--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Doug Pensinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Thanks for keeping this alive John. I have been exceptionally busy for > the last few weeks, but I have read beyond the next chapter. Is anyone up > for kicking off the discussion on Chapter 3? If not, I'll have something > by Wednesday evening. I know JDG was interested in Chapter four, perhaps > you would like to do that one John?
Clearly, I've had other distractions of my own, but I will definitely volunteer for Chapter 4, once Chapter 3 is off the books. > > I can see no obvious correlation between civilizations that collapse and > > civilizations that are highly religious. One could just as easily > > ask "Was their Polynesianness integral to their collapse?" (You may be > > offended, but is it any more offensive than asking if religion was > > integral to their collapse?) > > > > Another, much more logical question, would be: "was memorial building > > integral to their collapse?" In this case, one might connect > > America's penchant for Memorial building to the Easter Islanders' > > proclivity for the same. > > But the Moai are essentially religious icons, are they not? The question > points the the fact that precious resources were funneled in to the > building of these statues at a time when it was critical that they > conserve those resources. I'm not sure that enough is known about Easter Island culture to directly connect the moai to religion. I'm not sure that Diamond ever conclusively demonstrates it in his Chapter (although it has been a while since I read it now.) It certainly seems possible that the building of moai could be a cultural phenomenon - sort of like how 19th and early-20th Century Americans built numerous obelisks that serve no religious purpose. Diamond at least obliquely suggests that the building of the moai might have been motivated as much by boredom as anything else. Diamond mentions that Easter Island's relative isolation precluded devoting surplus labor to warfare, exploration, and trading. You mention that "it was critical that they conserve these resources" - and perhaps I am being a bit of a devil's advocate to ask "why"? So that they would be able to continue to build moai into the future? O.k. obviously the loss of the trees resulted in a demonstrable loss in quality of life for all Easter Islanders. I wonder, however, if the decline in quality of life would be an almost inevitable consequence of a society on such a small and isolated piece of land at that technology. Would it really have been possible for such a civilization to develop "sustainable forestry" technology? And if so, wouldn't this just make the moai construction an irrelevant detail of an otherwise almost inevitable outcome? JDG _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
