To set the tone for this great new forum: What was the most significant event in the history of man?

I'm gonna have to go with the Rennaissance.

Wow, first thread here. I would say that it's the moon landing. Landing on a different surface, 33 million miles away proves that man can do just about anything.

the events that have yet to come :D

*at present writing a thread on revisionist history, give me a couple of days its going to be big!*

Alexander Gramh bell spills battery acid on his hand and his assistant comes rushing in because he heard his scream through the first working model of the telelphone.

Probably whatever event led to the end of the dominance of the reptiles.

Thats a good one fenris wolf, in the same vain I would say the reptile that developed mammal like characteristics and eventually branched out to become the family we know as mammals today. The mammal type is what allowed creatures to become so complex as to allow such a species as homo-sapien to emerge.

As for the most significant event in human history, I would say that was when humans first rubbed wood together and made fire, it all snowballed from there.

day I was born

The invention of money. Hands down. None of *this* <looks out the window at civilization> would be possible without it.

in my opinion i would have to say when fire was discovered and/or when the television was invented:D

The mammal type is what allowed creatures to become so complex as to allow such a species as homo-sapien to emerge.

forgive for disagreeing on a purely biological standpoint but mammals are not at all the definitively most complex class of animals, take birds for example warm blooded and very advance brain structure, dinosaurs were most likely warm blooded, in fact there is a hypothesis that if the great K/T event (meteor impact) 65 million years ago did not happen we would all be bipedal, 3 fingered dinosaurs most likely descended from Stenonychosaurus (Troodon).
http://members.ozemail.com.au/~laranzu/atxf/troodon-full.jpeg

Soooo when talking about history lets limited it the events during the time of humen existance.

To the topic, I'll say the birth of Industrialization--> the very beginning of our severe dependency on biofuel (coals, petroleum)

aaah you mean fossil fuels, as we have been running ob biofuels since well forever (food, horses powered by foood, ect)

The Wright brothers take flight. What a significant point in history.

The most important events in Western history would be:

- Reformation
- 30 Years War
- Enlightenment
- American Revolution
- French Revolution

Those 5 things made the West into what it is today, for better or for worse the leader.

In the 20th century I would say the Treaty of Versailles was the most important thing to happen. It set the precedent until and exceeding our time.

Dr. Lou:
, I would say that was when humans first rubbed wood together and made fire

Yes, I can totally imagine you setting on fire seeing two boys rubbing wood.


As for significant events: the practically of those Clever Phonecians.

These were merchant people that sat down one day and noticed how fucking annoying the Sumerican alphabet was- and so, in order to save time and money, they borrowed a few pictures form the Egypitians, simplified the Sumerian code and PRESTO- they ground down all those annoying fingernail wedges (cuneiform) down to the practical simplicity of 22 letters.

If not, we'd all be sitting here with an alphabet as long as Tiassa's fucking posts.

I think it was when the first human finally thought something like "it must have been god" in regards to whatever perplexed them at the time.

Edit:

Nevermind, someone else would have thought of it.

In my perspective, every event that teached us a bit more about our place in the whole scheme of things: Darwin's origins of species, and all those moments of insight drawing us the picture of a planet in a solar system, in a galaxy, in a supercluster, in a universe. Hard, if not impossible, to elect one of those points in time as the most significant.

The most significant event in the history of man was probably the mass extinction of the dinasaurs, although that happened before we evolved. After we actually existed as a species, the most significant event might be the invention of language.

What was the most significant event in the history of man?


Recorded history, or Pre-historic as well?

I say one of the most important figures if not the most important of all time, has to be Jesus Christ. Not because I am a catholic, but because he was able to challenge conventional morality, confront the pagan Roman Empire (nothing is wrong with Paganism in Rome), he was able to bring a tinge of utilitarian ethics on to man. He is a man who fundamentally shaped 3 billion people's lives today, and yes there have been great things done in his name, and very bad things. But it wasn't his fault; it was a perversion of his vision.

In the East I would say that Confucius was the most important figure to that part of the world. He established morality that would rule China and influence the surrounding regions even to this day. Oriental ethics are very much shaped by his respect for authority and his deep analytical thought. I heard that he could be compared to Jesus, a Jesus of the East. But I think that Chinese are more advanced then any western culture (imo), and they are closer to our secular humanist ethics of today, hundreds of years before 1648.

The invention of the written word.

That way ideas can be passed from generation to generation without being lost. Words alone can't stand the test of time but books will be around for a long time.

The invention of language (if you can call it an event) was much more significant than any one historical figure. Language led to culture that could be transmitted to the next generations, culture to inventions like the flint knife and spear, those weapons led to much free time for more inventions like agriculture, agriculture led to civilization... and the mess we are now in!

The problem with deciding which events were the most unique, like, say the invention of writing, or the invention of flight, is that their very creations were virtually inevitable. If the Wright Brothers hadn't figured out how to fly someone else would have. Same goes for writing, or the development of language at all, to whoever did it first. Same for Jesus as well--I'm sure that if he had broken his neck as a child or something, a different messiah would have rolled around eventually. The Jesus we know of today was largely shaped by the early papacy, by the New Testament. Not by the man himself, if he even really existed. The same would have happened to any replacement, eventually.

So what we have to do is find an event that is quite unique, something that no person other than the original progenitor could have ever created/discovered/influenced. Someone very unique, very different, who did something totally unexpected that would significantly alter the world up to the present day.

Therefore, I choose Constantine the Great, and his abrupt and completely unexpected declaration of Christianity as Rome's official religion. In those times, Christianity was a fringe religion, with little power or influence. To be a bigot, their activities in the larger Roman world didn't extend far beyond being thrown to the lions at the local stadium. And that job didn't carry a good pay, and NO BENEFITS either. If the United States had an official religion (it would probably be Protestant), it would be something to the equivalent, I think, of declaring Neo Paganism the new state-sponsored religion. I don't think that anyone except him would have ever done what he did, ever, furthermore, I believe quite adamently that had he not done what he did, we would still be worshipping the same pagan gods the Greeks, Romans, and their ancestors had been worshipping since virtually the birth of the human race. Christianity and Judaism would likely remain fringe cultures, or would just fade away. Islam would never have formed, or if it did, it would not enjoy the following that it has now.

Without Constantine's actions, the world we would be living in now would be markedly different. It's impossible to say, for better or for worse (many on this liberal board would likely say worse, but I am a skeptic), but it would be different, and it all goes back to him.

If the Wright Brothers hadn't figured out how to fly someone else would have. Same goes for writing, or the development of language at all, to whoever did it first.

That does not take away from the significance of that event. If Wright brothers hadn't taken flight when they did how much time would have passed berfore someone did. People laughed at their attempts so how long?...How would that have effected the coming future?

Sure someone would have done it sooner and later but their significance lies in the fact that their discovery caused change and turned the tides of the coming future.

Sure someone would have fought for his/her people but Martin Luther King did when he did and by doing so he changed the future.

