Indigenous civilizations are far older and more complex than history suggests

An example of the relatively rare Tu Quoque logical fallacy in the wild! Or maybe you weren't arguing that it was okay because non Europeans did it, in which case it's more of a red herring.

"There is no justification needed, other than that's what humans did back then. It was a much more primitive and brutal example of survival of the fittest. And as much as it offends our sensibilities now, it is the very path that leads us to where we find ourselves today."

And yet people wrote extensively about their justifications for such behavior back then, and there were those whose sensibilities were offended in the past. For example, this 1550 debate on native captivity and rights, "http://digital.lib.lehigh.edu/trial/justification/newspain/e...

Here's more about Las Casas's defense of native rights, "https://www.thoughtco.com/bartolome-de-las-casas-2136332"

If the question could be considered in the 1500's, I see no reason why we can't talk about it now.

"We can struggle to be more just and compassionate with each other today, but our ancestors lived in a very different and harsh reality. It's not pretty, but it was a reality for a lot longer than this brief period we're living in now."

Compassion and justice aren't some new innovation from this century, but have been a concern of human beings for millennia in a variety of cultures. As well, the idea that we are morally superior to the past, in my personal view, a recipe for moral turpitude, and cultural torpor. It suggests that things are all good now.

Anyway, I feel like papering over the past by saying that we were primitive brutes is a little rich, given that that was the very justification used by so many Europeans for enslavement and genocide; that is, that the civilizing influence of their culture was needed.

When was the time justification started to be required?

Because people knew it was bad in 15th century already. When it suited them :)

This guy was trying to persuade pope that forcibly converting pagans was a bad idea and that Teutonic Order shouldn't be conquering and ruling over them just cause they are pagans.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pawe%C5%82_W%C5%82odkowic

Of course, he only had an opportunity to say so because Poland had an interest in preventing Teutonic Order from growing. But still.

Also - fighting wars isn't something we only did "back then". If you live in a "developed world" odds are - your country fought a war in last 2 decades.

We still do it, right now. Russia invaded Ukraine and annexed parts of it a few years ago and there's still a war going on there as we speak, with hundreds people killed each year.

Israel just bombed Syrian army forces last week and repeatedly pushes Palestinians out of their territory.

USA is fighting a war somewhere almost each year for the last 100 years or so (admitedly - there's little conquering, it's mostly "sphere of influence" stuff).

Iraq and Afghanistan is obvious, and half of NATO participated, including my country.

This is not something we grew out of. It's just that when the system works - it happens far away from the "important" countries, so we can pretend we grew wise and don't do this shit anymore.

It was the same in the late 19th century - you were supposed to fight your wars far away, so you can have your European parts comfy and peaceful. Only when the system fails and you have wars in "important" countries - people suddenly get back to reality.

Most of our culture and technology is not sustainable... The way primitive people were living would allow them to live on the planet until an asteroid came and wiped them out, which could be millions of years. The way we're living will probably see us go extinct in the next 10,000 years.

There is a good chance that computers will have an uninterrupted existence for the next 5000 years, and we’ll be remembered for creating the first network with 1billion+ users, similarly to how the Romans are remembered for their roads and aqueducts. This is a particularly exciting case because large amounts of data we generate could survive!

In the case that history is largely forgotten, similarly to how we have a heavy fog around knowledge of society 5000 years ago, I can imagine future archeologicists being very surprised to find large piles of fissionable materials. This has the potential to be very sensational in future pop culture.

Europe , for what I saw in Asterix comics, at least, looked pretty nice too. And was probably wonderful and beautiful and not that hostile, in real life.

But necessity is strong, very strong, in many situations.

There is the old Sufi tale ( if I recall, it is sufi )

"The old man came and killed the only cow the poor family relied to survived, for years of poverty. The family cried. Years later, the family said thank you to the old man, they are rich now"

Just a story, not trying to make any strong point.

Weather is the key, I think

off course, the world in my opinion, is better without swords and bullets and hypersonic gliders that burns to death thousands at a time. But some people think all tech are good things. each to their own.

and Comments, as paper, accepts anything you put on them. And words can be used to support anything.

Another thing to consider is any technology you might mention, like glass and iron, are relatively recent as developed technologies, about 2-3000 years old, with some older precursors. Moreover, they were developed and spread over the course of hundreds or a thousand or more years. Different parts of the Eurasia entered the Iron Age ~3000 years ago, while other parts -- parts connected by trade and separated by a few hundred miles -- didn't enter the Iron Age until ~2000 years ago.

So the other question is, to what extent is it meaningful that the Americas, which did not have the benefit of Eurasian trade, had not independently entered the Iron Age ~500 years ago? Is that a meaningful delay that needs to be explained, or is it just the variation that should be expected to occur by the accumulation of chance factors?

Re: domestication, there were domesticated dogs in the pre-Columbian Americas, but it was not an independent domestication. Deer and buffalo are not regarded as domesticatable; there were llamas and alpacas as large domesticated animals, but their range was limited and mountainous.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1493:_Uncovering_the_New_World...

https://www.amazon.com/1493-Uncovering-World-Columbus-Create...