What are thoughts on 'Guns, Germs, and Steel' concepts by Diamond?

[JimBowie1958]

I watched the PBS series based on the book, and enjoyed it quite a bit, though I think Diamond overlooked some things like cultural evolution and why older civilizations seemed unable to keep pace with newer civilizations that adopted their tech along the fringes of civilization at the time.

For example, why were the Greeks so able to defeat the Persians despite both civilizations having access to the same livestock, grain, Greece having worse agricultural lands, etc?

I like how he seems to have removed race from the equation entirely (except to assign guilt to whites).

What are the impressions of reasonable people here? What would you think to be factors Diamond overlooked or over emphasized?

 

[oldfart]

I watched the PBS series based on the book, and enjoyed it quite a bit, though I think Diamond overlooked some things like cultural evolution and why older civilizations seemed unable to keep pace with newer civilizations that adopted their tech along the fringes of civilization at the time.

For example, why were the Greeks so able to defeat the Persians despite both civilizations having access to the same livestock, grain, Greece having worse agricultural lands, etc?

I like how he seems to have removed race from the equation entirely (except to assign guilt to whites).

What are the impressions of reasonable people here? What would you think to be factors Diamond overlooked or over emphasized?

I read the book several years ago and found it interesting. The main thing it lacked was a real understanding of economic geography. The further back in time, the less crucial are fast moving technological change and more important are cultural and geographical elements.

In your example of Greece vs Persia, the deciding factor was geography. Militarily the Persians tried to conquer an area they had no good supply lines for. It narrowed the advantage they had in men and resources to the point that they could be turned back by a small army and an effective navy. Note the Persians were not really a seafaring power and never attempted to acquire Crete, Cyprus, the Aegean Islands, or invade Egypt which would require sea power.

One of Sun Tzu's precepts was to fight an enemy where they were weak, not where they were strong. Persian expansion ended when they reached any substantial body of water. Compare that to the Romans who were not a seafaring people of the caliber of the Carthaginians until they resolved to defeat Carthage and it became necessary to have a formidable navy to do so.

 

[JimBowie1958]

I watched the PBS series based on the book, and enjoyed it quite a bit, though I think Diamond overlooked some things like cultural evolution and why older civilizations seemed unable to keep pace with newer civilizations that adopted their tech along the fringes of civilization at the time.

For example, why were the Greeks so able to defeat the Persians despite both civilizations having access to the same livestock, grain, Greece having worse agricultural lands, etc?

I like how he seems to have removed race from the equation entirely (except to assign guilt to whites).

What are the impressions of reasonable people here? What would you think to be factors Diamond overlooked or over emphasized?

I read the book several years ago and found it interesting. The main thing it lacked was a real understanding of economic geography. The further back in time, the less crucial are fast moving technological change and more important are cultural and geographical elements.

Some tech innovations are very useful and some isn't overly, but things like the Greek development of armor. Back then a tech advantage could last centuries, today it can be a few years till the least rival catches up through research or theft.

In your example of Greece vs Persia, the deciding factor was geography. Militarily the Persians tried to conquer an area they had no good supply lines for. It narrowed the advantage they had in men and resources to the point that they could be turned back by a small army and an effective navy. Note the Persians were not really a seafaring power and never attempted to acquire Crete, Cyprus, the Aegean Islands, or invade Egypt which would require sea power.

Yes, the geography of Greece was a huge factor, but the Persians conscripted the fleets of their vassal states, to include the Egyptians and Phonecians, to supply their large armies by see. After the defeat at the battle of Salamis, the Persians had to withdraw enough forces from Greece to allow it to be supportable by the local agriculture. This force was small enough to allow the Greeks to defeat them at Plataea.

One of Sun Tzu's precepts was to fight an enemy where they were weak, not where they were strong. Persian expansion ended when they reached any substantial body of water. Compare that to the Romans who were not a seafaring people of the caliber of the Carthaginians until they resolved to defeat Carthage and it became necessary to have a formidable navy to do so.

That is largely true, but you can say something similar about the desert. It wasn't until the Arabs exploded onto the scene that a large army could supply itself through desert terrain well.

 

[Thunderbird]

A lot of interesting information, but the central thesis - that geography determines destiny - is ridiculous.

 

[JimBowie1958]

A lot of interesting information, but the central thesis - that geography determines destiny - is ridiculous.

A bit of hyperbole, but all the great civilizations came up between 15 degrees and 45 degrees north of the equator except for the Incas who were in the southern opposite region and the NW Europeans whose geography is enhanced by the Gulf stream to be much warmer than normal for that latitude.

While I wouldn't say any combination of factors is deterministic, geography does have a huge impact.

 

[longly]

A lot of interesting information, but the central thesis - that geography determines destiny - is ridiculous.

The theory makes sense to me and it is not that geography determines out come, but that the geography of Eurasia gave the people of the continent more advantages than the peoples of the other continents. Eurasia is a hug landmass stretching from Ireland to Japan; there was a lot of space and opportunity for the development of foods, exceptional people and ideas. Look at all the foods that we have today that originated in Eurasia.

