Political Crossfire Forums

[mathurin]

has anybody been watching Guns, Germs, and Steel?

i just was a saw an implication i disagreed with, he talked about how europe had advantages of geography, implying that was the only advantage, that the middle eastern people with their farming were able to spread out to the east ad west more than north american peoples could, and that this allowed the europeans to stay in a similar lattitude than the north americans, which he implied was more or less the entire reason why europe became more advanced

im calling bull, heard of corn, it was native to america, grows almost anywhere, im pretty sure they are growing corn right now in canada, and i know they grow it in central america, so there goes his theory right there, an excellent crop, which only needs a bit of ash in the pot to provide most of what the body needs (the indians knew this as well)

basically what he is trying his very best to do is show that the only reason europeans became so advanced and other nations did not is because of geographical luck, and not ingenuity or exceptional intelligence, that i cannot totally disagree with, the implication was specifically towards the conquistadors and the various south americans they conquered, but he is a great deal wrong, though in a way he is right, he has ignored the lack of resources and high population europe had, that forced them to war, that increased spending on weaponry which meant the spaniards had armor swords and guns, while the south and central american indians had swords, technically they had clubs with bits of sharpened obsidian stuck into them

why didnt the nations of america have them? broader stretches of land provided plenty of food for nomads, not enough competition to drive them to actual attrition warfare



i contend that it was war that made european powers powerful and spurred innovations which never would have happened otherwise, why bother beating iron into pots, copper is plenty good, but for armor, now theres a use for iron, swords have no hunting use that isnt better filled by something else

[Prole]

mathurin wrote: has anybody been watching Guns, Germs, and Steel?

Watching? I read it; did they make it into a documentary?

mathurin wrote:
im calling bull, heard of corn, it was native to america, grows almost anywhere, im pretty sure they are growing corn right now in canada, and i know they grow it in central america, so there goes his theory right there, an excellent crop, which only needs a bit of ash in the pot to provide most of what the body needs (the indians knew this as well)

A fair justification, with the one problem that I am pretty sure that corn until fairly recently was a much, much smaller entity than it is today. Literally, about the size of modern "baby corn" even when it reached maturity. As such, it isn't the most effecient of crops simply because of size.

One of the assertions made in the book is that people are all of different intelligence, and that the author suspects that if anyone is likely to as a race have better average genetic intelligence it is Africans who did not develop large urban centers.

His premise for this arguement is that the selective pressure upon people who lived in cities was mostly being disease resistant, as disease was the primary factor that would kill people before they had kids. For non-urbanites, though, it was food preperation which was far more important, and being able to consistently recognize bad food, and properly prepare good food.

I find this premise to be plausible, but don't really think it translates over into usable intelligence of today; the kind of intelligence he refers to is more about discipline than intellectual capacity. Any thoughts on this?

[mathurin]

yeah, its a 3 parter on on it, anyway


modern selection is actually a curious thing, are human beings wired to breed for intelligence?
so far in america the educated people have fewer kids because they think of the implications of children before they have them, while the less educated have lots of children, either because they dont give it any thought, or perhaps because in our nation the gov gives out money to the poor who have more kids

where will the human race go if the stupid are more likely to reproduce?

[Simon De Montfort]

I really liked the documentary. I think that his theory explains a lot about the unequal level of development between different groups people. To me it is rather obvious that geography had a major impact on the history of people. However there are some seriously huge gaps in theory but that is expected when trying to answer such a big question.

Thinks I like about his theory: (that were in the documentary I haven't read the book)


1.) People around the world are basically the same. No one group has a monopoly of intelligence.

2.) The east west axis of Eurasia leading to a more rapid spread of agriculture, civilization and technology. Whereas the north south axis of America hindered the spread of those three there.

3.) How having more productive crops allowed people to develop civilization and technology.

4.) How livestock sped up the development of people who had them and held back the people who didn't have them.

5.) Eurasia was blessed with having the best animals to domesticate.

6.) How living with livestock made people resistant to disease.

7.) Spreading disease (unintentionally) allowed the Europeans to "clear" land for their settlement.

Major gaps in his theory:

1.) The effect on culture in a society's development. Why did Europe pass China? His theory doesn't address that question.

2.) The effect of history on a society's development. The actual events of the past effected development of people for good and ill.

