Theiling Online    Sitemap    Conlang Mailing List HQ   

Re: Civilization without fire

From:Padraic Brown <pbrown@...>
Date:Wednesday, December 29, 1999, 2:28
On Tue, 28 Dec 1999, Nik Taylor wrote:

>BP Jonsson wrote: >> but metallurgic technology and civilization >> aren't necessarily the same thing. > >I'M NOT SAYING IT IS!!! I never once said that civilization was >impossible without fire. Why am I constantly being misinterpreted that >way?
Probably because "modern" civilisation and technology are so intertwined; plus you probably chose some wording in some post poorly. [I have only paid occasional attention to this thread, but it seems you've been misinterpreted several times?] Perhaps we tend to find civilisation improbable without some kind of familliar technology. And much of our technology (more than 90% of it, I'ld say) is based ultimately on the use of fire. Perhaps in stead of saying *Language and higher intelligence, definitely, without a doubt. But, *I can't imagine how technology, beyond stone tools, would be *possible. you should have covered yourself by saying "Language and high intelligence definitely; some kind of civilisation is also possible, but Civilisation As We Know It (TM), which is metal and fire based, almost certainly not likely." There are plenty of materials intelligent octopodes/i/uses (we are still talking about them, yes?) could use to construct their infrastructure. Stone, of course, would be usable; mud (adobe), but couldn't be dried; and rope. Modern octopusses could make use of all the metal and wood that our shipping industry drops on their heads from time to time. Padraic.
> >> IMO civilization is chiefly a matter of social organization, which may >> be a prerequisite of technological progress, rather than the other way >> around. > >And I agree with you there. >