--- In cybalist@... s.com, Rick McCallister <gabaroo6958@ ...> wrote:
--- On Sun, 8/2/09, Koenraad Elst <koenraad.elst@ ...> wrote:
> Years ago, in cultural anthropology, it was explained that cultures acquired technology on a need basis --i.e. only if there were serious problems that needed to be addressed. And so, acc. to this idea, New Guinea and lowland Brazil were early adopters of agriculture but their system was productive enough to remain in place until modern times. Westerners see them as "primitive" but they thrived under a steady technology for 10,000. Europe, OTOH, was a relatively precarious place constantly in danger of famine and plague, and needed technological advances to keep from starving. China needed constant advances as it was consolidating but once it had a functional system in place, it became conservative. Or so I was taught back in the 70s. I can see many holes in this scenario but on a folk level necessity is the mother of invention
****GK: OTOH cf. http://ca.travel. yahoo.com/ guides/Other/ 722/seven- dangerous- destinations
Don't know about lowland Brazil (:=)))****
Evidently the mouth of the Amazon was one of the first agricultural sites in the New World. I imagine it's just about as dangerous as anyplace on the list. I have been to Colombia 4 times but found it very tame compared to the violence in El Salvador