PDA

View Full Version : Earth if no Dark Ages?



actuallyliam
April 26th, 2011, 12:03 AM
Is this episode saying this is what Earth would have been like if the dark ages never happened? They were created 2000 years ago, which is practically the same amount of time Christianity has been around. Theories? Both these recent episodes have had this feeling. Maybe I'm imagining things?

tomaso88
April 26th, 2011, 12:28 AM
yea but these people had a huge tech boost since eli and stuff already new alot about technology and wrote books and stuff about it before they died so they advanced really quick

escyos
April 26th, 2011, 12:40 AM
They didn;t have to deal with religious persecution and technology as heresy so they would be further ahead.

D Toccs
April 26th, 2011, 12:45 AM
The Dark Ages only effected Western Europe.
For those 600 years all scientific and cultural progress continued in Greece and the Middle East which were already more advanced than the West. It is progress from those areas that forms the basis for modern Western civilization.
Asian countries were completely unaffected by the Dark Ages, China, Japan, Korea and India all continued to progress.

It is a myth that we would be so much more advanced if the Dark Ages did not occur, they were an incredibly localized event.

padr49904
April 26th, 2011, 12:45 AM
Actually if you look back at SG-1 Sam compared the Tollan civilization to what Earth would of been like if there was no Dark Age.
If they were new starting out they wouldn't of been even a quarter that advanced, what was brought with them and what all the people knew helped a lot with everything. The medical advances would never of happened without them getting the boost from the original colonizers, since it would be been a large number of years before they even knew how to do surgery, but with TJ there they didn't even have to really learn anything.

And I wonder if any of the books Eli or any of the other crew had read were rewritten from memory for the enjoyment of others. I can just imagine a Harry Potter, Eli edition, everywhere on the planet.

tomaso88
April 26th, 2011, 12:50 AM
yea but we didnt only have dark ages effect us we have many plagues and diseasers, a hell lot of wars etc

Trinary
April 26th, 2011, 03:08 AM
Understanding about their universe made their civilization grow faster. They don't have to argue a century long whether their planet is sphere or flat.

senilegreen
April 26th, 2011, 03:46 AM
As others have indicated, the "Dark Ages" weren't so "dark" and that pop tv/film tries to pin some sort of effect on that period of Western history is way, way overdone.

And, as I and a few others tried to point out last week in commenting on the previous episode, the 2000 years allowed in the story really is too short. In my write up about this episode I didn't want to dwell on that weakness of the story as I thought episode 18 had too many charms to rain down heavy criticism upon it. Yet again I will point out that the Destiny crew suffered a labor shortage for the purposes of building a civilization, something which "Epilogue" glossed over.

thekillman
April 26th, 2011, 03:57 AM
2000 years ago they thought disease was magic. they couldn't even forge proper iron and steel didn't even exist.


there are thousands of simple principles we have developed over time that 2000 years ago were unimaginable.


also the Dark Ages weren't that dark. it wasn't significant in terms of science but it was in terms of culture.

Daralundy
April 26th, 2011, 04:03 AM
We might be considerably less advanced. The Roman Empire wasn't particularly scientifical inovative.

Keeper
April 26th, 2011, 07:34 AM
The Dark Ages only effected Western Europe.
For those 600 years all scientific and cultural progress continued in Greece and the Middle East which were already more advanced than the West. It is progress from those areas that forms the basis for modern Western civilization.
Asian countries were completely unaffected by the Dark Ages, China, Japan, Korea and India all continued to progress.

It is a myth that we would be so much more advanced if the Dark Ages did not occur, they were an incredibly localized event.

not entirely localised - trade would have have been affected to some extent too, and information/ideas travel alongside trade.

the immediate ramifications of the dark ages were, indeed, fairly localised. but eastern and asian progress wasn't welcomed within western europe, preventing western europe from contributing their own ideas, making their own changes, or trying to compete. with the reverse effect of eastern/asian developments having less to compete with, allowing them to take longer in developing, but also with less 'foreign' ideas to provoke them into further development.

i also agree that the ideas some people have as to how far advanced we would be without them is a bit mythical - i was discussing it with a friend lately who said something about our being 2000 years behind in our development because of it.

however, between the dark ages, various wars, the burning of the library at alexandria, the various persecutions of new ideas - throughout our history, we've set ourselves back a good few hundred years, at least in local areas and i'd believe globally, simply by virtue of our own inability to save, share, and elaborate on various technologies and ideas.

among all the disasters we've inflicted on ourselves, as well as various plagues and other things, i'd guess about 800-1000 years max - over at least the history of civilisation.




novus has a major advantage because they haven't gone through all these disasters - they're developing ideas held by the modern-day destiny crew, and even if there are gaps in knowledge - e.g. medicine - with a basic starting point, a general understanding of science, and people like eli, rush, the rest of the scientists, and likely genius offspring somewhere along the way, they can develop things - even if they don't like having to do the stuff, they're smart enough to understand, and figure out what might be going wrong.

The Destiny
April 26th, 2011, 08:01 AM
The Novus civilisation had a shortage of labour and tools ( not suprising if you're only starting out with about 60 people ), but made up for that with the knowledge left behind by the Destiny crew. Eli wrotes a boatload of books, most of that's gotta be useful. They also did not have to deal with war, plague, supression, stagnation etc. like we did on Earth. I imagine their history to be a lot more peaceful with the occasional skirmish. With that in mind Novus came out slightly ahead if us, being able to build spaceships although without FTL capabilities. The knowledge of destiny's crew must have been of immense value.

And the funny thing is that they are most likely better at their history than us, because their early history was entirely recorded, which is unique.

g.o.d
April 26th, 2011, 09:45 AM
they had an opportunity to learn from Earth's mistakes a thanks to their fresh start, it was easier for them to advance. I bet our civilisation won't be as advanced as Novas' in 2000 years

Steelbox
April 26th, 2011, 10:03 AM
One of the main "cause" of stagnation in the Dark Ages was because religion had an such upper hand on custumes the daily lives. In fact, there was not even one mention on Religion nor the panoramic view show any structure resembling a Church. Also when technologies advance new finds are make a lot quiker so the advancements of a society are geometric so you can't judge simply by looking.

Can someone make the math, can a society started by 60 odd people reach 1 million in 2000 years?

Kaiphantom
April 26th, 2011, 10:13 AM
The Dark Ages only effected Western Europe.
For those 600 years all scientific and cultural progress continued in Greece and the Middle East which were already more advanced than the West. It is progress from those areas that forms the basis for modern Western civilization.
Asian countries were completely unaffected by the Dark Ages, China, Japan, Korea and India all continued to progress.

