But my case against any arguments trying to explain why the Europeans made it? is that the queustion is based on a false premise that mixes facts with morality - nameley, that there is a gulf that separateing Europeans from just anyone else and that gulf begs an explanation. It is my belief that this gulf is a cognitive illusion that grossly exaggerates the actual differences (as opposed to symbolic ones).
First, if we use the biological metaphor as Jim's text suggests, the "failure of a species" usually means its extinction, either total or from a particular geopgraphical area. If a species can survive, even if it is relatively low in the food chain, it is successful. There is no other than survival measure of evolutionary success. In particular, behavioral differences alone cannot be used as such a measure.
Suppose that a particular bird species lives in America and Europe and those two groups differ in their nest building behavior. Nests build by the American variety are build of straw, whereas nests build by the European variety are build of twigs. There is no doubt that the "European" nests are structurally stronger and more resistant to th elements than the "American" nests - but that difference does not mean that the former are more "advanced" than the latter. It simply means different adaptions to different types of environment and materials found in them. In other words, both groups are equally successful in their adaptations, even though the American variety may appear as more "sloppy" and having "lower standards of living" than the European variety.
Comparing human socities and their standards of living is very similar to comparing nest building behavior described above. While there are considerable behavioral differences between human societies, those differences are quite minuscule form an evolutionary point of view - they are allovariants on the same theme: group cooperation based on symbolic interaction and the use of language. In that respect, corporate execs differ from tribal elders mainly in what language and paraphernalia they use in their symbolic interaction, but both groups are equal in the congnitive capacity requirted to conduct their interaction, complexity of that interaction, level of rationality, etc.
The use of language is of particularf relevance here - because it is the most complex system of symbols known to us. Thus the fact that a society has its own language means that its "cognitive capacity" is equal to that of any other group that also developed a language.
However, if we define evolutionary success as conformity to the norms of executive behavior and the ruling class jargon, that is if we enter the realm of social "darwinism" and sociobiology (or so-so biology as my anthro prof used to call it) - then we start seeing "major" differences among societies and classes and ex post facto rationalize them by linking them to desirable values (cognitive capacity, diligence, institutional efficiency, etc.). But the fact of the matter is that these behavioral differences are mere shibbolets - straw nests vs. twig nests - that are evolutionary irrelevant and trivial to an outside observer who is not privy to the belief system which differences are morally significant wnd which are are not.
In short, asking what made European superior is the same kind of question as the proverbial question when did you stop beating your wife? It assumes as valid an empirical statement that needs a verification, namely that Europeans and their instituitons are indeed superior to those of other societies. By superior i mean "superior from an evolutionary point of view," i.e. beneficial for the survival of the species, and NOT "morally suprior." Only if we can answer that question in a matter-of-fact manner, we can venture into possible explanations of that difference.
wojtek