|
|
Post by James Hannam on Jun 28, 2010 15:36:42 GMT
Matt Ridley, he of the least glorious financial career in history, has written a new book, the Rational Optimist, which sounds jolly good. Certainly I'd not use the disaster of Northern Rock against him on this subject. His only mistake is to leave out religion as a primary reason why human beings could co-operate with strangers rather than kill them. Here's a taster: www.rationaloptimist.com/writings/humans-why-they-triumphed-0Best wishes James |
|
|
|
Post by grahammartinveale on Jun 28, 2010 20:35:18 GMT
A few problems spring to mind immediately.
A comparison of the art and technology of the Upper Paleolithic Revolution with the finds at Pinnacle Point and Blombos reveals a huge gap. A few cross marks made in ochre does not begin to compare with the "Venus of Hohle Fels". Unless there have been some finds made that close this gap, I'm not sure that we can talk about a cultural revolution at Blombos.
Secondly, isn't it just as likely that technological innovation causes a growth in population density? And that increased skill in art allows communities to form an identity that can persist over time? Which is the cause, and which the effect?
|
|
|
|
Post by grahammartinveale on Jun 28, 2010 20:38:40 GMT
It just seems that Darwinian gradualism must solve every puzzle...
|
|
|
|
Post by James Hannam on Jun 29, 2010 16:33:40 GMT
It could be a positive feedback mechanism. So incresing population drives technology which allows population to increase further. I certainly find the example of Tasmania instructive.
|
|
|
|
Post by grahammartinveale on Jul 1, 2010 0:44:36 GMT
What sort of technology were we talking about at Tasmania?
|
|