That does not take away from the significance of that event. If Wright brothers hadn't taken flight when they did how much time would have passed berfore someone did. People laughed at their attempts so how long?...How would that have effected the coming future?

There was already a wealth of information around on flight (work done by Da Vinci, Bernoulli's Principle), and many people were trying to do it at the time--haven't you seen those films of the old flying machines? I bet that if the Wright Brother's hadn't done it, flight would have been accomplished within five years of them.

Sure someone would have fought for his/her people but Martin Luther King did when he did and by doing so he changed the future.

I agree with you. I don't think he was as influential as Constantine, but I believe that he is irreplaceable in history. It is highly unlikely that someone with his intelligence and oratory skill would have easily filled his place during the Civil Rights movement, just because people like that anywhere are extremely hard to find. I'm not sure that anyone like him exists even today.

Its radical to think had he not done what he did. Who could have been as influential?

Oprah?...her influence and power comes from the rights he gained for his people?

For me this raises an interesting question. Do strong black figures like Oprah succeed because of their natural willingness to get ahead or really because they work in a world changed by Martin Luther King. Would Oprah have made it even if King never did what he did?

but I am going way off track here.

"Would Oprah have made it even if King never did what he did?"

Absolutely not. No way in hell.

I would have to say that the most significant event would be the invention of atomic weapons. It was at this point that we gained the ability to kill off the human race, and knowing man's nature, our future has become somewhat ominous and uncertain. The balance of World power can be shifted in a heartbeat, simply by a country acquiring a stockpile of these weapons(Pakistan, India).

If writing wasn't invented then airplanes couldn't have been built.

Good suggestions. There's no one right answer of course. I particularly agree with those who voted for language, both the spoken and the written version. It's lately been convincingly hypothesized that man was not able to migrate out of Africa until after we developed language -- it's starting to look like there is really only one single language family.

But that won't stop me from presenting my own suggestion, which many of you may have already read on other threads.

The voluntary joining of humans and dogs into a single community in eastern Asia around 10,000BCE. This was the first time that two species transcended the limitations of their instinctive tribalism, fear, and other habitual behaviors and learned how to complement each other's strengths and weaknesses to mutual advantage. (Symbiosis and parasitism don't count. Those are genetically programmed behaviors. One is necessary to the survival of both species and the other is detrimental to the host.)

Before dogs, humans lived in tribes of a few hundred, with tenuous relations to nearby related tribes. Everyone had a passing acquaintance with everyone else, and they were all literally family. Arguments and scuffles broke out as in any family, and occasionally somebody would cause serious harm and/or emigrate. But in general people felt an instinct to care for their kin, to not horde, waste, steal, or slack off, at the expense of someone else's comfort or survival.

This was the best we could do. People a thousand miles away were no concern of ours. If they tried to move into our area they were competing for scarce resources and a conflict was virtually inevitable. We lived the way our closest relatives still live (chimps and the other social species of apes), albeit in much bigger tribes.

Then suddenly we discovered that life can be better if we accept another tribe into our community. One that is, to put it mildly, quite different from ours. Different lifestyle, different things they care about and different things that don't matter at all to them, different family relationships, different skills and weaknesses, different ways of establishing leadership. Even with the major hindrance of an almost total inability to communicate with them beyond sign language and follow-the-leader.

It was a bonanza. We suddenly had hunters in our tribe who could smell game five miles away and run as fast as many game animals. Fierce, capable fighters who could see during the night, protect our camp from gigantic predators, or at least selflessly sacrifice their lives trying. Companions who happily ate the food we kept dropping on the ground, getting rid of most of those annoying insects and other scavengers. Folks with their own permanent fur coats who could really warm up a cold bed, who stayed to herd the babies of both species so all of us who weren't pregnant or nursing could go out hunting and gathering.

Meanwhile... the dogs suddenly had hunting partners who bring down a mammoth. Companions who kept dropping perfectly good food on the ground. Campfires. Baby humans who spent years doing nothing but playing -- and just loved dogs. Healers who could set broken bones and cure many illnesses. Prosperity that allowed the tribe to support a beloved but permanently disabled comrade.

This first multi-species community taught us that it is not only possible to care for and cooperate with "people" who are really different -- but that it's to everyone's benefit to do so.

Is anybody with me on this? If we hadn't already stumbled into this experience with dogs, would we ever have been able to make the great leap of forming "communities" with people on the other side of the planet that we never even see? People whose beliefs and customs we find a bit off-putting? People with whom we have to set up elaborate political and economic structures to make sure that everybody is carrying their weight and nobody is sandbagging?

Considering what a mediocre job we are actually doing at this moment, I really wonder whether we owe our ability to have invented civilization in the first place... to our loving, trusting, forgiving friend: Canis familiaris.

I've always believed that people don't really invent things. The 'times' invent things. It just happens that certain facts/ideas come to light at the same time... and lead somebody to the conclusion of how to do something new. I think this is supported by the number of discoveries that have happened in 2 different places at the same time.

So to echo the thought of others "if 'they' didn't do it, somebody else would".

How about the discovery of fire. :p

damn some one beat me to it...but yes fire.

thanks for the correction (specification), fetus.
I hope one day in the future there's an end to the depndency.....

Agriculture

Tough call. In addition to those above: Printing.

The day I was born.

I agree with you fraggle rocker, I made a thread on the subject in human science a while back but I went a bit more extreme, as i do, i can't even remember but I think i might have even said humans would have no written word if it wasn't for dogs.
I think they definately had a huge impact on the human species in many obvious ways and many more less obvious ways and even more ways by extension.
As we domesticated them, they domesticated us.
All the basic things that got civilisation started used to actually require a dog, agriculture is a perfect example. I doubt humans would have become anything like they are today if it wasn't for the joining of teams with dogs.

Pockets.

There's an old Jerry Seinfeld bit about "if dogs had pockets."

Steven Brust, in Athyra, makes an odd and subtle point about young boys, talking to girls, and having no place to put your hands.

Put those two together, and the importance of pockets becomes clear.

The advent of pockets--the human ability to be a packrat on the go--made history a living and identifiable experience, even before humans could express the concept.

What about shoes? Much more important than pockets. I mean, what's the point of being a pack rat on the go, if you can't actually go anywhere, due to blisters on your feet?

How about good sanitation , without a place to dispose of poop, you'd all be in a big problem and up to your ears in poop. ;)

That's a load of shit, cosmic... and you know it :D

What was the most significant event in the history of man?

The irradication of religion.

Oops, sorry - this was a message from the not to distant future. :D

The most significant event in the history of man was the very first pregnancy that produced a human--final.

The most significant event in the history of man was the very first pregnancy that produced a human--final.

And that wraps it up. You win. :)

I think one of the most important events in human history are those that never happened. Contradiction? Semantically yes, but logically no. For instance if you happen to be Jewish, or (what Nazi's) considered untermensch the most significant event is that the Nazi's did not win WWII, or went into a stalemate. I think a Nazi victory would have been by enlarge the most significant event in history, the total and complete re-organization of the world according to new godless, ubermensch* rule.

