Guns, Germs and Steel

[Teallaura]

Link. (http://www.pbs.org/gunsgermssteel/)




At the heart of Jared Diamond's Guns, Germs and Steel are the stories of apparently commonplace things, such as wheat, cattle, and writing. Diamond believes the uneven distribution of these simple elements shaped the course of global history and played a vital part in the epic story of continental competition.

Diamond also focuses on the physical geography of the world in which we live. For instance, natural impediments such as mountain ranges or bodies of water created isolated civilizations.

Source. (http://www.pbs.org/gunsgermssteel/variables/index.html)


Diamond's thesis is that geographic factors, more than human ones, shaped the course of economic/civic development worldwide. It's interesting and he does make a pretty good case for the impact of geography.

Has anyone else seen this? Thoughts?

[Arterial Spray]

Link. (http://www.pbs.org/gunsgermssteel/)




At the heart of Jared Diamond's Guns, Germs and Steel are the stories of apparently commonplace things, such as wheat, cattle, and writing. Diamond believes the uneven distribution of these simple elements shaped the course of global history and played a vital part in the epic story of continental competition.

Diamond also focuses on the physical geography of the world in which we live. For instance, natural impediments such as mountain ranges or bodies of water created isolated civilizations.

Source. (http://www.pbs.org/gunsgermssteel/variables/index.html)


Diamond's thesis is that geographic factors, more than human ones, shaped the course of economic/civic development worldwide. It's interesting and he does make a pretty good case for the impact of geography.

Has anyone else seen this? Thoughts?
I read the book, and saw part one of the series (the series appears to be better organized and more accessible). Whle Diamond makes a very strong case, I think he somewhat underestimates the power of non-geographic factors. For instance, if the Vikings had carried smallpox to America long before 1492 (which was not outside the realm of possibility) then it would have been far harder for the Europeans to successfully conquer America.

[Ryokan]

Link. (http://www.pbs.org/gunsgermssteel/)




At the heart of Jared Diamond's Guns, Germs and Steel are the stories of apparently commonplace things, such as wheat, cattle, and writing. Diamond believes the uneven distribution of these simple elements shaped the course of global history and played a vital part in the epic story of continental competition.

Diamond also focuses on the physical geography of the world in which we live. For instance, natural impediments such as mountain ranges or bodies of water created isolated civilizations.

Source. (http://www.pbs.org/gunsgermssteel/variables/index.html)


Diamond's thesis is that geographic factors, more than human ones, shaped the course of economic/civic development worldwide. It's interesting and he does make a pretty good case for the impact of geography.

Has anyone else seen this? Thoughts?
There is some merit to it. But, you can't dismiss personal and cultural factors.

[Straylight]

It's all about the Relics.

Western Civilization is what it is because of Relics. Not geography.

/sarcasm

Or maybe not?

****

I've had the book for awhile now....He makes an interesting case, but I don't really want to accept it. It's starts off with a presumption, a myth -- That European civilization is superior, and then goes on to make a case for it.

Secondly, like the good scientist he is, he's completely ignorant of philosophical, abstract, and individual advancements within civilizations -- Growth to him is just a matter of environmental factors -- An idea which, in my opinion, is stupid (that's my scientific assessment).

[Ryokan]

****

I've had the book for awhile now....He makes an interesting case, but I don't really want to accept it. It's starts off with a presumption, a myth -- That European civilization is superior, and then goes on to make a case for it.


Well, it has generally been more successful at providing economic prosperity for the cultures associated with it over the last 200 years. political freedoms, too.

[Arterial Spray]

There is some merit to it. But, you can't dismiss personal and cultural factors.
He doesn't dismiss them, he just says they 'average out' -- that every society will have approximately the same chances for geniuses and inventions and strong leaders and disasters and inhibitive cultural norms and so on. His point is that only the geographic factors truly distinguish the winners from the losers.

