Re: Jobs, not trees! (Collapse, Chapter 2)
JDG said: 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. I can only suppose that their religiosity was a factor contributing to their use of such a large fraction of their resources for the construction of moai. But in any case, I agree that being highly religious is not necessarily an indication of societal fragility. The strongest counterexample is ancient Egypt, which was one of the most pervasively religious societies in history, and also one of the most enduring. Indeed, as I said earlier in this discussion, a more or less politically independent and unified Egyptian civilisation lasted for around three thousand years, and the culture of ancient Egypt continued for a further thousand years under various foreign dominations. (Although it would be hard to argue that Egyptian religion was responsible for the end of Egyptian civilisation, the increasing power of the priesthood of Amun was certainly a factor in the collapse of centralised political power at the end of the New Kingdom. This shift in power from king to priests was apparent to pharaohs as early as Amenhotep III in the mid 18th dynasty and was very probably behind the monotheistic religious innovations of his son Akhenaten during the famous Amarna period. Pharaohs would continue to grapple with the problem of taming the priesthood of Amun throughout the Third Intermediate Period and into the Late Period.) Egyptian culture was finally destroyed by Christian fanaticism under the later Roman Empire, but I don't suppose we're considering extrinsic causes here so I won't say more about that. It seems to me that the real problem isn't religion as such but ideological inflexibility in the face of rapidly changing conditions. Here, the ancient Egyptians had a substantial advantage over the Easter islanders as the Nile valley was a much more stable environment under perturbations caused by human activity. Even so, like the Romans, the Egyptians were rather good at adapting their social, political and economic structures to internal and external changes while still presenting a facade of unbending conservatism. Consider, for example, the contrast between the policies adopted by the Saite kings of the 26th dynasty - which would have been entirely alien and distasteful to the pharaohs of the New Kingdom, let alone the Middle or Old Kingdoms - and their entirely conventional portrayal in statuary and inscriptions. Unfortunately, I'm not sure really have the evidence to establish the flexibility or otherwise of Easter polynesians when confronted with potentially disastrous changes to their social and environmental situation, but we will be able to do so for other cases that we'll discuss later. Rich, who wonders when he started defending religion... ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Jobs, not trees! (Collapse, Chapter 2)
Richard Baker wrote: It seems to me that the real problem isn't religion as such but ideological inflexibility in the face of rapidly changing conditions. That's precisely the point Diamond makes in later chapters regarding the Greenland Norse. I had plenty of time to read ahead while I was away. :-) Jim ___ Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com The most personalized portal on the Web! ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Planet No More
Robert Seeberger wrote: Like the Moon or Ganimede? The orbit question is important! Not really. Both are planets in my estimation. That Ganymede is a sattelite and the Moon is part of a double planet system is really irrelevant to how you classify a body. Our moon wouldn't even be a minor planet. But then you are misusing the term planet - historically, the Jovian moons were _not_ considered planets [it would be natural, then, to create a word that would include the 5 traditional planets, Earth, the Moon and the 4 jovian planetoids]. What you want is a word for planet-sized body. No, it won't - it would be _wrong_ to call it a planet! It should be called by something else, to stress the fact that it does not orbit a star. That is exactly what I think is ridiculous. That orbits are more important to the definition of planet than the properties of the body itself are. Yes, they are. Rogue planet is IIRC the science-fictional term for those bodies [and Rogue Star is a star not bound to a Galaxy]. I see such a statement of the inconsistancy I am arguing against. A star is a star no matter where you find it, but a planet is a planet only if it has a regular orbit around a star? That idea is what stikes me as silly. Ah, ok. Then we must have another word for planet-sized body, and another word for star-sized planet :-P Of course, maybe we should also re-work the definition of _moon_, because there are moons that are bigger than planets, and moons that are just pieces of rock. Some moons are proper moons, and others are asteroidal moons. True. I would just use terms like planetary moon and asteroidal moon for various satellites. So we should have: - a class of words that describe the body - a class of words that describe the relative position of the body The first class would have: Galaxy, Star, Planetoid, Asteroid. The second class would have: Galaxy, Galactic Star, Rogue Star, Planetary Star, Planet, Planetary Satellite, Planetary Asteroid, Asteroidal Satellite. Alberto Monteiro ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Jobs, not trees! (Collapse, Chapter 2)