• Nazi's IMO were only ubermensch as a collective unit.

I disagree. Ghengis and Napolean had much more significant empires. In the history of empires, Hitler takes a few seats back.

I don't think Genghis or Napoleon had the ability to completely eradicate races, nor did they the ability to totally control all resources, and create nuclear weapons, and create genetically modified human beings! I think Hitler winning would have been the single worst event in human history. Unlike the former two, he had propaganda and he had the ability to control millions, almost instantaneously. You missed the point of my post:

I think one of the most important events in human history are those that never happened

Don't you agree that the most important even that never happened was Hitler's rise?

They had the ability, but not the desire.

Ghenghis was a very fair man. More barbaric, but evenhanded. He gave everyone the chance to surrender, and if they did not, they'd get exactly what they were promised..

They had the ability, but not the desire.


The holocaust remind you of anything? Nietzche abused philosophy was instramental in their reign, and no "inferior" ethics like ours was going to stop them. I am amazed that they didn't kill more.

Let me put it this way:

Putting Hitler, Genghis and Napoleon into the same basket is LAZY. The only thing they have in common is their uniqueness as leaders.

Plus, your argument is based presumption. You're assuming their motives were identical and that they've would've used intrinsic means to achieve those same ends (rule the world.) Thats absolute bull. Its not so simple.

Hitler wanted a master race, used force
Napoleon was compensating, used force
Ghenghis wanted wealth and respect, used force

^^I'm simplifying history, but not as much as you^^

Great leader wanted power, used force <-----knowing this, technically, superfically...your argument is true. But as I said, limited and lazy


Don't you agree that the most important even that never happened was Hitler's rise?

What?!
Hitler rose, and he fell just the same. The only thing that held him back from economically ruling the world was his blood lust.

I think the most important thing than never happened is that the planet didn't spontaneously explode.

Putting Hitler, Genghis and Napoleon into the same basket is LAZY

No rather it is merely logical, they had the same motive. Domination, just different eras, and different philosophical reasons.

Plus, your argument is based presumption. You're assuming their motives were identical and that they've would've used intrinsic means to achieve those same ends (rule the world.)

I don't know what you are talking about, I never even indicated that Hitler and the other two were even connected, I was talking about Hitler's exceptionalism, could you please expand?

Hitler rose, and he fell just the same.

By appointment? ok...

The only thing that held him back from economically ruling the world was his blood lust.

You are not talking to me obviously, you are making these arguments on, well I don't know. I said nothing, nada, zip, zilch on the economics of Nazi Germany.

Ok..... ;)

No rather it is merely logical, they had the same motive. Domination, just different eras, and different philosophical reasons.

Exactly. I agreed that the logic is right. My point out that you're simplifying too much.


I don't think Genghis or Napoleon had the ability to completely eradicate races, nor did they the ability to totally control all resources, and create nuclear weapons, and create genetically modified human beings! I think Hitler winning would have been the single worst event in human history. Unlike the former two, he had propaganda and he had the ability to control millions,

I never even indicated that Hitler and the other two were even connected

It could be interpreteded that way. You essentially said that the only difference was propoganda...but I disagree. Genghis and Napoleon used that too. How else could Ghenghis unite the loose tribes of mongolia than through the psychological propoganda that 'Mongolia should rule the world,' and that he was a god?

I said nothing, nada, zip, zilch on the economics of Nazi Germany.

Agreed. I simply pointed out that ruling the world is a matter of economics, and it was Hitlers blood lust that prevented him. But then, techincally, superficially...you did--
nor did they the ability to totally control all resources,

Exactly. I agreed that the logic is right. My point out that you're simplifying too much.


Well not really, I mean the are logical comparisons. They both had HUGE empires, and they were all ruthless. Hitler and Genghis being the most ruthless bar none. But unlike Hitler, the Mongolian empire took at least a century to fully formulate into a entity, the Nazi's would have done it in less then 10 years, the Germans were known for one thing above all else, efficiency. The holocaust, the Blitzkrieg, and their re-armament showed this to be true. The Mongols were just ruthless, and their empire was based much more on luck or circumstance that of the Nazi ruler ship.

It could be interpreteded that way.

No, because in order for me to connect them I would list similarities.

Genghis and Napoleon used that too.

Could you cite examples of this?

How else could Ghenghis unite the loose tribes of mongolia than through the psychological propoganda that 'Mongolia should rule the world,' and that he was a god?

He ruled through the organizational means, and through ruthless warfare. He brought the tribes together yes, but propaganda could not exist for a people who at the time (to the best of knowledge) did not have writing or any settlements. No Genghis did it through ruthless means.

Xerxes

Please state a complete thought next time, if you do post again. I cannot stand seeing massive edits, if it does happen again. I will refuse to respond to the edit.

Agreed. I simply pointed out that ruling the world is a matter of economics,

Only when you have competition, if you have no competition economics ceases in function.

But then, techincally, superficially...you did--

You could say that, but I did not mean it in economic terms I meant it in controlling terms.

But unlike Hitler, the Mongolian empire took at least a century to fully formulate into a entity, the Nazi's would have done it in less then 10 years,

Its all relative. The collapse of the roman empire would take minutes in a modern world. Whats your point?

The Mongols were just ruthless, and their empire was based much more on luck or circumstance that of the Nazi ruler ship.

You have a very loose understanding of the Mongolians. I've read numerous books on the them, written two internal assesments, and if anything I can tell you they were just as efficient as the Nazi's (if not more!) Technology gave the Nazi's an edge in timewise, but I've never heard of a single Nazi that survived off of raw meat, tubers, and rode 80-110 miles a day on horseback. They're government was small and efficient, and in a ratio of population:power, the Nazi's don't even compare.

No, because in order for me to connect them I would list similarities.

Only simpleminded politicians ignore the *intrinsic* meanings of their statements.

Its like a pedophile saying:

I enjoy the company of children
>in place of<
I enjoy to fuck children

and using that as his defence. Its twice as crooked and 10x more unprincipled.


Could you cite examples of this?

Okay. How about Napoleons little visit to the mideast? He saw the semites there in a similar way that Hitler saw the Jews, and wrote "Veni, Vedi Veci," The most ridiculously propogandic statement in existance..

He brought the tribes together yes, but propaganda could not exist for a people who at the time (to the best of knowledge) did not have writing or any settlements.

Why must propoganda exist in writing to have any value? Again..tunnelvision. Its not the medium that has value to propoganda - but the psychological effects

I will refuse to respond to the edit.

You've proved that you cannot resist the temptation. I think you're bluffing.

Only when you have competition, if you have no competition economics ceases in function.

well duh :rolleyes:

the most basic levels are international and intranational competition. And even then, I'm simplifying. As long as goods are being produced, competition always exists(either intra or inter). Therefore, as long as people exist, and demand products, so will competition. Regardless of politics

You can't simplify history, and you can't do that for economics either.