It is a myth that we would be so much more advanced if the Dark Ages did not occur, they were an incredibly localized event.

Not entirely true. Europe was far beyond other civilizations for a long time; the dark ages allowed the rest of the world to catch up quite a bit. If Europe had no dark ages, we would be several hundred years more advanced by now.

The dark ages were partly a result of things like the black plague wiping out humanity, and religions. Knowledge of proper medicine helps the former, and for the latter, we need to analyze exactly why religion came about.

When someone had a seizure back in olden days, no one else could explain it. No one could really explain dreams. So, people made up explanations that involved higher powers, and treated things like coincidence as really being signs from spirits or gods, etc. The Novian civilization already had knowledge of these things with a good grounding in the scientific mindset, so religions wouldn't have been able to take hold.

The other major reason for religion, was a way to control groups larger than a certain number. As long as they believed an omnipotent god or gods was watching them, they'd behave and act the way you wanted them to even if you weren't around (and you just need to hand out holy edicts to keep them acting your way). The Novians got around this, since they drew up things like a constitution early, and thus based rule on law, instead of on a divine entity.

Without religion or disease holding them back as much, it wouldn't have surprised me to see them advance far beyond Earth of today.

D Toccs
April 26th, 2011, 02:03 PM
Not entirely true. Europe was far beyond other civilizations for a long time; the dark ages allowed the rest of the world to catch up quite a bit. If Europe had no dark ages, we would be several hundred years more advanced by now.

Not true at all.

At the time of the fall of the Western Roman Empire in 450 AD and the start of the Dark Ages for Western Europe, the Eastern Roman Empire which contained Greece and the Middle East was already much more advanced culturally, scientifically and economically.

The Eastern Roman Empire continued on unimpeded by any dark ages until the 1500s and developed things like the basis for modern mathematics, chemistry and philosophy.
Asian civilizations like China, Japan, Korea and India all continued to flourish.

To think that we would be more advanced now if Western Europe had not had the Dark Ages is to take a very Western-centric view of history and in this case is completely wrong.

Gollumpus
April 26th, 2011, 03:19 PM
Would we be more advanced if there was no Dark Ages in Europe? Sure. We would also likely be even more advanced if there had not been various purges of whole areas of learning in China due to changes of philosophies or the whims of a new emperor.

We are either a very dumb race for not learning from our past mistakes or a very bright one for being able to overcome ourselves.

regards,
G.

FennerMachine
April 26th, 2011, 03:34 PM
Can someone make the math, can a society started by 60 odd people reach 1 million in 2000 years?

Easily - worked it our assuming everyone pairs up, having average of 3 children each who also pair up. Each generation lasting 30 year before next wave of children.
The number is HUGE! Billions possible in that time frame.

spaceship
April 26th, 2011, 03:35 PM
A lot of scientific progress was made in the Middle East during the European dark ages. Two scientists of note:

Al Khwarizmi: Called the father of algebra. You can read about his many contributions to science online. But one thing I'd like to mention is that basis of all computer software is something called the algorithm which is a concept Al Khwarizmi came up with. Algorithm is actually a latin corruption of his name.

ibn al-Haytham: Know as the father of optics. He also came up with the scientific method which is the basis of all scientific research even today.

So to say that the world didn't progress during the dark ages is completely untrue. It ignores the works of great scientists and mathematicians of the middle east and east asia whose contributions are still relevant today.

The_Asgard_live
April 26th, 2011, 03:36 PM
Not true at all.

At the time of the fall of the Western Roman Empire in 450 AD and the start of the Dark Ages for Western Europe, the Eastern Roman Empire which contained Greece and the Middle East was already much more advanced culturally, scientifically and economically.

The Eastern Roman Empire continued on unimpeded by any dark ages until the 1500s and developed things like the basis for modern mathematics, chemistry and philosophy.
Asian civilizations like China, Japan, Korea and India all continued to flourish.

To think that we would be more advanced now if Western Europe had not had the Dark Ages is to take a very Western-centric view of history and in this case is completely wrong.

D Toccs,

Since you seem well verse in the subject, maybe I can pick your brain a bit. Would you agree that it is not as simple as saying we would be more advanced or we would not be?

To take a "western-centric" view of history, is to take the view of history of the region that pulled together all the ideas that have led to the most advanced societies we have today. So, if someone is going to talk about how much further advanced humanity would be, what we are really saying is how much further the west would be? Otherwise, we'd have to concede that strict logic says Africa would have the hyper drives now, because that is where we think it all began. Actually, some sort of intelligent fish humanoid should have that honor.

Its been a while, but didn't the western notion of linear time, linear thinking, lead to its linear progress? I remember being impressed by the concept when introduced to it. That the east had a circular reasoning that would basically keep certain cultures stuck in their traditions and way of thinking...

If one could start the age of enlightenment hundreds of years sooner, logic would dictate, we'd be hundreds of years more advanced. But its not that simple. As they say, necessity is the mother of invention. So is war, or cold wars. Things happened the way they had to happen for us to get to where we are. Without a race to space, or nuclear build up etc...

If we could simply cut out 500-700 years of darkness and start the history we know sooner, sure, we'd be 500-700 more advanced. However, if we starting changing events that had to happen to drive innovation... who knows what would have happened.

Galileo_Galilee
April 26th, 2011, 05:09 PM
Yes, I fully believe that we'd have a much higher level of technology if things like religion and the Inquisition had never happened.

Religious oppression caused huge gaps in technology and still does in some places ion this planet.

Phenom
April 26th, 2011, 05:32 PM
The Dark Ages only effected Western Europe.
For those 600 years all scientific and cultural progress continued in Greece and the Middle East which were already more advanced than the West. It is progress from those areas that forms the basis for modern Western civilization.
Asian countries were completely unaffected by the Dark Ages, China, Japan, Korea and India all continued to progress.

It is a myth that we would be so much more advanced if the Dark Ages did not occur, they were an incredibly localized event.

The middle east were still riding camels until they struck oil. Hardly much to trouble the scientists there.

Greece peaked about 2000 years go. Since then all they have perfected is corruption and greed.

The Asian countries are so notoriously insular that they pretty much got stuck in a cultural loop and sure, they did progress in some areas, but the lack of information sharing made any progression beyond those earlier discoveries impossible.

It is quite obsurd to think that without the dark ages, we would not be further along than we are now. But congratulations, you are the first person I have ever heard say that. Some points for being creative I guess.

