Third, don't words such as "civilization", and phrases such as "rise of civilization," convey the false impression that civilization is good, tribal hunter-gatherers are miserable, and history for the past 13,000 years has involved progress toward greater human happiness? In fact, I do not assume that industrialized states are "better" than hunter-gatherer tribes, or that the abandonment of the hunter-gatherer lifestyle for iron-based statehood represents "progress," or that it has led to an increase in human happiness. My own impression, from having divided my life between United States cities and New Guinea villages, is that the so-called blessings of civilization are mixed. For example, compared with hunter-gatherers, citizens of modern industrialized states enjoy better medical care, lower risk of death by homicide, and a longer life span, but receive much less social support from friendships and extended families. My motive for investigating these geographic differences in human societies is not to celebrate one type of society over another but simply to understand what happened in history. LOL.
I read a little more of your post--I think I like this guy.
Still, he's missing something if he thinks he must rationalize-away what might be inferior intelligence by Western standards among aboriginal peoples--I would not be surprised to learn that some groups of people would be genetically incapable of coping with the mental tasks of living and working and learning in a technological society.
But I would not view such a group as mentally inferior, rather I view them as mentally different.
--I would not be surprised to learn that some groups of people would be genetically incapable of coping with the mental tasks of living and working and learning in a technological society.
Sounds like Mein Kampf to me.