Anyways, I'm going out for an hour.

Its all relative. The collapse of the roman empire would take minutes in a modern world. Whats your point?

Isn't it obvious? The difference is this, the Nazi's would have done much more, more efficiently and thus proving my point that we are lucky that the Nazi's are not in power, or did not go into domination. Do you deny, that is the whole point of my stance.

You have a very loose understanding of the Mongolians. I've read numerous books on the them, written two internal assesments,

Well I thank you for the "appeal to authority" but unless you are a expert in this field, you wield little influence on me.

and if anything I can tell you they were just as efficient as the Nazi's (if not more!)

So taking over Poland in less then one month is worse then the Mongols taking over China over decades?

Technology gave the Nazi's an edge in timewise, but I've never heard of a single Nazi that survived off of raw meat, tubers, and rode 80-110 miles a day on horseback.

Because now you are illogically comparing the two, you in this instance simply cannot compare Nazi soldier with a Mongol soldier in specifics. The only way you can connect the two is through philosophical and motivational reasons. This does not prove that the Mongols were more efficient, what it did prove was the Mongols really liked their Kumis, and that they could survive much harsher conditions, I never contested otherwise.

They're government was small and efficient, and in a ratio of population:power, the Nazi's don't even compare.

Yes the Nazi's had a large bureaucracy, but I think the bureaucratic disaster of the Yuan dynasty showed how shallow this argument really is.

Only simpleminded politicians ignore the *intrinsic* meanings of their statements.

I love these infantile attempts to say I am a simpleton, it's really quite funny. The thing about this is my friend is that you are the one who has repeatedly misinterpreted my words.

Okay. How about Napoleons little visit to the mideast? He saw the semites there in a similar way that Hitler saw the Jews, and wrote "Veni, Vedi Veci," The most ridiculously propogandic statement in existance..

This is enough to convince me of your former assertion that Napoleon used it as well as the Nazi's? There simply cannot be a comparison btwn the indoctrination of the German people, and mass rallies in contrast to a man who was fighting campaigns half the time.


Why must propoganda exist in writing to have any value? Again..tunnelvision.

It's not tunnel vision, it's only following the semantical meaning of the term:

prop•a•gan•da ( P ) Pronunciation Key (prp-gnd)
n.

-The systematic propagation of a doctrine or cause or of information reflecting the views and interests of those advocating such a doctrine or cause.

-Material disseminated by the advocates or opponents of a doctrine or cause: wartime propaganda.

There is the operative word; information could not be passed to others by illiterate means, and to nomadic people. It was ruthless campaigning to force the Mongols into a cohesive unit. The Mongols simply do not fit the definition of propaganda, unless of course you have your own (irrelevant) definition?

Its not the medium that has value to propoganda - but the psychological effects

Without a medium, there would be psychological effects to be had. The medium is the message.

You've proved that you cannot resist the temptation. I think you're bluffing.

That was my only warning to you, I had the courtesy to reply this time. I suggest you re-read what I wrote.

well duh :rolleyes:

Ironic you were the one who was stating the opposite, but ok.

As long as goods are being produced, competition always exists.

Since when is a rule? Competition is not production, competition is two seperate entities fighting for market control. If we use your "economic" logic then the USSR was competitive...need I say more?

Therefore, as long as people exist, and demand products, so will competition.

USSR...

You can't simplify history, and you can't do that for economics either

;)

The first use of a tool. Perhaps it was a stick used to pry up a rock for finding insects underneath.

I'm going to have to say the domestication of animals was the most significant thing.

thus proving my point that we are lucky that the Nazi's are not in power

thus proving nothing. The Russians were held economic and political hostage under control of the mongols for *centuries*. The exact same situation you describe, except it happened in this case.

If the Nazi's came to power they would fall the same way the mongols did, but more expediently thanks to tech. I'd help see to it.

Well I thank you for the "appeal to authority" but unless you are a expert in this field, you wield little influence on me.

You're missing the point again -- that I know more about mongolian history that you. And not just because you've shown yourself to have a sketchy understanding, but because I actually take an interest!

Accept it or not. Your insolence makes no difference to me.

So taking over Poland in less then one month is worse then the Mongols taking over China over decades?

The Chinese were highly sophisticated, they grossly outnumbered the mongolians, but most importantly, had the means to defend themselves. The poles had none of those things.

And while the mongolians came damn close to bitchslapping the poles, Hitler couldn't even touch the Chinese.

Oh -- and Nazi reign only lasted a few years. How long did the mongols rule, again? Again, the ratio of victory:Reign is much higher for the mongols.

This does not prove that the Mongols were more efficient,
#

1. The ratio of the effective or useful output to the total input in any system.
2. The ratio of the energy delivered by a machine to the energy supplied for its operation.

Yes it does. Individuals make the whole, not the other way around. The mongols didn't need technology. They used raw human power and were unbelievable effient for their size and technology (they didn't have any!). As soon as Nazi tech fell apart, so did they. The Nazi's conquered far less, and lasted a much shorter time than the mongols, all while investing more time and energy into the input.

Ghenghis conquered more with raw meat and tubers

Hitler conquered less with tanks and guns

>>Now who was more efficient?

Yes the Nazi's had a large bureaucracy, but I think the bureaucratic disaster of the Yuan dynasty showed how shallow this argument really is.

Beaurocracy has nothing to do with the argument that Ghenghis ruled his armies nearly singlehandedly, while Hitler needed entire cabinets and reptiloids.

I love these infantile attempts to say I am a simpleton, it's really quite funny.

You're a simpleton because you see the obvious, but not the profound. And also because you're blind to this.

See Russia below

to a man who was fighting campaigns half the time.
During Peace:

1)Hitler aimed his rallies at the people, in the presence of the armies
2)Napoleon rallied his armies, though not televised, in the presence of the people (public areas.)

During time between Battles:

They both rallied.

I really don't see the difference. Even if Hitler rallied a bit more, they both did it. No denying the fact.

information could not be passed to others by illiterate means

What!! This is even more outrageous than the first time you said it.

Ideas need to be written down on paper to be communicated?

I'd go for the opposite. Word of mouth has a deeper effect than written words because the ideas actually mean something to the person communicating. Espcially in times of war.

Without a medium, there would be psychological effects to be had. The medium is the message.

I assume you mean:
Without a medium, there would be no psychological effects to be had.

In any case, thats only true for the literal and the extreme. Both of which are completely irrelevant to history. Example: We're martians. If I carve 'I love you' into a piece of shit, you might take the opposite to be true. Over time, though, nobody cares about the piece of shit. They'd want to know about me, the person who carved "I love you" into it, and you for how you reacted to my gesture. The piece of shit only shows my level of sophistication with writing tools. Foreign audiences (those in the future)would not fully understand the cultural norms, or the implications of the piece of shit, aside from the universality that its not polite to give someone your fecal matter. THAT is history. No matter how illogical or weird it sounds, the best historians contradict themselves by being as objective as possible with those things (no matter how tough it is for you, Undecided.)

