Geoffrey Purcell wrote:
> Re assumptions:- 1) well, assuming that building spaceships is a worthy cause is self-evident. 
That is part of the paradigm dissonance that makes it difficult for us 
to communicate.
> 3) Re writing:- Claiming that heat-transfer technology is the same as inventing writing or gunpowder isn't remotely valid. 
>   
Again, this just reflects a paradigm dissonance.
> Re stagnation:- A society can stagnate in aspects other than language. I was specifically referring to technology. That is, Inuit technology didn't advance to any significant extent since they arrived in the Arctic 1000s of years ago. Granted, they didn't NEED to advance technologically as they were fully adapted to their environment.
>   
I have never seen any evidence to support the belief that any culture 
stagnates on a technological plane. Such an assertion runs contrary to 
my observations of people in general. They love to experiment with their 
environments, trying new things and learning from them. I have worked 
with children from a wide variety of ethnic and socio-economic 
backgrounds and I have yet to observe a single individual who was 
content with intellectual or technological stagnation. To attribute that 
characteristic to an entire racial group is a subtle kind of racism.
>  
> Rev Margaret Meade:- Meade was one of the biggest frauds of all time in the field of anthropology. Derek Freeman debunked her absurd ideas re Samoan society(though he was rather too polite in calling her work the result of a hoax rather than as the scientific fraud it really was). Her crime was to falsely associate with the Samoans all sorts of trendy views which she felt that Western society should have embraced at the time but hadn't. She was the ultimate  proponent of the "Noble Savage" theory. Here's some info re Meade:-
>
>   
You are the person who offered her definition of savage (or was it 
barbarian?)... and it fits modern, technologically advanced cultures far 
better than many primitive ones.
>> happened any other way than it did, your perspective is limited by your 
>> own inability to imagine an alternative.":-
>>     
>> I'm afraid that's just misguided. 
Perhaps it is misguided, but your response is quite arrogant.  In fact, 
many of your comments have a very superior and condescending tone, which 
may have been a large factor in my  inferring an alternative message 
when you raised the "noble savage  theory."

Your pontificaton makes it difficult to discuss anything with you. 
Therefore, I won't be posting again in response to you. So I will get to 
learn from your posts but you won't get to learn anything from me. I 
would feel cheated by that. Do you frequently find yourself in that 
position? Or, as your comments suggest, are you really so sure of 
yourself that you do not want to learn from others? If so, you may serve 
as my first experience with a person who is willing to stagnate.

Sincerely,
Ron