Nth Chevron
April 26th, 2011, 05:33 PM
well if we werent dominated by religion when science came to the forefront of our understanding and priorities, then i suspect we would have embraced science like the Alterans.

Instead we get fairytales for grownups, that instill a culture with fear, mass murder and other atrocities, not to mention its has been used many times for the wrong people to claim power.

N.C

ju2au
April 26th, 2011, 05:34 PM
Other countries/cultures also had their dark ages. For example, during the reign of China's first emperor, books were burned and scholars were executed. The emperor figured that the people most likely to plot against him are those who can read and write so getting rid of them should solve that problem.

D Toccs
April 26th, 2011, 05:47 PM
The middle east were still riding camels until they struck oil. Hardly much to trouble the scientists there.

Greece peaked about 2000 years go. Since then all they have perfected is corruption and greed.

The Asian countries are so notoriously insular that they pretty much got stuck in a cultural loop and sure, they did progress in some areas, but the lack of information sharing made any progression beyond those earlier discoveries impossible.

It is quite obsurd to think that without the dark ages, we would not be further along than we are now. But congratulations, you are the first person I have ever heard say that. Some points for being creative I guess.

Your post is so disturbingly ignorant of world history that to correct all of your errors would take far too long. If you're not going to contribute in a productive manner, please just leave those of us who are trying to have an intelligent discussion.

Nth Chevron
April 26th, 2011, 05:54 PM
I dont quite think the rant is to do with world history.

More like a mini rant against religion that held us back when we could possibly be out amongst the stars ourselves by now.

Not a definite outcome for sure, but religion has always been the antithesis of science.

N.C

Kaiphantom
April 26th, 2011, 06:03 PM
Not true at all.

At the time of the fall of the Western Roman Empire in 450 AD and the start of the Dark Ages for Western Europe, the Eastern Roman Empire which contained Greece and the Middle East was already much more advanced culturally, scientifically and economically.

The Eastern Roman Empire continued on unimpeded by any dark ages until the 1500s and developed things like the basis for modern mathematics, chemistry and philosophy.
Asian civilizations like China, Japan, Korea and India all continued to flourish.

To think that we would be more advanced now if Western Europe had not had the Dark Ages is to take a very Western-centric view of history and in this case is completely wrong.

Question for you: what kind of nations dominate the world today? Is there any kind of relation between those countries and the Dark Ages?

I'll answer for you: Western countries. Europe (and the US which was settled by Europe). Despite the Dark Ages, you can see who came out on top. Now, imagine how far we'd be along today if the Dark Ages didn't happen?

D Toccs
April 26th, 2011, 06:05 PM
D Toccs,

Since you seem well verse in the subject, maybe I can pick your brain a bit. Would you agree that it is not as simple as saying we would be more advanced or we would not be?

Yes I would completely agree that it is not as simple as saying "we would" or "would not" be more advanced without the Dark Ages.

There were so many mitigating factors that caused the Dark Ages, that to remove any one factor would result in a drastically different world then we have today, and not necessarily a better or more advanced world.


Its been a while, but didn't the western notion of linear time, linear thinking, lead to its linear progress? I remember being impressed by the concept when introduced to it. That the east had a circular reasoning that would basically keep certain cultures stuck in their traditions and way of thinking...

Yeah the concept of linear time was originated in the West, I think by Newton.

The concept of linear progress in relation to history and civilization is a contested point among historians and archaeologists however.

Civilization's progress is not a simple as moving from primitive to advanced in one continuous line of progress. It's more of a rise and fall.


If one could start the age of enlightenment hundreds of years sooner, logic would dictate, we'd be hundreds of years more advanced. But its not that simple. As they say, necessity is the mother of invention. So is war, or cold wars. Things happened the way they had to happen for us to get to where we are. Without a race to space, or nuclear build up etc...

If we could simply cut out 500-700 years of darkness and start the history we know sooner, sure, we'd be 500-700 more advanced. However, if we starting changing events that had to happen to drive innovation... who knows what would have happened.

Yes this is exactly the point. In theory if you could just cut out the 600 or 700 years of the Dark Ages from Western Europe and start the Renaissance earlier, then sure we would be more advanced.

But to cut out the Dark Ages, it would necessitate that you remove the various factors that caused them such as the Hunnic invasion, the migration of Germanic and Slavic peoples, the spread of Christianity and the division of the Roman Empire.

Once you remove those factors then there is no way of saying what would happen, because you are essentially re-writing everything. The world could easily be 100s of years less advanced without all of those events happening.

Phenom
April 26th, 2011, 07:01 PM
Your post is so disturbingly ignorant of world history that to correct all of your errors would take far too long. If you're not going to contribute in a productive manner, please just leave those of us who are trying to have an intelligent discussion.

Nice deflection.

Guess you don't like being called on your comments. Fair enough. Not everyone likes confrontation.

Daralundy
April 26th, 2011, 07:29 PM
We might not be what we are without the "dark ages". It was actually a time of great growth and change. In it the old graeco-roman civilization, the northern barbarians, and christianity merged to produce something new.


Question for you: what kind of nations dominate the world today? Is there any kind of relation between those countries and the Dark Ages?

I'll answer for you: Western countries. Europe (and the US which was settled by Europe). Despite the Dark Ages, you can see who came out on top. Now, imagine how far we'd be along today if the Dark Ages didn't happen?

D Toccs
April 26th, 2011, 07:55 PM
Nice deflection.

Guess you don't like being called on your comments. Fair enough. Not everyone likes confrontation.

Alright fine, I'll address each one of your ignorant points.


The middle east were still riding camels until they struck oil. Hardly much to trouble the scientists there.

This statement is incredibly wrong. Modern mathematics and chemistry among other things were developed in the Middle East while Western Europe was in the Dark Ages.

For hundreds of years during the middle ages Baghdad was one of if not the most advanced cities in the world.


Greece peaked about 2000 years go. Since then all they have perfected is corruption and greed.

Again wrong. You are equating the Hellenic Greek civilization of the Ancient times to the be all and end all of Greek development.

The Eastern Roman Empire which didn't fall and kept progressing, was dominated by the Greeks. It included all of Greece, the Middle East and Egypt.
This Greek dominated Eastern Roman Empire flourished well into the 1500s.


The Asian countries are so notoriously insular that they pretty much got stuck in a cultural loop and sure, they did progress in some areas, but the lack of information sharing made any progression beyond those earlier discoveries impossible.

This statement shows a complete lack of understanding about Asian history. Numerous civilizations rose and fell over the centuries and significant progress was made.
China invented gunpowder and navigated the South China Sea and the Indian Ocean sending trading convoys to as far away as Africa.

