PDA

View Full Version : Can Scientific And Engineering Success Be Attributed To One Grioup? Your Opnion.



C-in-fl-usa
03-10-13, 19:13
Taking into account the scientific, engineering, and mechanical accomplishments of Germany, Denmark, Sweden, and Norway.... in your, the reader's opinion... is this linked to a genetic group? If so, explain. I think I1 --> M253, in particular, are responsible for many advancements.

Maciamo
03-10-13, 20:28
Taking into account the scientific, engineering, and mechanical accomplishments of Germany, Denmark, Sweden, and Norway.... in your, the reader's opinion... is this linked to a genetic group? If so, explain. I think I1 --> M253, in particular, are responsible for many advancements.

Genetics is partly responsible for accomplishments, but it is for the greatest part autosomal DNA, not Y-DNA (although it is true that it is almost exclusively men who dominate the world of sciences, inventions and engineering). Culture, education, society and the economic conditions also play an important role in scientific development.

C-in-fl-usa
03-10-13, 21:40
Genetics is partly responsible for accomplishments, but it is for the greatest part autosomal DNA, not Y-DNA (although it is true that it is almost exclusively men who dominate the world of sciences, inventions and engineering). Culture, education, society and the economic conditions also play an important role in scientific development.
I have much to learn in genetics so I defer to those who are familiar with autosomal. I know what I know scientifically and surely will not claim to know something in a field I barely know. Historically, it seems as though that section of Europe (Germany, Sweden, Denmark, and Norway) create precision machines (dykes, wind turbines, automobiles, steel, ball bearings), have people well versed in physics and astronomy, computer science (C++), reformulating a socioeconomic system that works for all sectors of society... actually the best world-wide. One might claim that geography is the reason that northern Europe has the successes. But access to the sea doesn't explain it all. There's some different brain activity going on.

Many will claim the U.S. is a power due to capitalism when actually it is nothing more than a prime geographic location with prime geographic attributes.

LeBrok
04-10-13, 02:31
I have much to learn in genetics so I defer to those who are familiar with autosomal. I know what I know scientifically and surely will not claim to know something in a field I barely know. Historically, it seems as though that section of Europe (Germany, Sweden, Denmark, and Norway) create precision machines (dykes, wind turbines, automobiles, steel, ball bearings), have people well versed in physics and astronomy, computer science (C++), reformulating a socioeconomic system that works for all sectors of society... actually the best world-wide. One might claim that geography is the reason that northern Europe has the successes..
I don't want to take away achievements of the North, but lets remember few things. North grew powerful only in last 500 years, till then (Renaissance) South was more populated, richer and more developed. It is also worth remembering that when Germanic and Slavic tribes invaded Roman Empire we had dark ages for next 500 years. I guess till they got educated. Many Roman and Greek technologies were lost and forgotten.

Fire Haired
04-10-13, 03:53
Denmark, Norway, and Sweden have been the areas in Europe farthest away from the newsiest advancements for a very long time maybe not recently though. Farming spread to almost all of Europe from 9,000-7,300ybp and hit only far southern Sweden and Norway about 6,000 years ago. Most of Scandinavians were hunter gather till the bronze age and I am not sure but I think the Soumi were hunter gathers till the middle ages. Copper, Bronze, Iron all spread to only southern Scandinavia much later than the rest of Europe. Modern western Civilization did not spread to Scandinavia till about 1,000ybp. The Norsman in the middle ages were kind like the last "barbarians" and pagan people in western Europe. So every type of advance seems to have spread to Scandinavia much later than the rest of Europe because of how far north it is. I don't know the history that well it is probably a lot more complicated. Y DNA I1 in Scandinavia I think probably came with the some of the earliest human settlement in Scandinavia around 8,000-11,000ybp. Specifically I1a Df29 subclade I1b only exists around central Europe and is very very very very rare. The North subclade I1a2 L22 maybe have originated in Scandinavia around 6,000-11,000ybp. According to Eupedia I1 page it takes up 80% of Finnish I1 which is under Finnish subclades of I1a2 and the majority of Swedish and Norwegian I1 I heard once around 58%. While around a total of 15% of Swedish and Norwegian y DNA is under non I1a2 L22 subclades of I1. I think may have come with R1b1a2a1a2 S21, I2a2 P214, red hair(at least over 1%), and Germanic languages starting around 3,500-4,000ybp. Which can explain why non Germanic Finland has a higher percentage of I1a2 L22. About 4% of total Finnish Y DNA is under non I1a2 L22 subclades I would bet more popular in the same areas as R1b S21, I2a2 P214, and red hair so western coast of Finland. I1 probably originated in central Europe and most I1 in central Europe did not come from Scandinavia it is also a major Y DNA haplogroup of central Europe. I1 has a history especially in Scandinavia as being stone age hunter gathers. I don't think y DNA has any connection with how advanced a people group is. It is more of what situation a people group is put in Scandinavia I1 was so far north new advances usually came late and they were to far away to learn and trade. If it was not for Europe's strong connection with the Near east since the Neolithic age so for about 9,000-10,000 years Europeans would probably be stone age hunter gathers like Native Americans. Most people in the world 2,000ybp were stone age hunter gathers.