[mathurin]

Simon De Montfort wrote: I really liked the documentary. I think that his theory explains a lot about the unequal level of development between different groups people. To me it is rather obvious that geography had a major impact on the history of people. However there are some seriously huge gaps in theory but that is expected when trying to answer such a big question.

Thinks I like about his theory: (that were in the documentary I haven't read the book)

geography was a factor, but he places too much emphasis on it


Simon De Montfort wrote:
1.) People around the world are basically the same. No one group has a monopoly of intelligence.

to me a large factor was the stress placed on the people, sure they are capable of the same intelligence, but without neccesity where is the invention, to me that sort of pressure is more important

Simon De Montfort wrote:
2.) The east west axis of Eurasia leading to a more rapid spread of agriculture, civilization and technology. Whereas the north south axis of America hindered the spread of those three there.

not so much, if you notice in the americas most of the crops grown in the north are also grown in the south, lets say the people moved, and planted their crops as they went, as they slowly spread the best breed for their position would come to surface naturally, like natural selection on steroids, so the begining is no worse
i think he lacks any basic understanding of agriculture, should have run this by some farmers

civilization could be considered somewhat hindered by geography, sure people living in alaska are going to have different culture than those living in california, hindering nation building and cohesiveness, but looking through history we find that only lately have large sized nations really had success, so i dont see this as a severely hampering factor, easily overcome

how does a long axis hinder tech, trade perhaps which influences tech, but still the amerindians should have gotten as far as basic metals, some of the SW america indians had a farming culture, and you know the incas and whatnot, they got as far as gold

Simon De Montfort wrote:
3.) How having more productive crops allowed people to develop civilization and technology.

he assumes that wheat and such grains were so productive to begin with, not neccesarily true, spend enough time breeding plants and almost anything is possible, someone said that corn wasnt as big as it is now, i have nothing to suggest a similar thing didnt happen with the "cereal grasses"

he assumes the modern staple just fell into their lap

Simon De Montfort wrote:
4.) How livestock sped up the development of people who had them and held back the people who didn't have them.

granted
Simon De Montfort wrote:
5.) Eurasia was blessed with having the best animals to domesticate.

deer, buffalo, goats, the americas have plenty of animals which could be domesticated, and yes, many of these animals have been domesticated, perhaps not as docile as the modern variants but i doubt the ancient domesticated animals were either, they all started out wild


Simon De Montfort wrote:
6.) How living with livestock made people resistant to disease.

granted


Simon De Montfort wrote:
7.) Spreading disease (unintentionally) allowed the Europeans to "clear" land for their settlement.

oh wow, at last someone realized it wasnt intentional

Simon De Montfort wrote:
Major gaps in his theory:

1.) The effect on culture in a society's development. Why did Europe pass China? His theory doesn't address that question.

2.) The effect of history on a society's development. The actual events of the past effected development of people for good and ill.
its because he is some kind of biologist, not a sociologist or historian

as to me i still say that the biggest reason for the haves and have nots is location, mostly about the pressure which others put on them, and the opportunities they provided. for example, there was no real reason to increase the efficiency of the farming, it wouldnt keep in some climates and with nobody to trade with...it did no good

his theories have more holes than swiss cheese, he should stick to his birds, im not saying he is 100% wrong that geography shapes a people, im just saying its not for the reasons he assumes

[Simon De Montfort]

mathurin wrote:

Simon De Montfort wrote:
2.) The east west axis of Eurasia leading to a more rapid spread of agriculture, civilization and technology. Whereas the north south axis of America hindered the spread of those three there.

not so much, if you notice in the americas most of the crops grown in the north are also grown in the south, lets say the people moved, and planted their crops as they went, as they slowly spread the best breed for their position would come to surface naturally, like natural selection on steroids, so the begining is no worse
i think he lacks any basic understanding of agriculture, should have run this by some farmers

civilization could be considered somewhat hindered by geography, sure people living in alaska are going to have different culture than those living in california, hindering nation building and cohesiveness, but looking through history we find that only lately have large sized nations really had success, so i dont see this as a severely hampering factor, easily overcome

how does a long axis hinder tech, trade perhaps which influences tech, but still the amerindians should have gotten as far as basic metals, some of the SW america indians had a farming culture, and you know the incas and whatnot, they got as far as gold

The theory that the continental axis has a drastic impact on the spread of agri tech makes a lot of sense to me. Wheat began to be cultivated in the ME. But it could easily spread to regions along similar latitudes and it did. The Inca's staple corps was the potato. It grows well in the Andean highlands but it won't grow in Panama and I think that's why the Aztecs of Mexico didn't grow it. Conversely I don't think the Inca grew maize but I could be wrong. Also the llama of South America can't live in tropical climates preventing from moving north. Therefore the Aztecs were denied the use of the llama as a domesticated Animal.