Anyways, assuming as you do that written messages have a more profound effect than word of mouth, would you be prepared to knock off the psychological effect of Hitlers 'spoken' messages, even though no literal medium existed?

USSR was competitive

Umm..yes :cool:

Like I said, 'intranational' competition. There were three teirs of goods: That which went to the people (crappiest,) that which went to nobility and army (~quality,) and that which went abroad (best.) People were competing within the country not for the best manufacturers, but for the best products.

So yes, competition did exist within the USSR.

USSR...

^^look above

that goes without mentioning that a HUGE black market existed in Russia. One of the biggest in the world, at the time, and that the government allowed people to get away with underground trade/crimes - without making their knowledge visible - so that they could retain control. The mentality was 'let them think they're getting away with something'.

Competition always exists, you infadelic marxist. :) You remind me a lot of Nico.

thus proving nothing.

LOL!

The Russians were held economic and political hostage under control of the mongols for *centuries*.

Firstly Russia at the time simply did not exist, secondly the region was under the Yoke of the Mongols yes, but Russia was in no means what it was after the Mongol yoke. I am not even sure what you are trying to compare.

If the Nazi's came to power they would fall the same way the mongols did, but more expediently thanks to tech. I'd help see to it.

This is a position only shared by you, it is generally accepted that the Nazi's would easily maintain power. Secondly it is generally regarded that the Nazi's would go into a Cold War with the United States. The Mongols feel because of growing Mongol indifference and rebellion. In the Nazi's case not only would those two things not happen, they would be allowed to happen.

You're missing the point again

No I know what your point was, condensation, it has failed get over it.

that I know more about mongolian history that you.

I can go to the washroom...

And not just because you've shown yourself to have a sketchy understanding, but because I actually take an interest!

You do realize that reverting to this fallacy is actually making you lose this debate.

Accept it or not. Your insolence makes no difference to me.

I have not said anything insolent; it was your pseudo-intellectuality bombarding me with crap. Rather I was the one who was man enough to simply scoff...

The Chinese were highly sophisticated, they grossly outnumbered the mongolians, but most importantly, had the means to defend themselves.

Really? Then obviously you have little knowledge of the Song Empire. Not only was the Song militarily weak, they had little interest in the Mongols before it was too late. Not only was that but China divided into 4 states at the time making it significantly weaker. So the only over-simplification came from you.

The poles had none of those things.

The Teutonic knights were crap!

And while the mongolians came damn close to bitchslapping the poles, Hitler couldn't even touch the Chinese.

The Chinese were being dealt with anyways by the Japanese, Hitler never even expressed a desire in the region so illogical comparison.

Oh -- and Nazi reign only lasted a few years. How long did the mongols rule, again? Again, the ratio of victory:Reign is much higher for the mongols.

This is the tangent you are going on not me, not only is the length of time proving my point that the Nazi's were more efficient fighters then the Mongols. It also proves that the Mongols took significantly longer to do what did. What did Genghis do in 3 years, not much. What did Hitler do, take over vast majority of Europe, threatened the Middle East, and Invaded Africa. There just simply no comparison.

Yes it does. Individuals make the whole, not the other way around. The mongols didn't need technology. They used raw human power and were unbelievable effient for their size and technology (they didn't have any!). As soon as Nazi tech fell apart, so did they. The Nazi's conquered far less, and lasted a much shorter time than the mongols, all while investing more time and energy into the input.

The initial three years of Hitler's campaign simply proves otherwise. The Mongols were not efficient largely due to technology yes, and that's why there cannot be a comparison btwn the Mongols and the Nazi's other then on the premise of them both having a large empire. You are the one who is trying (in vain) to connect the Mongols with the Nazi's not only are they different epochs in history, they have different objectives.


Ghenghis conquered more with raw meat and tubers

Hitler conquered less with tanks and guns

More is totally subjective, in terms of land mass surely, but if Hitler had nothing but the Steppes of Asia to cross he would have done it significantly faster as well. The comparison is illogical because the Nazi's not only had more topographic obstacles from Norway to Egypt, they also had large populated areas, and they had more concern for the locals. Efficiency is not merely slashing the entire city to smithereens, it involves being able to do more with less, more conquering less death.

Now who was more efficient?

The Nazi war machine way by far significantly more efficient:

3 years:

http://www.ushmm.org/outreach/images/eur66060.jpg

Mongols in 3 years:

http://www.niksula.cs.hut.fi/~reunanen/transsib/pics/mongolia/yurt.jpg

There simply just is no comparison.

Beaurocracy has nothing to do with the argument that Ghenghis ruled his armies nearly singlehandedly, while Hitler needed entire cabinets and reptiloids.

Bureaucracy has everything to do with it, a good bureaucracy means a efficient and effective rule of the land and it's subjects. Which the Nazi's have proven, Nazi military bureaucracy was exemplary, and it only further proves my point of great Nazi efficiency. The Mongols didn't survive because of the lack of good bureaucracy, but I bet you knew that.


You're a simpleton because you see the obvious, but not the profound. And also because you're blind to this.

Because when it is obvious it is correct. It's like me saying to you:

You see the gun, but you don't see the other guns he could possibly have. There is simply no logic in your statements.


1)Hitler aimed his rallies at the people, in the presence of the armies
2)Napoleon rallied his armies, though not televised, in the presence of the people (public areas.)

Unlike Hitler, Napoleon seized power, thus the French people did not grant Napoleon anything. In Nazi Germany the German ppl gave the Nazi's a resounding majority, and he was appointed into power. You are simply looking at one aspect of propaganda, which is rather limited.

They both rallied.

Rallied who? Hitler rallied the German People, Napoleon rallied the French troops there is a significant difference.

Even if Hitler rallied a bit more, they both did it. No denying the fact.

It is the intensity that escapes you.

What!! This is even more outrageous than the first time you said it.

Yes because you have shown it to be as such.

Ideas need to be written down on paper to be communicated?

I never said that, what I did say that it is almost impossible to have a propaganda machine when there is no written accounts.

I'd go for the opposite. Word of mouth has a deeper effect than written words because the ideas actually mean something to the person communicating. Espcially in times of war.

The "word of mouth" can be very easily discounted, and many people simply would not believe or care for some renegade telling them "stories". You cannot tell me in all seriousness that word of mouth is more effective then a visual.

I assume you mean:
Without a medium, there would be no psychological effects to be had.

I wouldn't act like a smart ass I have noticed you’re vastly inferior writing skills as well:

-and were unbelievable effient
-Beaurocracy
-No denying the fact
- Espcially
- singlehandedly
- mongols
- Ghenghis
- teirs
- marxist


No matter how illogical or weird it sounds, the best historians contradict themselves by being as objective as possible with those things (no matter how tough it is for you, Undecided.)