You say that they were all "notoriously insular" yet China was sending envoys to Rome in times BC and had regular trade relations with Middle Eastern. Southeast Asian and Central Asian civilizations.
The various civilizations of India were trading partners with Middle Eastern, East African and Southeast Asian societies since the dawn of civilization.

Trade relations with neighbors and cultural development were very prolific in Asian civilizations, in stark contrast to the picture you painted with your statement.


It is quite obsurd to think that without the dark ages, we would not be further along than we are now. But congratulations, you are the first person I have ever heard say that. Some points for being creative I guess.

Now I had written your initial post off as just inflammatory comments designed to start an argument or possibly just a failed attempt at humor.
What is Absurd is that it seems you actually believe the ignorant things you said, given the fact that you so rudely challenged me to answer them.

Given your statements I think that the reason you have never heard anyone say that we would not be further along without the Dark Ages, is because you don't listen when people are talking about history.

Now that I have addressed your points, and to avoid hijacking the thread, I will not be continuing this pointless argument with you.

Puddle-Jumper
April 26th, 2011, 08:00 PM
Its difficult to judge.. like they would have had a boost in some areas but not in others, like in medicine for example, TJ is not a doctor, dispite her ability to diagnose ALS with only an army medics training... some things would have to be rediscovered. So really the society for hundreds of years was probably very imbalanced technology wise, very advanced computers, but only rediscovering the basics of genetics for example.

Phenom
April 26th, 2011, 08:58 PM
Alright fine, I'll address each one of your ignorant points.



This statement is incredibly wrong. Modern mathematics and chemistry among other things were developed in the Middle East while Western Europe was in the Dark Ages.

For hundreds of years during the middle ages Baghdad was one of if not the most advanced cities in the world.



Again wrong. You are equating the Hellenic Greek civilization of the Ancient times to the be all and end all of Greek development.

The Eastern Roman Empire which didn't fall and kept progressing, was dominated by the Greeks. It included all of Greece, the Middle East and Egypt.
This Greek dominated Eastern Roman Empire flourished well into the 1500s.



This statement shows a complete lack of understanding about Asian history. Numerous civilizations rose and fell over the centuries and significant progress was made.
China invented gunpowder and navigated the South China Sea and the Indian Ocean sending trading convoys to as far away as Africa.

You say that they were all "notoriously insular" yet China was sending envoys to Rome in times BC and had regular trade relations with Middle Eastern. Southeast Asian and Central Asian civilizations.
The various civilizations of India were trading partners with Middle Eastern, East African and Southeast Asian societies since the dawn of civilization.

Trade relations with neighbors and cultural development were very prolific in Asian civilizations, in stark contrast to the picture you painted with your statement.



Now I had written your initial post off as just inflammatory comments designed to start an argument or possibly just a failed attempt at humor.
What is Absurd is that it seems you actually believe the ignorant things you said, given the fact that you so rudely challenged me to answer them.

Given your statements I think that the reason you have never heard anyone say that we would not be further along without the Dark Ages, is because you don't listen when people are talking about history.

Now that I have addressed your points, and to avoid hijacking the thread, I will not be continuing this pointless argument with you.

You forgot to thank Google for that post.

Vanek26
April 26th, 2011, 09:20 PM
I think you are both right in a way.

The Dark Ages likely slowed us down, since a large area - Western Europe - wasn't contributing to science.

Same time, Middle East was able to carry on, so the impact isn't that big. But I feel like there was an impact.

GoodSmeagol
April 26th, 2011, 09:31 PM
"It is easier to get where you are going when you know where you have been."
Eli Wallace


I think this line answers why they were able to advance as much as they were portrayed to have in 2k years.

An-Alteran
April 27th, 2011, 01:02 AM
I am an Engineering Major.
Before that, I was a history Major.
What can you say, I have eclectic tastes.

There is a lot in this thread that shows a great deal of historical ignorance.

I feel it is my duty to correct the record:

The idea that religion is the enemy of progress is a modern 20th century myth devoid of historical backing, besides a few token anecdotal tales.

The idea that the Dark Ages were caused by religion or intellectual disinterest in learning is also false.

They were cocktail product of war breaking apart the Romans Empire, Plague, and subsistence living.
Nothing more.

The idea that only until recently we believed the earth was flat is complete myth invented as an anecdote in the 20th century to push various secular political agendas. We have known the earth to be round since before the Greeks.


2000 years ago they thought disease was magic.
Entirely incorrect.
The Greeks and many other cultures had very advanced medical knowledge.
Not as advanced as ours today, but easily more advanced than ours 150 years ago.

Some ancient cultures from that time period even had brain surgery techniques and other marvels.


they couldn't even forge proper iron and steel didn't even exist.
Entirely incorrect.
The Roman Empire was forged with steel.
Their weapons, armour, ect. weres steel and iron.

The Chinese also had advanced metallurgy.



there are thousands of simple principles we have developed over time that 2000 years ago were unimaginable.
Yes, but not the ones you named.

Mass production techniques existed in the early Byzantine Empire long before they collapsed.

Roman and Greek technology and mechanical innovation was astounding.

They even invented a steam engine but never used it because slave labour was too deeply ingrained.

The Greeks even had working portable analog computers!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antikythera_mechanism



also the Dark Ages weren't that dark. it wasn't significant in terms of science but it was in terms of culture.

This is very true.

The "Dark Ages" were largely "Dark" because of the horrible diseases which swept Europe over that period as well as the lasting aftermath of the collapse of the Western Roman Empire followed several centuries later by the Islamic aggression which ultimately destroyed the Byzantine Empire after provoking the crusades.

Ultimately, the Muslims invaded and destroyed a huge portion of Western Civilization including much all of Northern African civilization. They pierced deep into Spain and even into France. In the East, the Byzantines collapsed and Italy was threatened.

The early crusades (and reconquest of Iberia) prevented the destruction of European civilization in both the Western and Eastern regions. Unfortunately, the later crusades were as bad as the Muslim invaders and one crusade even invaded and destroyed fellow Europeans! That is why the crusades are perceived so negatively today.

The crusades actually insulated central Europe from much warfare. That is why the great cultural centres of Europe were largely in central Europe. France, Italy, ect.

When Spain and Portugal became nation-states, this also jump-started cultural and technological development.


We might be considerably less advanced. The Roman Empire wasn't particularly scientifical inovative.
Yes they were. Their architectural technology and techniques were astounding. As were their many mechanical innovations.


