Re: Civilization without fire

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.
>