Being objective is to be disinterested something you from the outset have not been. Your and my stance is simply subjective views on history.

Anyways, assuming as you do that written messages have a more profound effect than word of mouth, would you be prepared to knock off the psychological effect of Hitlers 'spoken' messages, even though no literal medium existed?

The difference is that you are now comparing things again illogically. Hitler's words were Hitler's words, no one could deny it. So obviously the psychological effects were there, but to those who hear some town drunk talking about a Mongol, it doesn't arouse much. You have the problem of making up comparisons that simply aren't there.


Like I said, 'intranational' competition. There were three teirs of goods: That which went to the people (crappiest,) that which went to nobility and army (~quality,) and that which went abroad (best.) People were competing within the country not for the best manufacturers, but for the best products.

You do realize that the USSR hardly traded outside her economic bloc, and they were not in competition of each other, they merely complimented each others economy. The USSR was by no means competitive with anyone or anything economically. The USSR was producing crap all over the board, the only thing she exported was raw materials for hard currency, and in that she had little to no competition anyways.

So yes, competition did exist within the USSR.

And I went to the moon.


[/B]that goes without mentioning that a HUGE black market existed in Russia. One of the biggest in the world, at the time, and that the government allowed people to get away with underground trade/crimes - without making their knowledge visible - so that they could retain control. The mentality was 'let them think they're getting away with something'.

The black market in the USSR was large but that does not mean that the USSR itself was competitive.

[B]Competition always exists, you infadelic marxist.

Oh please spare me from more of your limited knowledge, it hurts to read.

The most important events in Western history would be:

- Reformation
- 30 Years War
- Enlightenment
- American Revolution
- French Revolution

Those 5 things made the West into what it is today, for better or for worse the leader.

In the 20th century I would say the Treaty of Versailles was the most important thing to happen. It set the precedent until and exceeding our time.

i think the treaty of westphalia is pretty darn important

The invention of the chimney charcoal fire starter, which eliminated the need for lighter fluid when grilling.

i think the treaty of westphalia is pretty darn important

Yes you are correct, that's why I put the 30 years war. I should have mentioned the treaty instead of the war.

I think most important technological invention is:

- FIRE

and for intelligence:

-Printing press

Might put the wheel up there somewhere.

I wouldn't because the Inca's seemed to do very well without it. ;) I think the wheel is over-rated.

Air Conditioning, now that's a biggie. Ever been in Charleston in August, or Memphis anytime between March and October?

I wouldn't because the Inca's seemed to do very well without it. I think the wheel is over-rated.

Bet they wished they had it. ;)

Air Conditioning, now that's a biggie. Ever been in Charleston in August, or Memphis anytime between March and October?

Yes. :eek:

Hey think about it, they made Machu Pichu without the ade of a wheel, they created a highway system without the wheel, they may have even flown, without the wheel.

I think that events like learning to control fire or the development of language have a certain evolutionary inevitability about them. Same for the Renaissance, the industrial revolution, and various inventions.

To me, significant or critical events are those turning points which might easily have turned out differently. For example, consider the following. A few hundred Spartans held a huge Persian army at Thermopylae while the independent Greek City States put together an army capable of repelling the invaders. The Spartans might have lost their nerve, or the Persian army might have found the way around the pass and overwhelmed the Spartans sooner. If the Persian army had gotten past Thermopylae before the Spartans could get to that narrow pass, a few hundred men could not have held them back for several days. The Greek culture had a huge impact on subsequent developments in Europe. History would have been much different if the Persian army had overcome Greece one city at a time, which would have happened but for the Spartans.


In 732 Charles Martel (the Hammer) soundly defeated the Moors south of Tours, France. He not only beat them: He demoralized them. Martel always pursued defeated foes, attempting to wipe them out. The Moors never again ventured out of Spain into the rest of Europe. The Moors were a formidable foe, and that battle was not an easy victory for the Frankish forces. If Martel had lost, the Moors would have controlled almost all of Europe for at least 300-500 years, and might never have been ousted. The history of Europe and the development of the Americas would surely have been much different if the Islamic culture had dominated Europe.


The failure of the Spanish Armada. If Spain had successfully conquered England, they probably would have controlled most of the Americas.


Picket’s charge (or a different battle plan) might have been successful, winning the Battle of Gettysburg (Pennsylvania) for the south. The North might have been willing to negotiate a peace treaty rather than deal with a southern army so far north. At that time, the north was not gung ho for the war. The US could have ended up as two nations, both contending for the western territories.I like the above and perhaps other turning points as nominees for critical events.

Dinosaur

I couldn't agree with you more with these two events in history:

-The Moors replusion from France.
- The Spanish Aramada being defeated.

What would have been the effects, as you said an Islamic Europe, and an Spanish America. Other things that I believe were vital to history are:

- Ottomans failing to get Vienna.
- Mongols not expanding further into Europe.

The effects of both would have been disasterous for European culture, surely the enlightment would not have happened, and the Americas may have still been under native rule.

i love that map!

To set the tone for this great new forum: What was the most significant event in the history of man?

Long before man began. The existence of the universe in a form that would permit man to evolve at all.

The concept of proof

Undecided: The potential Mongol invasion of Europe and the Ottoman Empire being stopped at Vienna were surely important to the development of the western Technological cultures.

I never thought about the Mongols and where they stopped their invasion of Europe. Did they lose some battle or merely decide to turn their attention elsewhere? How far into Europe did they get? Did they stop due to the death of Genghis Kahn and the subsequent disputes over who would take over?

I have noticed references to the Ottoman Empire being stopped at Vienna. Do you have some good keywords to allow a search for this event?

electricity for homo sapiens. (more of an invention) event would be hard to pin down one-- considering civilizations rise and fall all the time. To say one civ is better than another is wrong. Romans had their impact on the world, as well as the mongols or egyptians. Another thousand years the next civ will be talking about us and our acheivments.

How about the invention of the internet by Al Gore???

But seriously, partly agreeing with Undecided, I believe that the most significant event was the death of Jesus Christ because his death proves that human love can be unbounded and live forever.

miraporvos that's really sad..you actually believe that.

Spam.

Meat ... IN A CAN. God damn brilliant. On top of that bit of genius the can is designed with an opener built in! Efficient AND nutritious.

Moon landing? Birth of Christ? They're mere historical footnotes in comparison (not to mention the fact that neither event actually happened).

BuffyS: Nither the moon landing nor the birth of Christ occurred? Wow!

Do not advertise your location or real name. The christian fundamentalists are as fanatic as anybody. They might not use suicide bombers to get you, but they have been known to use rifles, burning at the stake, and other methods to punish heritics.

Those who are pro-technology will only call you silly for your opinion, and the conspiracy nuts will probably agree with you about the moon landing.

BTW: Do you have any views considered heresy by the Islamic, Shinto, Hindu, Bhuddists, et cetera believers?

who cares about that other stuff? you missed my message completely.

