In a message dated 11/29/03 10:12:34 PM Mountain Standard Time, juuso@iki.fi writes: >I kind of agree with Andrew on this. The "success of a society" can, >IMHO, be defined as "being able to spread and/or dominate others" - >without taking the environment into account any more than what is >implied in that definition. And this definition has, no doubt about it, >some very evolutional truth in it. And, if this definition is used, >then cultures which emphasize work and education seem to be >fundamentally better off than others. Consider the conquests of the Mongols and the spread of the Polynesia across the Pacific. Neither culture emphasized work or education but in terms of spread and domination both are among the greatest success stories in the history of the world. Those successes can only be explained in terms of their environment; the challenges they faced and the relation of those challenges to their culture. OTOH, consider medieval Poland, their culture stressed education and work, but that didn't prevent them from falling to the Prussians and abandoning those principles. Jefferson http://www.picotech.net/~jeff_wilson63/rpg/ ---------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, send mail to celandra-off@phoenyx.net.
