←back to thread

189 points docmechanic | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
mattdeboard ◴[] No.43656266[source]
Reinforcing my strongly held belief that what fundamentally sets humans apart isn't spoken language, or tools, or any of that, but rather the fact we write down what we know, then make those writings available to future generations to build on. We're a species distinguished from all others by our information-archival and -dissemination practices. We're an archivist species, a librarian species. Homo archivum. In my opinion.
replies(27): >>43656394 #>>43656397 #>>43656420 #>>43656447 #>>43656530 #>>43656550 #>>43656943 #>>43657000 #>>43657005 #>>43657255 #>>43657477 #>>43657514 #>>43657552 #>>43657814 #>>43658032 #>>43658078 #>>43658352 #>>43658691 #>>43658854 #>>43659931 #>>43663068 #>>43664128 #>>43664456 #>>43666786 #>>43667727 #>>43668319 #>>43668641 #
contrarian1234 ◴[] No.43657255[source]
By that metric Native Americans are basically animals.. which is problematic.

However arguably humans existed from tens of thousands of years and only really started to make huge technological leaps when writing existed. Prewriting culture is still quite fascinating and complex (ex: Homer or Olmec/Maya art) but it does seem to be stuck at a certain level.

I think Egyptian civilization provides a fascinating mid point where there is writing but it's not very accessible... And Egyptian civilization is slow to develop (it's also very weird they don't have their equivalent of Homer or Gilgamesh)

replies(7): >>43657301 #>>43657632 #>>43658476 #>>43658684 #>>43660244 #>>43661056 #>>43670631 #
1. PaulDavisThe1st ◴[] No.43660244[source]
There are dozens (maybe even hundreds) of human cultures that existed at the time Homer was writing, or when Gilgamesh was written, that also have no equivalent.

The idea that any roughly equivalent human culture will develop the same things is clearly wrong. Just look at the plough - for centuries or even millenia, humans outside of what is now China had ploughs but failed to gain the insight to improve it in the way it was improved in China. Once trade exposed them to the Chinese plough, it was more or less universally adopted within decades.

While multiple (re)invention may be common, it is not universal. Just because culture A manages to find is way to cultural/technological innovation doesn't imply that culture B will, even if the two cultures are very similar.