On Saturday I said I was reading the history of the world in terms of salt economy. E.g., the English cod industry was limited by the availability of salt in which to pack it. If you were writing a history of the world in terms of something, what would it be and why? I'll make a few suggestions.

I would start a history of the world in terms of rivers. Rivers were the major means of communication and trade, and the site of major cities today.

I could tell the history of the word in terms of the evolution of religious thought. E.g., If Constantine hadn't seen that cross in the sky, would Christianity have survived?

I know zmj would tell the story in terms of linguistics and Richard in the History of Beer.

Lets get some ideas!

This message has been edited. Last edited by: missann,

in terms of rivers

They are important. It used to fascinate me as a youth on all the important cities in the world seemed to be on rivers or near the ocean. I forget who it is who created a map of the world where distances were represented by by cost of transportation. The oceans shrank on this map, and the land masses grew.

I think a history of the world in terms of the history of words would be a fun project. (Think wiki.)

quote:

I could tell the history of the word in terms of the evolution of religious thought.

I would imagine that religion is one of the commonest of human inventions. I have never heard of any human gathering - tribe, national, empire - that has not created some kind of religion for itself.

The need to make sense of the world (the more so when human knowledge and communication was less than it now is) and the desire to come to terms with mortality are both powerful drivers for religious creation.

quote:

If Charlemagne hadn't seen that cross in the sky

I think you mean Constantine.

quote:

I think you mean Constantine.

Oops! Yes, zmj corrected me. When we moved I sold all my books and have to rely on my poor memory. I am also a little fuzzy in the head these days for medical reasons so please correct me.

So! How would you tell the story?

When I was at school I read an excellent book about the development of religions, which made the connection between primitive peoples' worship of objects such a trees and animals, through worship of more "powerful" things such as the sun and the moon, and then to worship of gods that were associated with heavenly bodies. From that stage eventually came the creation of ever more powerful gods until eventually arrived the concept of the all-powerful, omnipotent being - the one true god - which is where most most of the world's religions are today.

I showed the book to my religious knowledge teacher and he borrowed it to read. His response was that, whereas it was a well-written book, it seemed to be saying that god (and by that he meant the Christian god, since that was the religion we were instructed in) was simply the product of a process of developing beliefs. And of course, he told me, that couldn't be right because, as he "knew" there was only one true god - plus, of course, his son, Jesus. To be fair to him, he was quite prepared to discuss other religions - although not to admit that they could have any validity.

Without doubt religion has been a great force for both good and evil throughout history; like their raison d'etre or not, few would disagree that many of Britain's churches and cathedrals are truly wonderful pieces of architecture.

What a marvelous question, missann. Do you see why I'd like to see you posting more here?

quote:

They are important. It used to fascinate me as a youth on all the important cities in the world seemed to be on rivers or near the ocean.

...and lakes, too. Chicago never would have developed had it not been located where it is. I have always thought about that, too, z.

I'd love to write about the history of the world in terms of health. I was just reading today (of course I can't remember where!) about the differences in life expectancies across countries. Some were clear, like countries in Africa had low life expectancies, as did Afghanistan. But the U.S. was way down there (life expectancy of 77) in the 40s. Some of the top countries were France, Australia, and Switzerland. I was wondering if stress (or lack thereof) had something to do with it, at least in the more civilized countries. Anyway...I think it would be interesting.

The CIA World Factbook, 14 June, 2007, put Andorra at the top at 83.52 years. Bottom is Swaziland at 32.23 years. The UK is 36th at 78.7 years and the USA is 44th at 78 years.

Interestingly, Guernsey (one of the British islands, but not part of the UK) has a much higher expectancy than the UK at 80.53 years (11th overall).

Australia is 9th at 80.62 years, France 10th at 80.59 years and Switzerland 8th at 80.62 years.

Out of interest I checked the statistics for McDonald's restaurants - not because their food is especially unhealthy but their frequency might reflect the frequency of fast food outlets in general. Fast food, and its encouragement of obesity, might have some affect on life expectancy.

Top of the tree is the USA with 0.433 per 10,000 population, the UK is 9th with 0.184 per 10,000 population, Australia is 4th at 0.349 per 10,000 population, Switzerland is 13th with 0.159 per 10,000 population, France 16th with 0.141 per 10,000 population. Andorra isn't shown and might not have any McDonald's. (Source McDonald's)

Is there a relationship? Tenuous at best, I'd say.

So far as stress is concerned, the World Values Survey of 2005 found that the "happiness level" was highest in Iceland (11th in the life expectancy ranking at 80 years) where 94% of the population considered themselves as either "quite happy" or "very happy. The UK was 10th at 87%, the USA was 13th at 84%. Australia was 5th at 90%, France equal with the USA and Switzerland 6th at 89%.

Probably a greater correlation than there is with numbers of McDonald's (although, of course, we don't know whether the number of restaurants is a true reflection of consumption).

The History of the World in terms of shoe shops.

(See Hitch Hikers' Guide to the Galaxy:Secondary Phase)

quote:

The History of the World in terms of shoe shops.

I know the "Hitch Hiker's Giuide" is a spoof but on a serious note, that is a clever idea. Could the eskimos have survived without waterproof boots? Could sub-Saharan Africans have migrated north without heat-resistant sandals? If your feet ain't happy, ain't none of you happy.
Women buy shoes to stop other women from buying them. By the way, the word "shopping" supposedly derives from women's fondness for going from shop to shop - shop hopping.

I didn't know that, missann, but it surely makes sense.

Shoes would be an interesting way of looking at the history of the world.