Both the Aztec and the Inca civs lived in similar climates, cool, dry highlands and could have exchange crops, animals and ideas thus furthering their development. But they were prevented from doing so because the were separated by a tropical zone in which neither their corps nor animals could live.

As for the smelting of gold that's easy. Gold melts at a much lower temperature. The smelting of gold always comes long before the much more difficult smelting of bronze and iron, useful tool making metals. Gold is too soft to be used for tools. Once again had the Aztec and Inca had more contact the resulting exchange of ideas may have allowed the develop more advanced metallurgy by 1492.

Quote: Simon De Montfort wrote:
3.) How having more productive crops allowed people to develop civilization and technology.

he assumes that wheat and such grains were so productive to begin with, not neccesarily true, spend enough time breeding plants and almost anything is possible, someone said that corn wasnt as big as it is now, i have nothing to suggest a similar thing didnt happen with the "cereal grasses"

he assumes the modern staple just fell into their lap

Well I wouldn't call them modern staples since modern wheat barely resembles ancient wheat. But I do think wheat fell into the laps of the people of the ME since they happened to live in an area where such a useful plant grew wild.


Quote:
Simon De Montfort wrote:
5.) Eurasia was blessed with having the best animals to domesticate.

deer, buffalo, goats, the americas have plenty of animals which could be domesticated, and yes, many of these animals have been domesticated, perhaps not as docile as the modern variants but i doubt the ancient domesticated animals were either, they all started out wild

Actually you are missed informed. What is surprising about America is the lack of animals that can be domesticated. Deer and buffalo can't be domesticated and goats aren't native to America. In fact the largest load baring animal in all of the America's prior to 1492 was man. The llama isn't that strong. There were no horses, cattle, goats or even swine in the Americas prior to 1492. The Amerindians were seriously screwed by geography.


Quote: Simon De Montfort wrote:
7.) Spreading disease (unintentionally) allowed the Europeans to "clear" land for their settlement.

oh wow, at last someone realized it wasnt intentional

That's because I'm educated and have no reason to perpetuate a lie.

Quote: Simon De Montfort wrote:
Major gaps in his theory:

1.) The effect on culture in a society's development. Why did Europe pass China? His theory doesn't address that question.

2.) The effect of history on a society's development. The actual events of the past effected development of people for good and ill.
its because he is some kind of biologist, not a sociologist or historian


I think you have hit the nail on the head. That's why his theory is only partially useful. But since much of his argument take place prior to written history we are forced to really on such theories to explain events. I think he as provided a logical explanation for events at which we can only guess at.

[mathurin]

Simon De Montfort wrote: mathurin wrote:

Simon De Montfort wrote:
2.) The east west axis of Eurasia leading to a more rapid spread of agriculture, civilization and technology. Whereas the north south axis of America hindered the spread of those three there.

not so much, if you notice in the americas most of the crops grown in the north are also grown in the south, lets say the people moved, and planted their crops as they went, as they slowly spread the best breed for their position would come to surface naturally, like natural selection on steroids, so the begining is no worse
i think he lacks any basic understanding of agriculture, should have run this by some farmers

civilization could be considered somewhat hindered by geography, sure people living in alaska are going to have different culture than those living in california, hindering nation building and cohesiveness, but looking through history we find that only lately have large sized nations really had success, so i dont see this as a severely hampering factor, easily overcome

how does a long axis hinder tech, trade perhaps which influences tech, but still the amerindians should have gotten as far as basic metals, some of the SW america indians had a farming culture, and you know the incas and whatnot, they got as far as gold

