Pet Peeve 2, Ancients where not wiser then we are today on any level. Options

Being that my original post had no biters yet, and while I know there have been a few posts I have made where there is fundamental differences (all common used bindings are earth based comes to mind) in common placed posts, people have been kind enough to not be critical.

However, here is my attempt to pick a fight, not really but at least a debate.

I despise the stupidity in the concepts that any of the ancients or indigenous tribes where wiser then we are today, or that their life style was better then ours is today in the “developed countries” of the world.

Now the first thing that must be understood is we still have or maintain a percentage of every level of development. Therefore, showing how tribe X today is more destructive then they where 50, 100, or 1000 years ago does not count in this discussion. If they are at the same level of development as they where 1000 years ago, but have the tools of today, of course they are more destructive.

What I am arguing is, that the sages or highest point of that time or subset, does not even come close to what we have today, not in ultimate height (that is to say peek greatness), not in breadth, (that is to say the common man experience). I am willing to argue this in either pure numbers or even percentages of population worldwide.

There are certain locations who have moved backwards from their great moment, that is to say the time that their societies where the shining star of the world, but I would argue that in 90% of those cases even now they are of higher development spiritually/socially / interpersonally then they ever where. The notable exceptions are places that are currently war torn or poverty-stricken.

What am I saying?
1. Native tribes where not more ecologically conscientious then we are today, they did not try to protect the planet or land more.

2. Tribes where not more peace loving then we are now.


3. The great wisdom schools of the ancients have little if anything to teach us today, other then possibly techniques and historical value. In addition, even there I am sure it is mostly historical in value not mind blowing with one or two possible exceptions.

Item 1 and 2.
This is the most amusing, and the one I see most commonly played out in the romanticized new age movement.

Native tribes, notably Native American (both continents not just North America) tribes. Where not the noble savages we think of them to be, nor am I arguing that they where the bloodthirsty savages we see depicted in early westerns, but they where savages and barbaric for the most part.
In both continents and throughout the continents with few notable exceptions, once they grew to a size or a level of advancement where they could overcome their neighbors by force, they did. Except when it was beneficial to them not to.

At the time Europeans came to the Americas in large numbers (1500s and 1600s) tribes where either still in nomadic or early agrarian status. Some tribes where in early agricultural stages, thus city-states and in one arguably two cases Imperial capacities. Thus they where the equivalent of the Europe 1000-2000 years earlier.

The only reason they did not make a bigger affect the land they where living on or to wage war was because they where not capable of doing so, those that where did, Mayan, Inca, Aztec, Mississippian and evidence of others tribes, though those are more remote in time and they are more arguable. All these civilizations raped the land around them and brutally subjugated smaller tribes around them.

The only reason they where not worse was because they where incapable of it, not because of higher wisdom or a concept of nobleness.

When Europeans appeared on the scene, the Europeans where more technologically advanced, and for the most part early on, traded and exchanged goods for services when appropriate. Europeans allied themselves with some tribes when expedient (warring after long time rivals of the allied tribes) until the numbers of Europeans, where a force to be reckoned with as far as settlements and then the real push began.

Now that said, many Europeans where of equal or lower level morals then some of the tribes, but on a whole the Europeans where more advanced on both levels. The only thing to note here, is going to the “new world” attracted sociopaths because they knew it was less likely that their actions would be seen as terribly as in Europe, or they where avoiding authorities in Europe.

So with this, why do we fall into admiring prehistoric/agrarian cultures as role models for our actions today?

As for wisdom…other then the Mayan Calendar, and much of the myths/ shaman traditions, I see little of consequence. The shamanic traditions are of some value, but not very high, I will expand this in with point 3.

Item 3.
There is no ancient civilization that we factually know of today that can give us any huge breakthroughs other then historical clarification and remotely possible some techniques for doing things, and I am numbering the specialty changing at possibly two or three. Other then in those areas, we have surpassed them in every conceivable way including mythical/magickal aptitude.

This one is great, because I almost immediately turn off the moment someone says/writes “previously hidden (or secret) ancient teachings” except for my interest in them historically (Dead Sea scrolls, giving a validation to the torahs reputed age). Now I honestly then fight the urge to see where this rabbit hole leads and inevitably it leads to a very shallow experience, however sometimes there is some value there, and it is not ancient, but the concepts are sound with other modern techniques (they where just trying to sell it).

The reason they have nothing important to teach us, is because mostly we have surpassed them in every conceivable way. There is nothing that they are rumored to have provided or done, that people of their stature today cannot do and do better.

Extreme examples: King Solomon.
Other then the speaking to animals there is nothing on the physical plane of existence that Bill Gates (no longer the richest man) can accomplish, much less the leader of any of the 20 top countries in the world (something that I think Israel was considered to be in at the time) could do. Move 40,000 people 2000 miles in a day, not really a problem, would hurt but possible, especially if we where talking Microsoft event. Buildings, I would argue that Microsoft campuses have been built and maintain is as good as anything in Jerusalem at the time, and based on needed function as good.

What is more, I believe bill gates will have a bigger impact on more people and percentage of people during his life then Solomon did. I speak from professional to personal to health, sanitation and education. The only area where Bill Gates cannot compare is the level of control over people that Solomon had. However the number of people and percentage of people who know of Bill Gates currently Vs Solomon at the time, totally in favor of Gates.

When we get into mystic traditions and such, there is no conscious state mentioned in any texts to date that cannot be reached by today’s mediators and taught to hundreds if not thousands of people in less time and less dangerous to the students then systems used more then 1000 years ago. I would also argue that today’s students end up with a more profound understanding of things, as they have a much wider viewpoint.


I had a 4th point, but it was the same size as these three, and I think this is enough.

I am right with ya, paxx.