In terms of health, I just read today in the NY Times a letter from a physician who said (in response to a NY Times editorial that lamented that the U.S. does not have the best medical care in the world): "You express some dismay that the world's most powerful economy does not produce the world's best medical care. But if a nation makes the economy its ultimate bottom line, and if that economy is unabashedly skewed to favor the wealthiest top percent, it should hardly be surprising that its health care system is calibrated to function in precisely the same fashion." Obviously he thinks the health care system of a country will tell you a lot about that culture. I think he's right.

quote:

Originally posted by missann:
I could tell the history of the word in terms of the evolution of religious thought. E.g., If Constantine hadn't seen that cross in the sky, would Christianity have survived?

If he had NOT seen it, Christianity might have survived; since he DID see it, it did not.

quote:

Originally posted by Richard English:
When I was at school I read an excellent book about the development of religions, which made the connection between primitive peoples' worship of objects such a trees and animals, through worship of more "powerful" things such as the sun and the moon, and then to worship of gods that were associated with heavenly bodies.

You remind me of Eliade's "The Sacred and The Profane," which examines how a culture views time. Sacred time is circular, as with the seasons; profane time is linear. The concept of time may not take us from one human evolutionary period to the next without a few bumps, but one could do worse than to examine its influence on culture, or culture's/technology's influence on it.

Another historical marker is fire. We've used it for a loooong time, but the manner of using it, and they types of fuel, have certainly changed our existence.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: <Asa Lovejoy>,

quote:

If he had NOT seen it, Christianity might have survived; since he DID see it, it did not.

Interesting point!

In a recent issue of Science, the argument was made that the great spurt in brain development that led to Homo sapiens was due to the invention of cooking food. Cooked food yields more nutrition than raw food, and brains require a huge amount of energy. The evidence is sketchy for way-way back, but surely, in the last 100,000 years or so, the ability to get the most nutrition out of food would determine history. You need fuel to cook food, too.

I could have sworn that food lost nutrients when cooked. Maybe it depends, though. If you cook vegetables and fruit, for example, I know that you lose a fair percentage of their nutrients.

Same here, Kalleh, BUT, animal products are way safer when cooked, so life expectancy would surely go up sans parasites and bacteria.

Boiled vegetables definitely lose water-soluble nutrients to the water, but I think cooked meat is more easily digestible than raw meat. Digestive systems tend to be optimized for either plants or animals; cooking effectively pre-digests the meat for us.

I've seen many theories about why homo sapiens evolved, but the one that I find most persuasive is when humans learnt how to farm animals, and later crops, thus releasing them from the hand-to-mouth existence of the hunter-gatherer. The resulting permanent settlements would have encouraged development of such things as communication about abstract concepts.

One particularly interesting concept I heard of linked the domestication of dogs to human development. This would have taken place after permanent settlement and wild dogs would have learnt that there were easy pickings from the detritus of human settlement. Humans would quickly have learnt that dogs can easily be tamed to work for them and the dog's superior tracking skills (and, in large numbers, killing skills) would have helped in food gathering, thus allowing even more leisure time and chances of mental development.

I'd say that language was older than farming, which is only about 10K years old. I say so because there are hunters and gathers who speak. Also, farming seems to have been invented after humans left Africa. (Some bio-linguists think that Neanderthal had language, and forms of communication do exist amongst other animals.) There might be a case for saying that written systems were invented after agriculture, but it isn't proven. Personally, I'd say that language was an outcome of evolution, rather than invented.

quote:

I'd say that language was older than farming, which is only about 10K years old.

I agree. Language is far older than farming, I am quite sure. Indeed, I suspect that language, in its most basic form, is older than humanity.

quote:

Another historical marker is fire. We've used it for a loooong time, but the manner of using it, and they types of fuel, have certainly changed our existence.

The amount of energy that a thing can make use of from its environment has a big influence on whether that thing is successful. This idea has wide application, both evolutionary and cultural. Plants that can better use the available solar energy will do better than those that don't. Animals that can get to kilo-calories that other similar animals can't will have an advantage. Cultures which can make use of fire, coal, petroleum, wind, domesticated plants and animals, and other energy sources will have an advantage over those that can't.

quote:

sworn that food lost nutrients when cooked.

Yes, Kalleh, that is true to some extent. But, if you are trying to eat a tough, wild antelope, or render the marrow from its bones, or make a tough plant edible, cooking breaks down a lot of stuff, making the rest of it accesible. We all know that when we are dieting we eat raw carrots because we don't get as many calories from them as from cooked carrots. However, we do get more vitamins from the raw.

quote:

sans parasites and bacteria.

Excellent point!

And now to tell you what I didn't tell you before. The great brain increase was in Homo erectus, before H. sapiens evolved, and there is absolutely no evidence that he made fires.
ZMJ - Based on neck anatomy, the Neanderthals might have had limited vocal ability. They certainly hunted and made fires. The Cro Magnon who replaced them in Europe were essentially like ourselves, although probably dark skinned.

I would be inclined to agree that fire might have been one of the later developments. Although it is common enough to us, there's a fair amount of technology involved to create a controllable fire at will. Just try the job with no matches, fireplace, kindling or the wherewithal to make any of these things.

quote:

The great brain increase was in Homo erectus, before H. sapiens evolved, and there is absolutely no evidence that he made fires.

I don't think this is correct. There is compelling evidence for the existence H. erectus fire pits 230,000 years ago; evidence from Swartkrans Cave in South Africa places shows evidence for control of fire as early as 1 million years ago.

How about the early Chinese Homo Eructus, Bel-ching man? Totally vegetarian, thus emitting loads of methane, thereby giving rise to the mythology of dragons. OK, enough silly fun - is it not possible that diet contributed to erect posture? Meat has higher digestable protein, especially when cooked, than veggies, so a shorter gut became possible. Less ventral baggage meant easier bipedalism and more energy to burn on communicating how to get the next big shot of protein, which begat a bigger cranium.