One of the main "cause" of stagnation in the Dark Ages was because religion had an such upper hand on custumes the daily lives.
Completely false.

The Christian Religion was the only institution holding Western Europe together after the collapse of the Western Roman Empire.
It had an incredible unifying force for both the Byzantine and Western regions.

Furthermore, much knowledge (including vast troves of early literature from the Greeks and Romans) that would have been lost was preserved by monks in Monasteries.

The Muslims also preserved a great deal of such writings.


Yes, I fully believe that we'd have a much higher level of technology if things like religion and the Inquisition had never happened.
The inquisition had little if any effect on anything that would effect technological progression.
Even in spite of the persecution of men like Galileo (based, actually, on traditional Greek beliefs regarding the world that the Church held to be true) such disruption of development was minor.


Religious oppression caused huge gaps in technology and still does in some places ion this planet.
This is simply not true.

Every major modern scientific fields was founded by Christians.
The Muslims before the crusades were huge traders in advanced math and what could be described as sciences.
The very religious Chinese society was also very advanced.

Today, unfortunately, because of colonialism, Arabic society has been left in tribal bickering and as such has been largely left behind by modern society. This didn't have to be the case.


Instead we get fairytales for grownups, that instill a culture with fear, mass murder and other atrocities, not to mention its has been used many times for the wrong people to claim power.
Germany was the cultural centre of the modern world.
It was a huge bastion of science and progress.
Guess what resulted from all their success?
The fascist National Socialist party.
A militant leftist socialist political juggernaut.

Be careful who and what you blame for atrocities.


Not a definite outcome for sure, but religion has always been the antithesis of science.
Then please explain why all of the modern fields of science and academic learning were founded and progressed in the 16th, 17th, 18th, and 19th centuries by Christians? Almost all the early modern scientists were theologians.
The entire modern academy was invented by Christians.
Oxford, Yale, Harvard, Princeton, ect. ad infinitum.


I think you are both right in a way.

The Dark Ages likely slowed us down, since a large area - Western Europe - wasn't contributing to science.

Same time, Middle East was able to carry on, so the impact isn't that big. But I feel like there was an impact.

The issue is not if you "feel" like there was an impact. The issue is if there was one.

There was not any discernible impact.

The dark ages were a necessary step the stages of growth for western civilization.

After the plagues and wars, competition and commerce reestablished the need for development and all the old knowledge was rediscovered progressively and rapidly, along with many new innovations.

Also, what we understand as 'scientific methodology' was invented by the theologians in the Western European Academy in the 17th and 18th century and highly progressed significantly in the 18th and 19th centuries of Anglo-centric progress and the new American intellectual centre.

None of this would have occurred if the so-called 'dark-ages' had not occurred.

Wayston
April 27th, 2011, 03:58 AM
There were a lot of inventions during the dark ages, if anything it was the Roman civilisation that very stagnant. The problem with the "dark ages" in Europe is that scientific progress was piecemeal and fragile for a long time. When someone invents an improved plow in say Ireland, it would not necessarily reach say Brandenburg until after many decades. Perhaps a big advantage of the renaissance is that the Italy regaining some of its status as market square of the European continent meant a lot of information was passing through there as opposed to slowly being dissemenated haphazardly. That is just me thinking out loud though.

I do think that there is a significant distinction between the type of scientific progress in Europe and the middle east. In Europe science tended to be very applied and practical, an improved furnace here, a new type of still there, and of course a nice printing press to top it all off. In the middle east there seems to have been more interest in abstract, fundamental sciences such as astronomy and mathematics. For Europe this is quite understandable, since most abstract science was to some extent or another under the control of the church which had little interest in fancy ideas (christianity was however instrumental in conserving and distributing the sources of the roman world when the roman empire collapsed! it's certainly not a black and white picture), whereas the European climate in general posed more day to day challenges for survival where quality of life could be significantly improved through practical inventions.

I also find the explanation very interesting that until the renaissance in Europe we lost the Aristotelian works and were only able to conserve the Platonic philosophy, whereas in the middle east they were able to conserve the Aristotelian way of thinking and a lot more sources in general. The middle east also had the advantage of proximity to India (which for example invented the number 0, which then reached Europe through the middle east - this is one abstract invention that had extremely practical financial repercussions, because it greatly improved the speed and accuracy of compound interest calculations for banking) and also China, where they were already running around with stuff like crossbows at a time when the rest of the civilising world hadn't even realized the advantages of heavy plate armour to think of a good weapon to counter it.

Ultimately though there's a time and place for everything. People develop through confrontation with challenges, but adversity in general will slow you down significantly (say the black plague whiping out half of your population, or Vikings roaming your lands). It's also very important to be able to build on a predecessor's ideas. If there are no predecessors yet, or if you don't have access to their knowledge, then that will also slow you down.

Steelbox
April 27th, 2011, 05:45 AM
Dr. Toccs and An-Alteran green for you guys for a good civilizided discussion. What we can extract from this discussion is that bad this are not necessarily bad. Also the Nazi, its undisputed about the atrocities they made. But it is also undisputed the advancements they did in medical field. Again i dont agree with theire methods just the some results of its.

jsonitsac
April 27th, 2011, 09:47 AM
Technology doesn't exist as a linear progression from point a to point b. Likewise, this whole "dark ages holding us back" notion ignores the fact that there is more to the world than just western Europe. Keep in mind it was the Greeks who invented the steam engine. The Chinese and the Arabs had intricate mechanical devices. Likewise, there wasn't really a conflict between science and religion in those days. It's a bit hard to be conducting inquiries into the natural world when there is a lack of central authority and Vikings happen to be attacking the local villages.

So bringing it back to Novus. What I think helped them out the most was the fact that pretty early on they had an educational system. Probably more than anything else, institutional learning, which can provide people with the tools to conduct the kind of high level thought needed for more efficient technologies, is what managed get their civilization going as far as it did in 2000 years.

Infinite-Possibilities
April 27th, 2011, 12:33 PM
You know the very episode previous to this talked about long ages of religious strife on in the planet's history, so it's not as if their history was completely different to ours.

Nemises
April 27th, 2011, 01:58 PM
this is a myth! i mean it didn't affect earth. every culture had there "dark age" and europe had its.

During that time many innovations were made in science in the middle east and asia. look it up.

Nemises
April 27th, 2011, 02:16 PM
Not entirely true. Europe was far beyond other civilizations for a long time; the dark ages allowed the rest of the world to catch up quite a bit. If Europe had no dark ages, we would be several hundred years more advanced by now.