Fire Haired
04-10-13, 04:13
I don't want to take away achievements of the North, but lets remember few things. North grew powerful only in last 500 years, till then (Renaissance) South was more populated, richer and more developed. It is also worth remembering that when Germanic and Slavic tribes invaded Roman Empire we had dark ages for next 500 years. I guess till they got educated. Many Roman and Greek technologies were lost and forgotten.

Germanic kingdoms which were civilizations dominated western Europe in the early middle ages every spot in western Europe even Sardine and Sicily were at one time controlled by Germans. I don't know the history that well but it seems the middle ages was created by Germanic people. The Dragon stories I think have their source in Germanic folk stories that's why the pagen Vikings who were not apart of that world were also so addicted to dragons. Fairy tales and folk stories from the middle ages I am pretty sure have their source in Germanic religion even though they became Christian they kept a lot of pagen stories to tell for fun. The castles the knights was all by Germanic kingdoms then became normal in the rest of Europe correct me if I am wrong. It is called the dark ages by people who are in love with ancient Rome and Greece not realizing not everyone in Europe descends from Romans and Greeks only Greeks and I guess some Italians but most of Italy was apart of the Greco world even before Roman empire. The Hallstat Celtic tribes that dominated central and western Europe in the iron age were not anymore civilized or whatever. The middle ages was the begging of the modern western world and when Europe became civilized really just as advanced as the Near east or anywhere in the world. I get sick of how inlove historians mainly ones from the 1800's and before are with Rome and Greece. And act as if the world started in Egypt and Tigres and Euphrates rivers and when talking about the ancient world only mention those civilizations when there were so many other people. And since really the middle ages haven't the power centers in Europe been Britain, France, Germany, Spain, and Portugal

LeBrok
04-10-13, 07:39
It is called the dark ages by people who are in love with ancient Rome and Greece l It is called Dark Ages because of lack of written word. Beside few major events (in part of Europe) we have no idea what was happening in Europe for 500 years after fall of Roman Empire.

Nobody1
04-10-13, 17:13
It is called Dark Ages because of lack of written word. Beside few major events (in part of Europe) we have no idea what was happening in Europe for 500 years after fall of Roman Empire.

I would disagree with that;

There are a lot of Written Documents from the 500 years after the fall of the Roman Empire (West/476AD);
Mostly of course Edicts & Codes of Laws of the Germanic successor Kingdoms; that however reveal a good insight into Governance, Society structure and Every Day life;
Also several Chronicles like those from Einhard, Paul the Deacon, Bede, Gregory of Tours etc.
And the Carolingian Renaissance is also very note worthy;

The reason i consider the Dark Ages to be dark is because the Church (but also the Guilds) had the monopoly on the knowledge and therefor the majority was literally kept in the dark;
This mostly changed with the improvement of Printing Press (Moveable Letters/Gutenberg) when the knowledge (and even Bibles for first time) were than possible to be distributed in quantity;
Notable example is the Letter of Columbus of his voyage and discovery that spread rapidly across all of Europe;