SPAM (spiced-ham), meat in a can you fool! everything else is trivial.

fire. you can't go very far without covering the basics.

fire's like gravity, it's right in front of you. If the person that discovered fire died seconds after the discovery (quite possible now that I think about it) I suspect it would have been rediscovered about fifteen minutes later by someone else.

Fire's certainly useful but it's kinda like discovering water, inevitable.

true, but you cant create water, theres the same ammount of water now as there was a million years ago. when i said fire, i ment the power to wield it, sorry i wasnt more specific.

Fore, yes, I was just about to say that myself. Before Man mastered the creation of fire, and learned how to weild it, he had no time to actually sit down and think, especially abstractly. No significant innovation I can think of could possibly have been created without the mastery of fire.

I keep trying to think of something more important but I have to agree that the manipulation of fire is the foundation of pretty much everything we've ever done or made.

EDIT: After rereading the actual thread title I realize that I missed the point of the question. It's not the most important discovery or invention but "the most significant event". In that case I'd have to say it is whatever caused the domination of mammals, whether it was a meteor impact or just that dinosaurs got lazy and watched too much tv.

If you want to go that far back, it might as well be the creation of the universe. I think he meant the most significant event DURRING man's existence.

I am not sure there is any one thing that is most significant to one and all.

If you want to go that far back, it might as well be the creation of the universe. I think he meant the most significant event DURRING man's existence.

well if thats the case I guess I stand by my first suggestion.

SPAM

Dinosaur - if you want a good, brief explanation as to the potential impact of the Mongol invasion, and as to why the turned back, look for a book called What If?

The basic explanation, though, is that one of the Mongol chiefs died, and according to tribal custom, he had to be buried in Mongolia. The Mongols never recovered the momentum the lost with the burial. I believe there was also tensions over succession and what not.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0425176428/qid=1084233795/sr=8-1/ref=pd_ka_1/103-7964708-2645468?v=glance&s=books&n=507846

Come on people the most significant event in history hands down is the invention of the air conditioner..............

I'd say when nuclear power was discovered. That was when man could harness the true power of something as small as an atom.

The bible !!!!!!! was wrote.

after reading all the posts listed, I seemed to very confuse. first fire is a natural cause of nature so eventually they would have seen a forest burning after thunder and lightning. so before the fire disappear they could have continuosly fed the fire so it would never turn off.( I am discussing the effect of that fire on global warming) what i am saying is simply that by observation they will notice that the fire remain alive with dry leaves and branches which they had plenty at that time. the actual discovery of creating fire by friction came as accident while they were perfecting their hunting spears.so now they know they can make fire when they wanted it.so the forest fire was turn off (THank god). next the wheel or the disc was also a natural phenomena of nature, volcanos were alive , the plateaus were shifting then so thing were bound to roll and move from higher points to lower points. if a stone of softer rock rolls down rocky hill will end up at the bottom with no sharp edges. so the first important concept that man can reason was the fact that they saw that and were able to see a future in that event. thus i think that was the first step in shaping who we are today. second the next step has to be the invention of language either by symbols,letters or words. and third the invention of a machine to similate the human brain. if Fermat had a computer then he could not have written on the edge of a book that he had no room left to write the SIMPLE proof he had to show that: a(n) + b(n) = c(n) is not true for n>2..as you all know hundreds of mathematicians have worked on this problem to no avail. lately it was proven by a Wiles. but the more than 5000 page proof after more than 6 years of examining it line by line have not been accepted yet as been complete. so i think those 3 simple have been the most significant events in the history and evolution of humankind. thank you,.

I think the argument for fire is less about it's discovery and more about our manipulation of it.

oh one more thought.
if we look at the role of religion in humankind , i must say it does not look good. in general the only thing religion have done for man is to create wars conflict and separation of humans. so i see religion as a significant event in the destruction of human kind. which is not exactly what i think the question is really asking.
and the truth is that the only thing that have made us survive this long is the fact that we live very chaotic lives in very ordered system or viceversa what have made us survive this long is the fact the we live very ordered lives in a very chaotic system.
i.e. we have never let anything or anyone take complete control over all of us and we will never let it happen. so no matter what we may say now by nature hitler could have never taken over the world. the mongolian empire which can be concider the only empire to have taken control over the whole world was defeated not by man power but by sickness., a natural disaster. All the other empires have had a rise and a fall. none were able to take over the world completely as you know any power that have tried to take over have been met with surprising unified forces. (for example USA and USSR allied in WWll just to make sure that no single force would take over the world) and that has been the goal of human kind unification before rendition .

I agree, we didn't exactly discover fire, because it was always there, we learned to control and produce it
As for the most significant event, I really cannot think of one, they are all seem pretty important to me, all those events played an equal and significant role in the history of man

Religion is the most signifigant thing that has shaped mankind, More people were killed in the name of religion than all other events added together .

yeah religion is pretty influential too
Also Galileo's questioning of Aristotle's authority in science and philosophy, Renaissance, and Magellan's voyage around the world were pretty significant too

Wow, first thread here. I would say that it's the moon landing. Landing on a different surface, 33 million miles away proves that man can do just about anything.


coffee. where the hell did we go thats 33,000,000 miles away ,what did we do? I never heard about it! :confused:

the moon averages about 250,000 miles away :eek:

I think i'll go with the receeding of the last ice age.
Fire was great but a place to live and thrive is greater.

I think i'll go with the receding of the last ice age.
Fire was great but a place to live and thrive is greater.

remember though, an ice age doesn't mean the entire planet is frozen. Just that the amount of habitable area is significantly reduced. In other words even during the harshest part of every ice age there were still places to live and thrive, otherwise any complex life-forms would have been totally wiped out the first time it happened.

I remember buffys,
I was trying to be succinct, some of my posts have gotten a bit long.:)

I guess my point was this. Since fire is probably one of the reasons we survived ice ages in the first place, it sort of has to be more important overall than the end of the most recent ice age.

That's a valid point.

Fire,hunting skills, stone weapons,fishing, animal husbandry,proto-language,proto-religion all enabled humans to survive in the ice ace.
Of these, I agree, Fire is paramount.
I bet we would be amazed at attending a proto-religious ceremony... Earth, fire, sky, water, fish,birds, spirits, ancestors, fertility,virility...The original raw manifestations of human Deification, cool.

Ice age human population was 100,000 (I've seen lower and higher estimates) to secure the species from extinction, provide a heathy diverse gene pool, survive catastrophic weather, flood, poor hunting, predators etc.

But with the recession of the ice, a population explosion occured. Suddenly, after 10-50,000 years of hanging on by our collective determination.
:eek: BANG! We begin to multiply. :o
Eons of Unparallelled growth. We rapidly reach a million.
Our genepool allows for evolutionary mutations.
Eons of exploration. Multiplying..... 5 million our adaptations make us the rulers of the species. Familys form tribes and languages and religions.
Eons of community...Multiplying.....50 million our Ethnic destinctions crystallize from geographic adaptations.
Ethnic tribes form clans with common languages and similar customs.
Eons of learning....Multiplying...250 million our exchange of ideas and trial and error allow us to grasp agriculture. This allows population density so the clans form nations, and they begin to specialize and build. and civilization begins.