The indus valley civilization and mesopotamia civilization had 'planned cities' with roads and sewage drains while people had nothing of the sort in europe and did i mention egypt and greece ? These regions also stagnated due to periods similar to europes 'dark ages' and due to military invasions.

To think that europe is the place where scientific knowledge was pursued is pure ignorance. maths, medicine, science all have there roots in other regions of the world aswell.

Ben 'Teal'c would WIN!!' Noble
April 27th, 2011, 02:56 PM
The fascist National Socialist party.
A militant leftist socialist political juggernaut.

Loved your post but this is wrong. Hitler hated socialists he saw them as one step away from communists. The Nazi where a far right group and their ideology was that the German people where stabbed in back by parties like socialists into giving up the war. If you called Hitler a socialist I think he would killed you. He claimed to be for the workers but frankly he did so they would vote for him instead of the KPD or the SPD.

The Nazis weren't really fascists they just used the as basis for their aims of winning back the land the lost in WW1. There was only one real fascist leader ever his name was Mussolini.

Sorry to go Off Topic.

An-Alteran
April 27th, 2011, 05:18 PM
Loved your post but this is wrong. Hitler hated socialists he saw them as one step away from communists. [Nazi] ideology was that the German people where stabbed in back by parties like socialists into giving up the war.
An initial point must be made: Hitler and the Nazis are often hard to understand en toto because they were not always consistent. Many positions were made for political gain rather than actual conviction.
This is why they could claim in public to believe in 'god' and be 'christian' while at the same time take over most of the Christian Churches and replace Bible's with Nazi propaganda and forcing the weak-willed clergy to capitulate and teach Nazi ideology.

National Socialism had a deep intellectual pedigree in the irrationalist movement where truth doesn't really matter and 'feeling' and 'experience' are the prime drivers.

Sure, Hitler opposed the Communist party. He identified them as Jewish (his main scapegoat).
And pure "Red" Socialism was hardly his ideal either.
Also, Communism sought to dissolve national identity. This was deplorable to Hitler.

However, National Socialism is still a form of socialism. The difference is that instead of the "working man" being the centre of focus and propaganda, the "German national identity" itself is the centre of loyalty.
That is why it was 'National Socialism'.

National Socialism and all Fascism strongly opposed the so-called "bourgeoisie".
They held a deep disdain for capitalism, seeking profit, a free-market, big-business, and democracy in general.
These are all trademarks of Socialist philosophy.
These are all true of both Fascism and Communism.

The main issue, practically speaking, was Communism's popularity and thus its potential political opposition.

Communism and Naziism were in fact closely related, philosophically.
Their intellectual roots were very closely related.
They were bitter rivals; they were not philosophical opposites.
Think of it as a battle between Red-Bolshevik Socialism and Brown National Socialism.

In both National Socialism and Communism, the central government controls the means of production and a disregard for the individual in favour of the community.
This is more a leftist ideal.

The main different between the two was Naziism's radical racial nationalism.
A strong 'German' 'Aryan' identity, as opposed to mere community, was the ideal.

In Communism, the workers theoretically hold the power and everything is, theoretically, owned by the workers and thus the corporate figurehead: the Communist party. Though in reality the workers have no power at all.

In National Socialism, the common man exists for the service and good of the Nation as a whole and National racial pride is itself the central unifying theme.

As an anecdotal piece of evidence, I recently listened to a speech by Hitler where he apologized for destroying the Communist party after he came to power, but justified it by saying He destroyed all political parties.


If you called Hitler a socialist I think he would killed you.
Then I would be in good company. ;-)


He claimed to be for the workers but frankly he did so they would vote for him instead of the KPD or the SPD.
He was for the workers, in as far as the workers existed for the good of the Aryan Race and the German Nation. National Socialism.


The Nazis weren't really fascists they just used the as basis for their aims of winning back the land the lost in WW1. There was only one real fascist leader ever his name was Mussolini.
Well, no. They were Fascists. They were just racist fascists.
This did make a huge difference in a lot of decisions and actions they made.

Other Fascist groups were not into ethnic cleansing.
Cultural cleansing to some degree, yes, but not ethnic cleansing.


The Nazi where a far right group,
This is a very common myth.
Their ideals were largely right in line with most leftist movements.

Though, real Fascism also greatly supported traditionalism and nationalism.
The Nazis were a little different, though.
National Socialism did support "tradition" in name but not in substance.
National Socialism invented its own mythical "ancient Aryan" traditional ideals and promoted these.

The opposite of such leftist movement would be some form of extreme libertarianism.
They wouldn't be much of a political power-house though, since they would despise highly centralized government.

Nemises
April 27th, 2011, 05:25 PM
Nazis were as far away from the left as anyone can be.

Infact they were right wing.

Daralundy
April 27th, 2011, 06:45 PM
Absolutely wrong. Right wing mean limited government, free enterprise, and personal freedom and responsibility. Exactily the opposite of the statist Nazis.


Nazis were as far away from the left as anyone can be.

Infact they were right wing.

D Toccs
April 27th, 2011, 09:28 PM
Absolutely wrong. Right wing mean limited government, free enterprise, and personal freedom and responsibility. Exactily the opposite of the statist Nazis.

You're wrong. "Right Wing" just means conservative as opposed to liberal.

An-Alteran
April 27th, 2011, 10:50 PM
Nazis were as far away from the left as anyone can be.

Infact they were right wing.
They were as far from the left as anyone can be...
in fact they were right...
redundant much?

Nemesis, I wrote a long, detailed, and historically informed post.

You wrote two sentences saying, essentially, "nuh uh!"

Infinite-Possibilities
April 28th, 2011, 10:28 AM
Do we really need to argue about what constitutes left wing or wight wing? It's beside the point of this thread and is futile because you are both obviously working from two different definitions.

jsonitsac
April 28th, 2011, 10:47 AM
Only three pages and we got to a Godwin. Is this a Gateworld record?

KEK
April 28th, 2011, 10:49 PM
You're wrong. "Right Wing" just means conservative as opposed to liberal.

It really doesn't. In fact conservatism isn't even necessarily at odds with liberalism, let alone right wing politics. The right is to do with capitalism as opposed to socialism, while liberalism is about social issues not economic ones, and the definition of conservatism depends entirely on the context.

Gurluas
April 29th, 2011, 02:46 AM
You're wrong. "Right Wing" just means conservative as opposed to liberal.

Thats a very Americanized way of thinking, is it like that in Australia too?
In America you only have two "Right Wing" parties.
In Europe and most parts of the world, left means Socialist and right means Liberalist.
Conservatism can be both, it really depends on the traditions of the country, they tend to be liberalists however.