For example, every society has roughly the same chance (in the long term) of producing a highly repressive and anti-innovative culture, but those societies that are surrounded by competitors will quickly overturn or mediate such cultural inhibitions from sheer necessity (or because someone more innovative and dynamic will conquer and replace them), whereas more isolated societies can stagnate for millenia. Geography is the major factor determining whether or not you have many competing neighbors or few (Europe it turns out is prime for producing many competitors).

[Ryokan]

He doesn't dismiss them, he just says they 'average out' -- that every society will have approximately the same chances for geniuses and inventions and strong leaders and disasters and inhibitive cultural norms and so on. His point is that only the geographic factors truly distinguish the winners from the losers. I read the book long ago, and I remeber disagreeing with that. Mostly because while geography, on average, is the common factor, it has many times in history not been a decisive factor. So it doesn't really help us understand the world that much.

[Arterial Spray]

I've had the book for awhile now....He makes an interesting case, but I don't really want to accept it. It's starts off with a presumption, a myth -- That European civilization is superior, and then goes on to make a case for it.

Uh, it is superior, if by 'superior' you mean "was able to conquer the world and be materialistically successful" (producing lot's of 'cargo' as the book puts it). Diamond's point is that there isn't anything about the Europeans or the specifics of their civilization that enabled them to conquer the world, rather it was their geography -- they had a 'superior position'.

[Arterial Spray]

I read the book long ago, and I remeber disagreeing with that. Mostly because while geography, on average, is the common factor, it has many times in history not been a decisive factor. So it doesn't really help us understand the world that much.
I suspect Diamond would reply that all other 'decisive' factors average out in the long term between all societies, leaving only geographic differences remaining.

[Ryokan]

I suspect Diamond would reply that all other 'decisive' factors average out in the long term between all societies, leaving only geographic differences remaining.
And I'd say their are pivotal moments where societies live or die. Without Muhhammed, the unification of the Arab world, and its subsequent explosion, probably would have been delayed, and may never have happened at all. This would have meant no crusades, no Renaissance, and Diamond would be writing no books right now. And if he was, they'd be about Chinese Culture. The idea of a Western culture wouldn't float at all without Alexander. And without Macedonian culture being what it was, he would have never had a chance to conquer. Each culture has a equal chance to have great men, and good societies, and they need a certain resource threshhold and geographic conditions, but having the right leadership in the right society, and good luck, are more important to understanding history.

[Arterial Spray]

And I'd say their are pivotal moments where societies live or die. Without Muhhammed, the unification of the Arab world, and its subsequent explosion, probably would have been delayed, and may never have happened at all. This would have meant no crusades, no Renaissance, and Diamond would be writing no books right now. And if he was, they'd be about Chinese Culture. The idea of a Western culture wouldn't float at all without Alexander. And without Macedonian culture being what it was, he would have never had a chance to conquer. Each culture has a equal chance to have great men, and good societies, and they need a certain resource threshhold and geographic conditions, but having the right leadership in the right society, and good luck, are more important to understanding history.
I agree with you (which is why I made the comment about smallpox above). Diamond's idea of averaging out 'in the long term' is a good one, but as Keynes said "in the long term we are all dead"...which is to say, over the long term the 'noise' of other factors does average out leaving only geography behind. But in the short term (which includes the millenial scale) there is still a lot of unevenness and 'noise'. Over many thousands of years, each society will have roughly the same number of 'breaks', but it can be critical that Society A gets one big 'break' in this century while Society B does not.

[Ryokan]

I agree with you (which is why I made the comment about smallpox above). Diamond's idea of averaging out 'in the long term' is a good one, but as Keynes said "in the long term we are all dead"...which is to say, over the long term the 'noise' of other factors does average out leaving only geography behind. But in the short term (which includes the millenial scale) there is still a lot of unevenness and 'noise'. Over many thousands of years, each society will have roughly the same number of 'breaks', but it can be critical that Society A gets one big 'break' in this century while Society B does not.
exactly.

[nomad]

so is this book worth reading? I bought it a few months ago on reputation and haven't gotten around to reading it yet.

[Ryokan]

so is this book worth reading? I bought it a few months ago on reputation and haven't gotten around to reading it yet.
It gets you thinking.