 

[I.P.Freely]

I watched the PBS series based on the book, and enjoyed it quite a bit, though I think Diamond overlooked some things like cultural evolution and why older civilizations seemed unable to keep pace with newer civilizations that adopted their tech along the fringes of civilization at the time.

For example, why were the Greeks so able to defeat the Persians despite both civilizations having access to the same livestock, grain, Greece having worse agricultural lands, etc

the Greek had battalions of very tough homosexual couples like the Sacred Band Of Thebes.
Homosexuality: Brotherhoods of gay warriors

 

[JimBowie1958]

A lot of interesting information, but the central thesis - that geography determines destiny - is ridiculous.

The theory makes sense to me and it is not that geography determines out come, but that the geography of Eurasia gave the people of the continent more advantages than the peoples of the other continents. Eurasia is a hug landmass stretching from Ireland to Japan; there was a lot of space and opportunity for the development of foods, exceptional people and ideas. Look at all the foods that we have today that originated in Eurasia.

The resulting 'collective mind' that existed on the Eurasian continent was simply huge. The advantages it conferred were exponential in impact and scope.

Still, the use of the word 'determined' seems overly strong to me.

 

[longly]

A lot of interesting information, but the central thesis - that geography determines destiny - is ridiculous.

The theory makes sense to me and it is not that geography determines out come, but that the geography of Eurasia gave the people of the continent more advantages than the peoples of the other continents. Eurasia is a hug landmass stretching from Ireland to Japan; there was a lot of space and opportunity for the development of foods, exceptional people and ideas. Look at all the foods that we have today that originated in Eurasia.

The resulting 'collective mind' that existed on the Eurasian continent was simply huge. The advantages it conferred were exponential in impact and scope.

Still, the use of the word 'determined' seems overly strong to me.

I agree ” determined is too strong” just because a people have an advantage dose not mean that they will use it. Look at the age of exploration, of the four civilized cultures of Eurasia only Western Europe took advantage of it and rose to dominate the world. Their only competition was the Chinese Empire which went as far as to establish trading colonies in East Africa. If the emperor who supported the exploration had not died it may have been the Chinese that reached Europe and discovered the land now known as America.

 

[JimBowie1958]

The theory makes sense to me and it is not that geography determines out come, but that the geography of Eurasia gave the people of the continent more advantages than the peoples of the other continents. Eurasia is a hug landmass stretching from Ireland to Japan; there was a lot of space and opportunity for the development of foods, exceptional people and ideas. Look at all the foods that we have today that originated in Eurasia.

The resulting 'collective mind' that existed on the Eurasian continent was simply huge. The advantages it conferred were exponential in impact and scope.

Still, the use of the word 'determined' seems overly strong to me.

I agree ” determined is too strong” just because a people have an advantage dose not mean that they will use it. Look at the age of exploration, of the four civilized cultures of Eurasia only Western Europe took advantage of it and rose to dominate the world. Their only competition was the Chinese Empire which went as far as to establish trading colonies in East Africa. If the emperor who supported the exploration had not died it may have been the Chinese that reached Europe and discovered the land now known as America.

True, but I don't rate world domination s all that great a matter. We would be better off without it. There have been some historical studies that prove that the net profit from all these colonies was a loss for the governments that had them. It is good that they are dismantled into something more managed and sustained by those who most benefitted from them; corporations.

 

[whitehall]

You can poke a hundred holes in Diamond's theory that alleges that European's had an advantage in hunter-gatherer opportunities. North America, South America, Africa and Australia had similar hunter-gatherer opportunities. It seems that Neanderthal occupation might have had a foothold in what we call Europe today but they were driven out and killed but may have interbred with humans. That's a clue. In recent pre-history it seems that north Africa was dominant but religious insanity caused the Egyptians to waste a thousand years creating monuments to selected dead while their civilization was collapsing. Freedom is the key to civilization. Europeans enjoyed relative freedom for thousands of years until the ultimate in democratic law was created in the American colonies.

 

[bripat9643]

I watched the PBS series based on the book, and enjoyed it quite a bit, though I think Diamond overlooked some things like cultural evolution and why older civilizations seemed unable to keep pace with newer civilizations that adopted their tech along the fringes of civilization at the time.

For example, why were the Greeks so able to defeat the Persians despite both civilizations having access to the same livestock, grain, Greece having worse agricultural lands, etc?

I like how he seems to have removed race from the equation entirely (except to assign guilt to whites).

What are the impressions of reasonable people here? What would you think to be factors Diamond overlooked or over emphasized?

The Greeks beat the Persians because the Greeks were free men and the Persians were all slaves. Slaves have no interest in fighting for their master.

 

[I.P.Freely]

I watched the PBS series based on the book, and enjoyed it quite a bit, though I think Diamond overlooked some things like cultural evolution and why older civilizations seemed unable to keep pace with newer civilizations that adopted their tech along the fringes of civilization at the time.