The theory that the continental axis has a drastic impact on the spread of agri tech makes a lot of sense to me. Wheat began to be cultivated in the ME. But it could easily spread to regions along similar latitudes and it did. The Inca's staple corps was the potato. It grows well in the Andean highlands but it won't grow in Panama and I think that's why the Aztecs of Mexico didn't grow it. Conversely I don't think the Inca grew maize but I could be wrong. Also the llama of South America can't live in tropical climates preventing from moving north. Therefore the Aztecs were denied the use of the llama as a domesticated Animal.

the problem is that neither you nor him have any experience with agriculture, potatos grow in panama, corn grows almost anywhere

the majority of crops will grow in most places humans can survive without specialized gear, what he assumes is a major hurdle is less than a pebble

Simon De Montfort wrote:
Both the Aztec and the Inca civs lived in similar climates, cool, dry highlands and could have exchange crops, animals and ideas thus furthering their development. But they were prevented from doing so because the were separated by a tropical zone in which neither their corps nor animals could live.

somebody lived in the tropical zone, but hey, lets humor this theory

the vikings
romans
turks
eqypt
carthage
british
russians
chinese

all of these cultures managed to trade with eachother across a much broader continent, again, not as difficult as he makes out

Simon De Montfort wrote:
As for the smelting of gold that's easy. Gold melts at a much lower temperature. The smelting of gold always comes long before the much more difficult smelting of bronze and iron, useful tool making metals. Gold is too soft to be used for tools. Once again had the Aztec and Inca had more contact the resulting exchange of ideas may have allowed the develop more advanced metallurgy by 1492.

i was mostly just mentioning it as a way of marking their advancment

Simon De Montfort wrote:
Quote: Simon De Montfort wrote:
3.) How having more productive crops allowed people to develop civilization and technology.

he assumes that wheat and such grains were so productive to begin with, not neccesarily true, spend enough time breeding plants and almost anything is possible, someone said that corn wasnt as big as it is now, i have nothing to suggest a similar thing didnt happen with the "cereal grasses"

he assumes the modern staple just fell into their lap

Well I wouldn't call them modern staples since modern wheat barely resembles ancient wheat. But I do think wheat fell into the laps of the people of the ME since they happened to live in an area where such a useful plant grew wild.

but we dont know what it was back then, it could have been just as good as any number of gathered plants here that they just decided to plant, the sheer number of valuable edible plants in america should show you this is false, in fact i think we even have wild rice growing in america, there are plenty of plants which could have been domesticated (for lack of a better word) just as wheat was


Simon De Montfort wrote:
Quote:
Simon De Montfort wrote:
5.) Eurasia was blessed with having the best animals to domesticate.

deer, buffalo, goats, the americas have plenty of animals which could be domesticated, and yes, many of these animals have been domesticated, perhaps not as docile as the modern variants but i doubt the ancient domesticated animals were either, they all started out wild

Actually you are missed informed. What is surprising about America is the lack of animals that can be domesticated. Deer and buffalo can't be domesticated and goats aren't native to America. In fact the largest load baring animal in all of the America's prior to 1492 was man. The llama isn't that strong. There were no horses, cattle, goats or even swine in the Americas prior to 1492. The Amerindians were seriously screwed by geography.

incorrect
bisons are now being domesticated, turkeys and rabbits have been, and deer are also becoming popular. these are just the ones i know about here in the midwest. america has mountain goats and bighorn sheep

im sure you will tell me that these are wild animals that cannot be tamed, as Diamond claimed, bulls**t, there was no pig cow or sheep just waiting to be milked and harnessed, they had to slowly breed docility into them

once again he assumes the only docile animals were dropped in the middle east, false, it takes work, on either continent wild animals are wild animals


Simon De Montfort wrote:
Quote: Simon De Montfort wrote:
Major gaps in his theory:

1.) The effect on culture in a society's development. Why did Europe pass China? His theory doesn't address that question.

2.) The effect of history on a society's development. The actual events of the past effected development of people for good and ill.
its because he is some kind of biologist, not a sociologist or historian


I think you have hit the nail on the head. That's why his theory is only partially useful. But since much of his argument take place prior to written history we are forced to really on such theories to explain events. I think he as provided a logical explanation for events at which we can only guess at.

i found out his specialty, geology and physiology, perhaps he should have spent alittle time learning something about agriculture

[Flake]

Quote: 1.) The effect on culture in a society's development. Why did Europe pass China? His theory doesn't address that question.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it was addressed at least partially. He talked at length about the unification of China, and how that unification really hurt them. Less competition between regions creating stagnation, and ineffective edicts spread far and wide hurt their technological development.