Ben 'Teal'c would WIN!!' Noble
April 29th, 2011, 04:51 AM
I would have a hard time thinking of Nazis as left wing. To me extreme nationalism and very socially conservative are tenants of the right wing. Hitler blamed the SPD for why they lost the war so I doubt he would call himself a socialist.

We are actually discussing the Nazis so not invoking Godwins law. Someone else compared the ep to Nazis.

Trinary
April 29th, 2011, 04:52 AM
Basically, a multi-racial integration that improve the civilization grow faster. Racial sentiments always put a community group into braking mode for any progress that they did. They can't finish anything since they'll reject anything from outside of their circle.

Not only racial by appearances, but also racial by ideologies and theologies will put their group into a time dilation.

morrismike
April 29th, 2011, 08:41 AM
Do we really need to argue about what constitutes left wing or wight wing? It's beside the point of this thread and is futile because you are both obviously working from two different definitions.

There are a lot of folks that desperately clinging to the belief that everything wrong in the world is the fault of hard working taxpayers and the people they vote into office.

morrismike
April 29th, 2011, 08:51 AM
It really doesn't. In fact conservatism isn't even necessarily at odds with liberalism, let alone right wing politics. The right is to do with capitalism as opposed to socialism, while liberalism is about social issues not economic ones, and the definition of conservatism depends entirely on the context.
I would agree with this.

Most right wingers are violently opposed to any restrictions on property usage and means of conducting business. Left wingers seem to prefer a nanny society with everyone a ward of the state. These two circles have a lot of overlap and a lot of empty space in between. The nationalist/protectionist trade policies are the realms of extreme left (Jesse Jackson) and extreme (Pat Buchanan). The major city politicians are lefties and basically confine the minorities to places like Cabrini Greens (a form of concentration) to develop large voting blocks and raise taxes to the extend the manufacturing base must leave (preventing work opportunities). The righties would like more business so they can find work (and ultimately vote right and pay taxes).

People can twist the left and right thing all they want. To say Hitler and Stalin and right wing radicals is a silly argument to make.

KEK
April 29th, 2011, 12:46 PM
The major city politicians are lefties and basically confine the minorities to places like Cabrini Greens (a form of concentration) to develop large voting blocks and raise taxes to the extend the manufacturing base must leave (preventing work opportunities). The righties would like more business so they can find work (and ultimately vote right and pay taxes).

If America is your template for this, then I hate to break it to you but mainstream lefties don't really exist over there. The Republicans and Democrats are both firmly right wing, the Democrats just slightly less so. The left favours socialism, which forces the strong to help the weak, while the right supports capitalism, which encourages the strong to exploit the weak.

D Toccs
April 29th, 2011, 05:40 PM
Thats a very Americanized way of thinking, is it like that in Australia too?
In America you only have two "Right Wing" parties.
In Europe and most parts of the world, left means Socialist and right means Liberalist.
Conservatism can be both, it really depends on the traditions of the country, they tend to be liberalists however.

It's got nothing to do with politics.

In any issue at all, the conservative side is the Right and the liberal side is the Left.

KEK
April 29th, 2011, 06:01 PM
It's got nothing to do with politics.

In any issue at all, the conservative side is the Right and the liberal side is the Left.

No they're not. I can't stress how wrong you are here.

Gollumpus
April 29th, 2011, 09:40 PM
No they're not. I can't stress how wrong you are here.

Chum, it's a sliding scale.

A Democrat is on the political left of his nation's politics. Republicans are on the right of their nations politics. Within those parties are people who hold a more left wing or more right wing view of what is the view of the center of the party.

Compared to Canada, A Democrat is perhaps the equivalent of a right-wing Liberal or a "Red Tory" from the Conservative party. A Republican can be the equivalent of one of our right wing Tories if s/he is a liberal Republican, or they can be something which we see as being to the right of Atilla the Hun.

regards,
G.

Infinite-Possibilities
April 29th, 2011, 09:56 PM
There are a lot of folks that desperately clinging to the belief that everything wrong in the world is the fault of hard working taxpayers and the people they vote into office.

What's that got to do with this thread? Or the Nazis for that matter? Does trying to tie the genocidal regime from the Second World War in the loosest possible way (and thus is essentially meaningless) to modern day mainstream political parties really have any real significance?

KEK
April 29th, 2011, 10:14 PM
Chum, it's a sliding scale.

A Democrat is on the political left of his nation's politics. Republicans are on the right of their nations politics. Within those parties are people who hold a more left wing or more right wing view of what is the view of the center of the party.

Compared to Canada, A Democrat is perhaps the equivalent of a right-wing Liberal or a "Red Tory" from the Conservative party. A Republican can be the equivalent of one of our right wing Tories if s/he is a liberal Republican, or they can be something which we see as being to the right of Atilla the Hun.

regards,
G.

I'm not sure what this has to do with my post, but the right and left are defined by their economic principles, they're relative terms in regard to each other but not the country you find them in. The Democrats and Republicans are both right wing, whether Americans acknowledge that or not.

The point I was making though, is that he's totally wrong when says that conservatism is always aligned with the right, and liberalism is always aligned with the left. Liberalism and conservatism are not even mutually exclusive themselves, let alone liberalism and right wing politics. It's authoritarianism that is the polar opposite of liberalism, not conservatism.

The_Asgard_live
April 30th, 2011, 01:18 AM
I'm not sure what this has to do with my post, but the right and left are defined by their economic principles, they're relative terms in regard to each other but not the country you find them in. The Democrats and Republicans are both right wing, whether Americans acknowledge that or not.

Eh? How does this work? Does this mean that crisps are potato chips whether Brits acknowledge that or not? Chips are french fries, Govnah.

KEK
April 30th, 2011, 02:13 AM
What does one have to do with the other? The definition of right and left wing is the same in both countries, and around the world. I'm not using the British definition, I'm using the definition. It's just that the Republicans and Democrats like the play the political landscape as if they're polar opposites, two ends of the spectrum, which helps them maintain the two party domination, when really nothing could be further than the truth.

The Democrats are slightly less right wing than the Republicans and slightly more liberal, and that's about it. The only left wing party in the US that I'm aware of that even approaches being mainstream is the Greens. There's a similar situation in the UK, with people thinking that the Lib Dems or even Labour are left wing, when they both right wing, just more liberal than the Conservatives.

I suppose that's what happens when you try and define a party based on economic (left and right) policies alone.