Roger Bacon, Albertus Magnus or Thomas of Aquin were all Medieval scholars and most of the old Greek Knowledge (+Islamic Persian/Arabic) was also already translated to Latin by the 12th and 13th centuries; Also the Arabic numerals were introduced to Europe (Liber Abaci) in the early 13th cen. - the knowledge and understanding was already all there but only able to distribute sufficiently with the newer standards of the Printing Press (early 15th cen.) which ultimately than (in my opinion) ushered in the Renaissance;

Angela
04-10-13, 19:47
It is and has been called the "Dark Ages" for a number of reasons. The following quotes are from a book that I highly recommend...The Fall Of Rome and The End of Civilization, by Bryan Ward-Perkins, Oxford University Press.
l
There is "a mass of archaeological evidence now available, which shows a startling decline in western standards of living during the fifth to seventh centuries. This was a change that affected everyone, from peasant to kings, even the bodies of saints resting in their churches. It was no mere transformation-it was decline on a scale that can reasonably be described as the end of a civilization." p.87

Painstaking research has revealed a [pre fall] sophisticated world, in which a north-Italian peasant of the Roman period might eat off tableware from the area near Naples, drink wine in an amphora from North Africa, and sleep under a tiled roof...this level of sophistication is not seen again until perhaps the fourteenth century, some 800 years later...I am keen to emphasize that in Roman times good-quality articles were available even to humble consumers, and that production and distribution were complex and sophisticated." p. 100

"It may initially be hard to believe, but post-Roman Britain in fact sank to a level of economic complexity well below that of the pre-Roman Iron Age...it took three centuries to begin to recover." p. 118

In the Aegean world, which in contrast to the West, had survived for a few centuries, the economy was expanding in both size and complexity through the fifth and into the sixth century, only to suffer the same fate as the west with the Slavic and Avar invasions. p. 129

Agricultural production also suffered..."Almost without exception, archaeological surveys in the West have found far fewer rural sites of the fifth, sixth and seventh centuries AD than of the early empire." p. 138

Literacy almost totally declined..."What is striking about the Roman period, and to my mind unparalleled until quite recent times, is the evidence of writing being casually used, in an entirely ephemeral and everyday manner, which was none the less sophisticated. The best evidence of this comes from Pompeii." p. 153 Such widespread literacy did not again become common for centuries. (Indeed, looking at the graffiti everywhere in Pompeii, huckstering for candidates for local office, advertising brothels or the latest theater performance, or labeling some merchant a thief is one of the most interesting aspects of a visit there...that and the sophistication of the facilities for bathing, lol.

I could go on and on about the constant warfare that decimated flourishing cities and reduced them to hovels full of rubble, but I'm sure everyone is aware of what happened to these cities all over the empire. The tourists love the ruins...find them very romantic. Or the total disruption to the road systems...only the incredible engineering skill and quality that went into building them has allowed some of them to survive. Or the rise of lawlessness that made travel of any kind so perilous. None of this should be news.

Then, we could always add in the natural disasters, like the weather and the plague.

I don't know how this period could be described as anything but dark.

This is by no means, in my opinion, a process that is unique to this time or these groups of people. This seems to be the recurring pattern of human affairs. People struggle to build a civilization of some complexity and comfort, the peripheral barbarians destroy it, and then the process has to start all over again. The history of the Chinese civilizations, the tell layers in the Middle East, all reveal the same story. It's just that in this most recent example, we have a more detailed record of what happened.

ElHorsto
04-10-13, 20:34
This is by no means, in my opinion, a process that is unique to this time or these groups of people. This seems to be the recurring pattern of human affairs. People struggle to build a civilization of some complexity and comfort, the peripheral barbarians destroy it, and then the process has to start all over again. The history of the Chinese civilizations, the tell layers in the Middle East, all reveal the same story. It's just that in this most recent example, we have a more detailed record of what happened.

There are theories that assume intrinsic destiny of collapse in every civilization. An interesting Wikipedia article about Social Cycle Theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_cycle_theory).