Culture came into play in his discussion of proliferation of language and its impact as well. Not saying it was fully addressed, but it was taken into account.

I believe the problem with corn was that it adapted slowly to newer climates for whatever reason. It has made it up and down the hemisphere by now, but they had problems with it once upon a time.

[combatbaby]

Flake wrote: Quote: 1.) The effect on culture in a society's development. Why did Europe pass China? His theory doesn't address that question.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it was addressed at least partially. He talked at length about the unification of China, and how that unification really hurt them. Less competition between regions creating stagnation, and ineffective edicts spread far and wide hurt their technological development.

Culture came into play in his discussion of proliferation of language and its impact as well. Not saying it was fully addressed, but it was taken into account.

I believe the problem with corn was that it adapted slowly to newer climates for whatever reason. It has made it up and down the hemisphere by now, but they had problems with it once upon a time.

Yes I remember reading about that too. China had poor leadership that hindered development. Jared Diamond talked about the holes in his theory in his Afterword, in the paperback edition (2003), including the Why Europe and not China question.

[mathurin]

the biggest reason why crops succeed is because the humans create the right environment, they deweed them, removing competition, plant in richer soil, or find animal dung or other composte to fertilize it with, they defend against animals, and bugs to a lessor extent, they even water them in dry times

the only real similarity between the plains of spain and the middle east is lattitude, and therefore, length of days, its such a different climate, while this would help people get their planting times right it doesnt matter too much, going up or down a few degrees is not going to change it that much, under this guys theory there should have been a couple of flourishing civilizations in north america

its not all about geography, granted some people got screwed but north america didnt, its about inter-civilization contact, the romans would not have become the romans if they hadnt had others to plunder, and this in turn furthered technology towards attacking, which in turn furthered tech towards defending
conflict and trade are what shaped the majority of the civilizations, only the roots are in geography

[eynon]

mathurin wrote: has anybody been watching Guns, Germs, and Steel?

i just was a saw an implication i disagreed with, he talked about how europe had advantages of geography, implying that was the only advantage, that the middle eastern people with their farming were able to spread out to the east ad west more than north american peoples could, and that this allowed the europeans to stay in a similar lattitude than the north americans, which he implied was more or less the entire reason why europe became more advanced

im calling bull, heard of corn, it was native to america, grows almost anywhere, im pretty sure they are growing corn right now in canada, and i know they grow it in central america, so there goes his theory right there, an excellent crop, which only needs a bit of ash in the pot to provide most of what the body needs (the indians knew this as well)

basically what he is trying his very best to do is show that the only reason europeans became so advanced and other nations did not is because of geographical luck, and not ingenuity or exceptional intelligence, that i cannot totally disagree with, the implication was specifically towards the conquistadors and the various south americans they conquered, but he is a great deal wrong, though in a way he is right, he has ignored the lack of resources and high population europe had, that forced them to war, that increased spending on weaponry which meant the spaniards had armor swords and guns, while the south and central american indians had swords, technically they had clubs with bits of sharpened obsidian stuck into them

why didnt the nations of america have them? broader stretches of land provided plenty of food for nomads, not enough competition to drive them to actual attrition warfare



i contend that it was war that made european powers powerful and spurred innovations which never would have happened otherwise, why bother beating iron into pots, copper is plenty good, but for armor, now theres a use for iron, swords have no hunting use that isnt better filled by something else

You would love this book:
http://www.uncommonknowledge.org/700/736.html

It's called Carnage and Culture, and while the author doesn't refute Guns and Steel, he does focus a lot on Western Eurasia's culture of war, and how it differed from other groups.

[Blogotron]

Quote: im calling bull, heard of corn, it was native to america, grows almost anywhere, im pretty sure they are growing corn right now in canada, and i know they grow it in central america, so there goes his theory right there, an excellent crop, which only needs a bit of ash in the pot to provide most of what the body needs (the indians knew this as well)



Boy, you have not read the book have you? While the book might get low marks for beigna bit deterministic he gets most of the small facts correct.