The_Asgard_live
April 30th, 2011, 03:30 AM
What does one have to do with the other? The definition of right and left wing is the same in both countries, and around the world. I'm not using the British definition, I'm using the definition.

There is a universal standard for left/right? Like weights and measurements?

Unless you take into account how those words are interpreted by the person or people(s) you are conversing with/about, the conversation is meaningless. For example, the United States does not fit the definition of 'democracy', its a republic. But ask any American on the street if America is a democracy. How many people do you think will say no? For that matter... ask a United States citizen if a Mexican/Canadian citizen is an 'American'.


It's just that the Republicans and Democrats like the play the political landscape as if they're polar opposites, two ends of the spectrum, which helps them maintain the two party domination, when really nothing could be further than the truth.

I guess that depends. Are you talking about ideology or the politicians that claim to represent them? Two completely different things.


The Democrats are slightly less right wing than the Republicans and slightly more liberal, and that's about it. The only left wing party in the US that I'm aware of that even approaches being mainstream is the Greens. There's a similar situation in the UK, with people thinking that the Lib Dems or even Labour are left wing, when they both right wing, just more liberal than the Conservatives.

This is all well and good that you've decided on a definition and decided your right. But this is not how most(?) Americans interpret the world.


I suppose that's what happens when you try and define a party based on economic (left and right) policies alone.
What defines Republican/Democrat Conservative/Liberal is more than economic policy in the U.S.

KEK
April 30th, 2011, 12:37 PM
There is a universal standard for left/right? Like weights and measurements?

Yes. The principles of left and right are fairly well defined.


I guess that depends. Are you talking about ideology or the politicians that claim to represent them? Two completely different things.

The politicians. It makes the media's life easier too. In fact simplifying things like that makes any discussion about the two easier, even if it is inaccurate. It's ultimately to the detriment of the American people too though, because it creates the illusion that there are only two options, further reinforcing the two party system, which suits both the Republicans and Democrats.


This is all well and good that you've decided on a definition and decided your right. But this is not how most(?) Americans interpret the world.

If they get their understanding of politician ideologies from their media and their politicians then I'm not surprised. This is a fairly objective matter though as the principles of left and right are pretty well defined as I've said, and while the Democrats might paint themselves and left wing for their own benefit, that doesn't mean they are.


What defines Republican/Democrat Conservative/Liberal is more than economic policy in the U.S.

I never said Republican, Democrat, Conservative or Liberal though did I? I said left and right.

morrismike
May 2nd, 2011, 05:48 AM
What does one have to do with the other? The definition of right and left wing is the same in both countries, and around the world. I'm not using the British definition, I'm using the definition. It's just that the Republicans and Democrats like the play the political landscape as if they're polar opposites, two ends of the spectrum, which helps them maintain the two party domination, when really nothing could be further than the truth.

The Democrats are slightly less right wing than the Republicans and slightly more liberal, and that's about it. The only left wing party in the US that I'm aware of that even approaches being mainstream is the Greens. There's a similar situation in the UK, with people thinking that the Lib Dems or even Labour are left wing, when they both right wing, just more liberal than the Conservatives.

I suppose that's what happens when you try and define a party based on economic (left and right) policies alone.

Our government contains elements far more left than you think and I would say they are both left of center (GW Bush in actually is far left of Obama or Clinton when you look at his action versus the public rhetoric). We spend more (per capita) on health care and welfare (not just for the poor - ag subsidies, businesses, etc.) than any other nation on earth. Right at this moment the politicians here are vainly attempting to postpone having to curtail correcting this issue to the next term of office. America is living "Atlas Shrugged" at this very moment. Look at the industry we've driven out of our country in the name of social justice. Our corporate tax rate is so high (at the national and state level) and our labor so unreasonable that we are losing our entire manufacturing base. As soon as China decides to tell us what interest rate we will pay on our debts we will instantly be just like Greece.

KEK
May 2nd, 2011, 06:26 AM
The reason so much welfare is paid in the US is because there's so much unemployment, and the reason there's so much unemployment is because so many of the laws favour the employer rather than the employee. So instead of what work there is being spread around more, employers are able to squeeze as much work as possible out of as few employees as possible, leaving a lot of people out of work. The US is hardly a welfare state, the poorest areas in America make a British council estate look middle class by comparison. And it's the high prices maintained by lobbying pharmaceutical companies that drive healthcare spending up in the US, leaving you paying more but getting less. In both cases, it's the influence that big corporations have and lack of regulation that's causing the problem, which is a decidedly right wing policy.

morrismike
May 2nd, 2011, 08:18 AM
The reason so much welfare is paid in the US is because there's so much unemployment, and the reason there's so much unemployment is because so many of the laws favour the employer rather than the employee. So instead of what work there is being spread around more, employers are able to squeeze as much work as possible out of as few employees as possible, leaving a lot of people out of work. The US is hardly a welfare state, the poorest areas in America make a British council estate look middle class by comparison. And it's the high prices maintained by lobbying pharmaceutical companies that drive healthcare spending up in the US, leaving you paying more but getting less. In both cases, it's the influence that big corporations have and lack of regulation that's causing the problem, which is a decidedly right wing policy.

We were paying a lot of welfare prior to the recession when everyone that cared to work was employed. I seem to remember the employers lobbying a while back for the highest corporate taxes in the first world. A full 45% of our population pays no income tax and those people vote for the folks trying to make that number larger. I'm afraid you are what Ann Rand would call a "looter".

magictrick
May 2nd, 2011, 08:24 AM
They had a 2000 year head start and the benefit of being taught by some very smart people. The fact that they didn't have to endure the dark ages helped, but that wasn't the deciding factor. Even if Earth hadn't gone through that period, we wouldn't have been as advanced.

Shadows Angel
December 12th, 2013, 10:47 AM
The Dark Ages only effected Western Europe.
For those 600 years all scientific and cultural progress continued in Greece and the Middle East which were already more advanced than the West. It is progress from those areas that forms the basis for modern Western civilization.
Asian countries were completely unaffected by the Dark Ages, China, Japan, Korea and India all continued to progress.

It is a myth that we would be so much more advanced if the Dark Ages did not occur, they were an incredibly localized event.

I dont know this for sure but werent the areas unaffected technologically behind europe so in those few hundred years didnt they just catch up so i really didnt make a difference world wide.
of course i might be wrong though i not sure

thekillman
December 13th, 2013, 04:56 AM
This whole dark ages thing is BS, you know that?

It's a concept invented after the medieval period when scholars yearned for the glory of the Roman Empire and all, and considered anything inbetween of little significance.