It seems to me that the real problem isn't religion as such but ideological inflexibility in the face of rapidly changing conditions. ...somewhat like the current US administration? Charlie GCU Or The ID Movement ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Planet No More
Robert Seeberger wrote: With Pluto in mind, if some disaster were to occur changing Mars' orbit so that it flew inside Earths orbit and/or outside Jupiters orbit for a portion of its year, would it cease to be a planet? (Only if it falls into the Sun, Ronn! G) If this orbit were possible - I don't know if we can have a stable irregular Martian orbit in resonance with Earth, considering Jupiter's influence - then Mars would be a planet unless there were other Mars-sized bodies in the same orbit. The problem with Pluto is that there are other objects in the 3:2 resonance with Neptune. Pluto is not big enough to clear them out. Mars is big enough to clear its orbit. Ceres is not big enough to clear the asteroid belt. Alberto Monteiro ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Irregulars question: English
I may be assigned to a course in London, and the programme includes the following: (...) will pay for the cost of the training courses and materials. Your organization will have to cover the costs of the flights and boarding expenses for nominated participants. What's the meaning of _boarding_ here? It seemed that it was referring to the airport expenses, but the lack of mention about hotel and food suggests otherwise. Alberto Monteiro ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Irregulars question: English
Alberto said: What's the meaning of _boarding_ here? It seemed that it was referring to the airport expenses, but the lack of mention about hotel and food suggests otherwise. Boarding suggests the price of the hotel to me. Rich ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Irregulars question: English
On Mon, 28 Aug 2006, Alberto Monteiro wrote: I may be assigned to a course in London, and the programme includes the following: (...) will pay for the cost of the training courses and materials. Your organization will have to cover the costs of the flights and boarding expenses for nominated participants. What's the meaning of _boarding_ here? It seemed that it was referring to the airport expenses, but the lack of mention about hotel and food suggests otherwise. Hotel, probably food as well. Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Irregulars question: English
Alberto Monteiro wrote: What's the meaning of _boarding_ here? It seemed that it was referring to the airport expenses, but the lack of mention about hotel and food suggests otherwise. It sounds like room and board to me. Jim ___ Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com The most personalized portal on the Web! ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Catastrophe: Planet No More
Somebody noted that Pluto is now a dwarf planet- PAT MATHEWS [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Likewise, in my house I have two mutant dwarf mountain lions. G I, OTOH, have an American SportCat who *thinks* he is a mutant cougar (why else would he stalk and chase deer?!), and one shameless flirt of a Mountain Kitten (TM) (as opposed to a Coyote Pup...or something). ;) serious Earth-Moon was mentioned as being a double planet; is this the accepted term, or is it still debated? I think it makes sense, since IIRC somone calculated that Earth's orbit would be at a different place if there was no Moon... Debbi I Could Be So Wrong About That Last Maru __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Catastrophe: Planet No More
At 07:08 PM Monday 8/28/2006, Deborah Harrell wrote: Somebody noted that Pluto is now a dwarf planet- PAT MATHEWS [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Likewise, in my house I have two mutant dwarf mountain lions. G I, OTOH, have an American SportCat who *thinks* he is a mutant cougar (why else would he stalk and chase deer?!), and one shameless flirt of a Mountain Kitten (TM) (as opposed to a Coyote Pup...or something). ;) serious Earth-Moon was mentioned as being a double planet; is this the accepted term, or is it still debated? I think it makes sense, since IIRC somone calculated that Earth's orbit would be at a different place if there was no Moon... The mass of the Earth is 81.3 times the mass of the Moon. The barycenter (center of mass, or where they would balance if you put the Earth and Moon on opposite ends of a giant see-saw) of the Earth-Moon system is about 3000 miles from the center of the Earth, or about 1000 miles below the surface of the Earth. No other planet (2006 official definition :) ) in the solar system has a satellite which is so large compared to the planet itself (e.g., four of Jupiter's satellites are about as large as or larger than our Moon, but Jupiter itself is 318 times the mass of Earth, so they are much smaller compared to the planet they orbit than the Moon is compared to Earth). Also, in structure and composition, the Moon is similar to the four terrestrial planets and so is frequently considered with them from a planetary science point of view. That does not make it a planet according to the official definition, however. -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