For example, why were the Greeks so able to defeat the Persians despite both civilizations having access to the same livestock, grain, Greece having worse agricultural lands, etc?

I like how he seems to have removed race from the equation entirely (except to assign guilt to whites).

What are the impressions of reasonable people here? What would you think to be factors Diamond overlooked or over emphasized?

The Greeks beat the Persians because the Greeks were free men and the Persians were all slaves. Slaves have no interest in fighting for their master.

I concur,just like Vietnam.

 

[longly]

The resulting 'collective mind' that existed on the Eurasian continent was simply huge. The advantages it conferred were exponential in impact and scope.

Still, the use of the word 'determined' seems overly strong to me.

I agree ” determined is too strong” just because a people have an advantage dose not mean that they will use it. Look at the age of exploration, of the four civilized cultures of Eurasia only Western Europe took advantage of it and rose to dominate the world. Their only competition was the Chinese Empire which went as far as to establish trading colonies in East Africa. If the emperor who supported the exploration had not died it may have been the Chinese that reached Europe and discovered the land now known as America.

True, but I don't rate world domination s all that great a matter. We would be better off without it. There have been some historical studies that prove that the net profit from all these colonies was a loss for the governments that had them. It is good that they are dismantled into something more managed and sustained by those who most benefitted from them; corporations.

I don’t know about that, but when the Romans dominated the world it worked out pretty well for them. There was starvation on those times but it did not effect the Roman much. A Roman citizen no matter how poor had access to free food, entertainment, the public baths and public toilets where he didn’t wipe his own rear; they had slaves that did that job. Can you believe that the Western Roman Empire lasted a thousand years?

 

[Thunderbird]

A bit of hyperbole, but all the great civilizations came up between 15 degrees and 45 degrees north of the equator except for the Incas who were in the southern opposite region and the NW Europeans whose geography is enhanced by the Gulf stream to be much warmer than normal for that latitude.

Even a broad generalization like this is vexed by exceptions.

How about Zanzibar? Southern India? Cambodia? Indonesia?

Jared Diamond is burdened by PC dogma and can't acknowledge that some pre-modern societies were especially vigorous and could have thrived anywhere.

Diamond wrong again: Savaging Primitives: Why Jared Diamond’s ‘The World Until Yesterday’ Is Completely Wrong

quote: Diamond’s other—and dangerous—message is that most tribes engage in constant warfare. According to Diamond, they need, and welcome, state intervention to stop their violent behavior.

 

[JimBowie1958]

I agree ” determined is too strong” just because a people have an advantage dose not mean that they will use it. Look at the age of exploration, of the four civilized cultures of Eurasia only Western Europe took advantage of it and rose to dominate the world. Their only competition was the Chinese Empire which went as far as to establish trading colonies in East Africa. If the emperor who supported the exploration had not died it may have been the Chinese that reached Europe and discovered the land now known as America.

True, but I don't rate world domination s all that great a matter. We would be better off without it. There have been some historical studies that prove that the net profit from all these colonies was a loss for the governments that had them. It is good that they are dismantled into something more managed and sustained by those who most benefitted from them; corporations.

I don’t know about that, but when the Romans dominated the world it worked out pretty well for them. There was starvation on those times but it did not effect the Roman much. A Roman citizen no matter how poor had access to free food, entertainment, the public baths and public toilets where he didn’t wipe his own rear; they had slaves that did that job. Can you believe that the Western Roman Empire lasted a thousand years?

Rome was founded as a traditional monarchy in 753 BC, became a republic in 510 BC.

It became an Empire at the peak of its economic power and wealth, having vanquished all its traditional enemies, from the Etruscans, to the Greeks, Phonecians and Gauls.

Within 300 years as an empire Rome was spent, its people so burdened by taxes and regulations many of them fled to the German tribes who were allowed to live within their borders and denounced the citizenship.

Instead of defeating her enemies, Rome began to pay them off to turn away and not attack, and they brought in foreign mostly German mercenaries to fight for them in their legions that had once been proudly manned and staffed by Romans themselves.

Rome was dead long before the Germans removed Romulus Augustus from the throne.

Empires kill nations, they do not strengthen them but temporarily. The pattern is re-inforced by what the Europeans endured in the last three hundred years.

 

[JimBowie1958]

A bit of hyperbole, but all the great civilizations came up between 15 degrees and 45 degrees north of the equator except for the Incas who were in the southern opposite region and the NW Europeans whose geography is enhanced by the Gulf stream to be much warmer than normal for that latitude.

Even a broad generalization like this is vexed by exceptions.

How about Zanzibar? Southern India? Cambodia? Indonesia?

Jared Diamond is burdened by PC dogma and can't acknowledge that some pre-modern societies were especially vigorous and could have thrived anywhere.

Diamond wrong again: Savaging Primitives: Why Jared Diamond’s ‘The World Until Yesterday’ Is Completely Wrong

quote: Diamond’s other—and dangerous—message is that most tribes engage in constant warfare. According to Diamond, they need, and welcome, state intervention to stop their violent behavior.

Yeah, he does seem like a bit of a statist.