Corn requires a certain environment within which to thrive. It also takes corn longer to grow cold resistant strains than does Wheat, millet or other grains.

Corn did transfer North, but a a very slow pace due to the limitations of growing seasons, lack of dray animals, lack of quick transportation or durable metal goods.

Read the chapter inhis book about corn, its incredibly enlightening.

I do urge you not to read his previous book " The Third Chimpanzee" its terrible and so full of holes it makes you what to scream at the print.

[plum]

mathurin wrote: Simon De Montfort wrote: mathurin wrote:

Simon De Montfort wrote:
2.) The east west axis of Eurasia leading to a more rapid spread of agriculture, civilization and technology. Whereas the north south axis of America hindered the spread of those three there.

not so much, if you notice in the americas most of the crops grown in the north are also grown in the south, lets say the people moved, and planted their crops as they went, as they slowly spread the best breed for their position would come to surface naturally, like natural selection on steroids, so the begining is no worse
i think he lacks any basic understanding of agriculture, should have run this by some farmers

civilization could be considered somewhat hindered by geography, sure people living in alaska are going to have different culture than those living in california, hindering nation building and cohesiveness, but looking through history we find that only lately have large sized nations really had success, so i dont see this as a severely hampering factor, easily overcome

how does a long axis hinder tech, trade perhaps which influences tech, but still the amerindians should have gotten as far as basic metals, some of the SW america indians had a farming culture, and you know the incas and whatnot, they got as far as gold

The theory that the continental axis has a drastic impact on the spread of agri tech makes a lot of sense to me. Wheat began to be cultivated in the ME. But it could easily spread to regions along similar latitudes and it did. The Inca's staple corps was the potato. It grows well in the Andean highlands but it won't grow in Panama and I think that's why the Aztecs of Mexico didn't grow it. Conversely I don't think the Inca grew maize but I could be wrong. Also the llama of South America can't live in tropical climates preventing from moving north. Therefore the Aztecs were denied the use of the llama as a domesticated Animal.

the problem is that neither you nor him have any experience with agriculture, potatos grow in panama, corn grows almost anywhere

the majority of crops will grow in most places humans can survive without specialized gear, what he assumes is a major hurdle is less than a pebble

Simon De Montfort wrote:
Both the Aztec and the Inca civs lived in similar climates, cool, dry highlands and could have exchange crops, animals and ideas thus furthering their development. But they were prevented from doing so because the were separated by a tropical zone in which neither their corps nor animals could live.

somebody lived in the tropical zone, but hey, lets humor this theory

the vikings
romans
turks
eqypt
carthage
british
russians
chinese

all of these cultures managed to trade with eachother across a much broader continent, again, not as difficult as he makes out

Simon De Montfort wrote:
As for the smelting of gold that's easy. Gold melts at a much lower temperature. The smelting of gold always comes long before the much more difficult smelting of bronze and iron, useful tool making metals. Gold is too soft to be used for tools. Once again had the Aztec and Inca had more contact the resulting exchange of ideas may have allowed the develop more advanced metallurgy by 1492.

i was mostly just mentioning it as a way of marking their advancment

Simon De Montfort wrote:
Quote: Simon De Montfort wrote:
3.) How having more productive crops allowed people to develop civilization and technology.

he assumes that wheat and such grains were so productive to begin with, not neccesarily true, spend enough time breeding plants and almost anything is possible, someone said that corn wasnt as big as it is now, i have nothing to suggest a similar thing didnt happen with the "cereal grasses"

he assumes the modern staple just fell into their lap

Well I wouldn't call them modern staples since modern wheat barely resembles ancient wheat. But I do think wheat fell into the laps of the people of the ME since they happened to live in an area where such a useful plant grew wild.

but we dont know what it was back then, it could have been just as good as any number of gathered plants here that they just decided to plant, the sheer number of valuable edible plants in america should show you this is false, in fact i think we even have wild rice growing in america, there are plenty of plants which could have been domesticated (for lack of a better word) just as wheat was


Simon De Montfort wrote:
Quote:
Simon De Montfort wrote:
5.) Eurasia was blessed with having the best animals to domesticate.

deer, buffalo, goats, the americas have plenty of animals which could be domesticated, and yes, many of these animals have been domesticated, perhaps not as docile as the modern variants but i doubt the ancient domesticated animals were either, they all started out wild

