Early empires then developed into feudalism, which in some way eroded the central state but began to enshrine the idea of private property, complex agriculture, and further entrenched social classes.

The necessary prerequisite of industrialisation therefore is feudalism. If you look at Japan, they met this condition because they were feudal, as does China.

According to Jared Diamond, cows or 'beasts of burden' were a requirement to develop complex agriculture.

No beasts of burden ever existed on the Australian continent or on the American continent.

So, to those who say: "well, the aboriginals have had 200 odd years to change," think about this.

Homo sapiens dominated the earth around 10,000BC. The first complex cities developed in Sumeria around 5000 BC, with the first empire being the Akkadians under Sargon the Great in 2000s BC. The earliest actually prolonged empire was the Assyrians.

So, it took from 10,000BC to around 2500BC (7500 years) for human beings to develop from a hunter-gatherer society to the early stages of a complex society.

If you then talk about industrialisation which ocurred in the late 1700s, then it from 2500BC to 1700 AD (4000 years +) to progress from an early empire to an industrialised society (going through feudalism along the way).

So, expecting that the indigenous peoples progress from a hunter-gatherer existence to an industrialised society without meeting any of the prerequisites within 200 + years is complete folly, especially when it took the West more than 7000 years to get to this stage!!

So, let's try to get a little perspective, shall we?

And why do you think feudalism (other than the absence of slavery) is necessary?
Because it just is.

Care to clear up the confusion??

Are you smacking serious? That has a whiff of nazism?

Correlation is not causation.

There were plenty of large beasts. Many got hunted to extinction. Some still exist. Like llamas and bison. Furthermore, Diamond simply does not make the claim you attribute to him - that it is a pre-requisite. That would be absurd over-reach.

That's your emotional reaction. Now tell me what you think.

Name me a society which has industrialized without being a feudalist society??

There were beasts but they weren't domesticated

Bison couldn't be domesticated.

I think that there is no scientific evidence to support your claim.

Australia.

It's hard to domesticate extinct animals. But the same thing that facilitated their extinction probably made them really good candidates for domestication.

Why not?

Llama and alpaca were.

Are you complaining about our inability to conduct randomised experiments involving the taking of children from their birth parents?

Are you talking about private ownership of land? Obviously that is a pre-requisite, but has existed for a long time in lots of different places.

The Roman Empire and Song Dynasty China.

Correct. Only extinct species are extinct. I'm glad you are catching up.

Yes they were.

I am not espousing scientific racism. I am asking you a question. If anything, you are sprouting racism.

Both reached levels of human development that were not exceeded until well into the industrial revolution.

Again, you are changing your argument. Your original claim was wrong.

That's not what I was asking. Put aside your emotional response and read what I am saying.

If they are not genetically inferior, they should be able to change in a single generation, unless you think aboriginal parents are such a negative influence on their children...

Do you agree with this?