If the glaciers do not receed, we stay fire using nomadic/fishermen with a tenuous grasp on existence. No place to multiply. No history at all.
Humans would have been doomed.
And our niche would have undoubtably been taken over by the spotted pygmie cave lions :eek:

Greetings and Felicitations,

I would go with the ability to pass on knowledge to future generations. It all probably started with oral traditions but when it started doesn't matter. What matters is that humans learned to pass on knowledge so that each generation did not have to recreate everything from scratch.
All other major accomplishments hinge on this ability. Fire, wheel, tools are all useless if the knowledge to use and create them is not passed on. The development of written language simply made it easier and more accurate.

This would be the event that I imagine made all the difference.

Sincerely Yours,
C. David Neely

I've changed my mind,
It's Sliced Bread.

I've changed my mind,
It's Sliced Bread.

ok, you want to talk about the really important stuff I see. Sliced bread is an impressive accomplishment to be sure but NOTHING comes close to the brilliance of spam... (SP)iced h(AM), it's frigg'n meat in a can! and the opener is built in!

god damn brilliant.

Well, I'd say: 1- invention of the wheel.
2- written words.
3- computers.
4- venturing into outer space.

When male man realised/was told his contribution to the miracle of pro-creation.

Prior to this, women were worshipped as magical creatures who alone gave birth to new humans, and inheritance was through the female line as fatherhood was not known so not considered important. Society was agricultural and peaceful and Goddess worshipping.

Males were jealous of female magic. Then once they realised that they were equally important in this magic, they decided to control and dominate women and take all the power and respect for themselves. Women's sexuality was strictly controlled so men could be sure of the paternity of their children for property reasons.

Along comes the worship of male Gods, war, Judaism, Christianity and Islam etc etc.

My fervent wish is for this century to herald equality and happiness between men and women and peace on earth...

The flood 5000 years ago...

Interesting thread. Fire and speech are good candidates, although I often wonder if they are discoveries or rather in fact _instinctive_ behaviors.

My vote for the most important has to go to the invention of Calculus by Newton and Liebnitz. This probably falls into the catagory of inevitable discovery but the profound leap it represented in the ability to use math to understand and analyze the physical world make it unique.

Actually all other non-human animals are instinctly and naturally afraid of fire.
Except for domestic animals who are used to it of course.

remember though, an ice age doesn't mean the entire planet is frozen. Just that the amount of habitable area is significantly reduced. In other words even during the harshest part of every ice age there were still places to live and thrive, otherwise any complex life-forms would have been totally wiped out the first time it happened.

Actually it has happened once, a very long, long time ago. All life that survived was some minor organisms below the ice where it was thinnest. If my memory serves me right that happened some ~600 000 000 years ago.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2000/snowballearth.shtml
I saw the program and to my mind the evidence is enough.

Humans have been around for a long time, and have been the master species of the planet for a few thousand years. It seems to me rather historically myopic to look for a “most significant event” in the last few hundred years. Even going back to the Roman Empire, we are touching on historical events that only affected a quarter of the Earth’s population.

So my sympathies are with those advocating the control of fire and the development of language. But I have a problem with fire. Were we human when we learned to control fire? I think that the hominids that tamed fire could not be described as modern human beings – biologically indistinguishable from ourselves. As for language, its development may have been more of a “process” than an “event”.

I think that Xerxes’ question does have a best answer – and it reflects the urban environment of most of us that it has not been suggested yet. I would go for the invention of the plough – and most specifically, I would suggest that the first harnessing of an ox to a plough was the most significant event in the history of Man.

The harnessing of animal power in the domestication of the ox opened the door to organised and efficient farming and that in turn allowed communities to settle, mature and develop their infrastructure. The tireless oxen, a creature capable of matching the strength and productivity of many men, provided the means whereby supplies of food stock could become far greater than the supplies required for its production. Domestication of the ox was a genuine cause for human celebration. The creature was honoured for its resilience and strength and also for the fertility that it conveyed upon the land.

I would go for the invention of the plough – and most specifically, I would suggest that the first harnessing of an ox to a plough was the most significant event in the history of Man.
The shift from nomadic or partly nomadic hunter-gatherers to agriculturalists perhaps, but it was a gradual process almost certainly. Hunter-getherers are semi-agricultural in that they destroy plants they don't like and encourage and scatter the seeds of plants they do. There's also the question of when animals were domesticated- there's arguments about that too. A friend thinks it all went wrong because we invented the wheel before we invented contraceptives.

A friend thinks it all went wrong because we invented the wheel before we invented contraceptives.If you are British you were no doubt thinking of Jeremy Clarkson when you wrote that. :)

I think the most significant even in the history of man is the creaton of the atom bomb, as it lead to many changes in world politics.

If you think that politics is all that there is in the world, then yes.

Actually all other non-human animals are instinctly and naturally afraid of fire.
Except for domestic animals who are used to it of course.

That's what I had in mind. Humans aren't instinctively afraid of fire, we are fascinated by it. Our instinct seems to be to play with it.

That's what I had in mind. Humans aren't instinctively afraid of fire, we are fascinated by it. Our instinct seems to be to play with it.
We don't know that humans aren't instinctively afraid of fire because we are brought up close to it. The fact that the old religions had gods of fire- remember Prometheus? He brought man fire and got horribly treated for it-suggests we weren't always like that and it's something we learned. It'll be interesting to see how children brought up without direct contact with fire respond.

fire? ploughs?

you're all fools. Spam was mankind's greatest accomplishment. Think about it, it's meat ...in a can!

We don't know that humans aren't instinctively afraid of fire because we are brought up close to it. The fact that the old religions had gods of fire- remember Prometheus? He brought man fire and got horribly treated for it-suggests we weren't always like that and it's something we learned. It'll be interesting to see how children brought up without direct contact with fire respond.

I take your point. It would indeed be interesting to see how such children would react. On the other hand consider how we continue to use candle when we don't really need them for light. How we build houses with central heat and a fireplace in the living room because we like to watch the flames. I'm not saying that it is instinctive, just that it is reasonable to suspect that it might be. Regards.

invention of fire, the wheel, or the weapon could be appropriate.
also the K/T thing or the thing when the first homo sapiens decided "i think i'll go find a mate"

Probably the invention of Money or currency. It rules our world sadly.

What is the problem with money?

Would you like switch to a barter system?

destroy the barter system and fight for objects.

give everything to everyone free of charge and abolish money.

creation of speech.

give everything to everyone free of charge and abolish money.Agreed, everyone should give each other what they need free of charge, and the receiver has to give something back in return. Everything split up evenly so there is no poor or rich but everyone is the same.

socialism it is.
marx was a genius.

inventing the Porno