'm just dealing with some kid here with another 10 years to go before his brain is fully developed. That you religiously subscribe to terribly outdated, childish and simple ideas such as environment is everything also speaks for this. But of course, it is also possible that you sadly are some fully-grown 89 IQ idiot from the drug-infested, utterly corrupt third-world pigsty known as Colombia.

[duawLauff]

As I had a feeling that you would indeed have a hard time understanding this relatively easy concept I even provided you with an even easier analogy, and obviously did so in vain. Once again, the dramatic difference between these two societies is due to the simple fact that South Korea is a modern free-market democracy while North Korea is a brutal communist dictatorship at the whim of its "Great Leader". If you still don't understand I suggest you look up the words "communism" and "dictatorship" in the dictionary.

Fair enough. But all that stuff falls in under 'culture' to me though. I suppose we just have different concepts of what culture is then. Yes, it's an economic system, and that makes an enormous difference, I agree. But the point is; they're not genetically communist. So gentics still doesn't serve as an explanation at all.

The fact that you so completely fail to even consider what I wrote in any meaningful way -- it is as if you simply lack the necessary cognitive tools for it -- leads me to believe that I'm just dealing with some kid here with another 10 years to go before his brain is fully developed. That you religiously subscribe to terribly outdated, childish and simple ideas such as environment is everything also speaks for this. But of course, it is also possible that you sadly are some fully-grown 89 IQ idiot from the drug-infested, utterly corrupt third-world pigsty known as Colombia.

Well, the thing is.. When you wrap it up as "environment is everything" you trivialize it a bit. To me that's an extreamly important factor. The way I see it, you really just have 2 things to choose from; genetics or environment. You spent a lot of time bashing me as a person etc, but didn't provide any real arguments for why gentics would be the main factor. Can you think of any countries where genetics obviously seems to be the problem?

[Gremlinn]

It's a small world today. Horses have been introduced all around the world as well as cattle. Wouldn't it be cool if we could ride zebras. Why don't we see cavalry leading the charge, or police covering the beat on Zebras? Because Zebras are not just skittish and very panic prone, but also very aggressive and tend to attack when spooked. Much, much, more than wild horses. Zebras can be tamed, which is different from domestication. That's why you see Zebras, and lions etc in circuses. The African buffalo is very aggressive towards humans, unlike it's Asian counterpart. Why are pandas so difficult to exhibit in zoos? They don't reproduce well in captivity. It's always international news when a panda gives birth in whatever lucky zoo around the world that houses them. It'd be nice to assume all animals work in essentially the same way as every other.

Hippos kill more people in Africa than crocodiles and lions and are extremely aggressive. They'll kill you just because they feel like it. As they're herbivores, there's no reason to do this but unpredictable aggression. If you think that's just PC excuses, let's see you try and breed and produce cute cuddly little lap hippos. You'll die. The animal is too hostile and dangerous to even start with.

From what I see, I don't think you understand what domestication is, or understand that not all animals can be domesticated. Do you just think that all animals can come under our charm? It is a fact that most sub-Saharan animals are just too aggressive and/or unpredictable and don't reproduce well under our control. It's this controlled reproduction which creates artificial selection which leads to domestication. That's taming an animal and getting it to produce continuous tame offspring. A 14,000 pound African elephant is a huge risk especially if there's a chance it's gonna gore you. Plus you have to wait some 15 years for the elephant to reach maturity.

How can you compare Wild horses and Zebras when true wild horses are extinct? Horses in the wild today are the recent descendants of domesticated populations.
I don't think you appreciate how much the Asian and European ecosystem has been manipulated by human civilisation. There are less dangerous predatory animals outside of SSA Africa because they were largely exterminated by humans. There is plenty of evidence to show that organized bands of hunters can overcome any individual animal and ultimately control any predatory animal population if determined enough. Lions use to roam throughout southern Europe and Northern Africa. Bears and Wolves were largely eradicated from Europe. Mammoth populations were believed to have been heavily curtailed if not wiped out by primitive hunters of the Stone Age. Even where significant predatory animal populations remained – Hippos, Lions and Tigers, they never held back the great civilisations of Egypt and the Indus Valley.
Of course the ferocity of different animal species varies greatly but I find astonishing is that you believe that SSA Africa got all the most ferocious and aggressive animals while Asia and Europe got all the mild mannered animals waiting around to be tamed by humans. Large biological ecosystems don’t work that way, you don’t have one filled with cute and cuddly animals and another one filled with man-eating predators.
I never claimed all animals could be domesticated that would be ridiculous, in fact only a small percentage are worthwhile domesticating but where they are threat they can be controlled - For every man-killing Hippo in Africa there were man-killing Bears in Europe which is why Europeans took some initiative and wiped them out.

---------- Post added 2012-05-12 at 18:57 ----------

You have no idea how wrong you are. People would ride on Zebras if they could. Trust me.

Read "Guns, Germs, and Steel" by Jared Diamond, for instance. It deals with the entire subject of why some civilizations prosper while others don't.

Having a skittery temperament would be the norm for any animal susceptible to being preyed upon. The Eurasian wild horse would likely have had such a temperament. The domesticated horse has had this trait largely bred out of them.
Jared Diamond is the biggest messianic peddler of bullshit going around. There are so many flaws in his arguments its ridiculous, try thinking for yourself instead of regurgitating PC propaganda.

[EsAllCams]

Having a skittery temperament would be the norm for any animal susceptible to being preyed upon. The Eurasian wild horse would likely have had such a temperament. The domesticated horse has had this trait largely bred out of them.
Jared Diamond is the biggest messianic peddler of bullshit going around. There are so many flaws in his arguments its ridiculous, try thinking for yourself instead of regurgitating PC propaganda.

Why don't you point out the flaws in his argument instead of regurgitating your Non-PC views?

If I recall correctly, you've defended Richard Lynn and his pathetic excuse for IQ research and studies. That was a few months back though.