Actually you are missed informed. What is surprising about America is the lack of animals that can be domesticated. Deer and buffalo can't be domesticated and goats aren't native to America. In fact the largest load baring animal in all of the America's prior to 1492 was man. The llama isn't that strong. There were no horses, cattle, goats or even swine in the Americas prior to 1492. The Amerindians were seriously screwed by geography.

incorrect
bisons are now being domesticated, turkeys and rabbits have been, and deer are also becoming popular. these are just the ones i know about here in the midwest. america has mountain goats and bighorn sheep

im sure you will tell me that these are wild animals that cannot be tamed, as Diamond claimed, bulls**t, there was no pig cow or sheep just waiting to be milked and harnessed, they had to slowly breed docility into them

once again he assumes the only docile animals were dropped in the middle east, false, it takes work, on either continent wild animals are wild animals


Simon De Montfort wrote:
Quote: Simon De Montfort wrote:
Major gaps in his theory:

1.) The effect on culture in a society's development. Why did Europe pass China? His theory doesn't address that question.

2.) The effect of history on a society's development. The actual events of the past effected development of people for good and ill.
its because he is some kind of biologist, not a sociologist or historian


I think you have hit the nail on the head. That's why his theory is only partially useful. But since much of his argument take place prior to written history we are forced to really on such theories to explain events. I think he as provided a logical explanation for events at which we can only guess at.

i found out his specialty, geology and physiology, perhaps he should have spent alittle time learning something about agriculture

I would recommend reading the book. The 3 part TV series was very cursory, though good. All of your questions are answered in detail in the book, so don't judge too quickly.

Corn back then wasn't what it is today, it yielded far lower calories per-acre than the ceriel crops of Eurasia`and it was not native to all the America's. Secondly, the natives didn't have any domesticatible animals to plough fields with. Third, the spread of crops was drastically reduced by the large north-sourth axis of North America. Crop diffussion couldn't reach different regions because of ecological constraints to ancient peoples. It was only with modern technology that this diffusion became possible.

Your reference to those other cultures ignores virtually all the factors Diamond talks about. You are jumping forward thousands of years.

Apparently you don't understand what domestication means.

Bison, Deer, Mountain Goats etc... these have certainly not been domesticated. Locking animals up in a cage does not equal domestication. Again, read the book, he goes into great detail on this point. Look up for instance the Anna Karenina principle. You have been misinformed.

Again, you don't seem to understand some of the basic principles behind his theory, which is why your criticisms, although thoughtful, are incorrect.

It's not a tough read at all actually. But I would recommend against making any further judgements or conclusions or calling his research "bulls**t", if you haven't even read the book.

It's well worth it, it's a book that everybody should read. And just so you know, this book represents the prevailing academic attitude today, this isn't his pipedream.

[mathurin]

plum wrote: mathurin wrote: Simon De Montfort wrote: mathurin wrote:

Simon De Montfort wrote:
2.) The east west axis of Eurasia leading to a more rapid spread of agriculture, civilization and technology. Whereas the north south axis of America hindered the spread of those three there.

not so much, if you notice in the americas most of the crops grown in the north are also grown in the south, lets say the people moved, and planted their crops as they went, as they slowly spread the best breed for their position would come to surface naturally, like natural selection on steroids, so the begining is no worse
i think he lacks any basic understanding of agriculture, should have run this by some farmers

civilization could be considered somewhat hindered by geography, sure people living in alaska are going to have different culture than those living in california, hindering nation building and cohesiveness, but looking through history we find that only lately have large sized nations really had success, so i dont see this as a severely hampering factor, easily overcome

how does a long axis hinder tech, trade perhaps which influences tech, but still the amerindians should have gotten as far as basic metals, some of the SW america indians had a farming culture, and you know the incas and whatnot, they got as far as gold

The theory that the continental axis has a drastic impact on the spread of agri tech makes a lot of sense to me. Wheat began to be cultivated in the ME. But it could easily spread to regions along similar latitudes and it did. The Inca's staple corps was the potato. It grows well in the Andean highlands but it won't grow in Panama and I think that's why the Aztecs of Mexico didn't grow it. Conversely I don't think the Inca grew maize but I could be wrong. Also the llama of South America can't live in tropical climates preventing from moving north. Therefore the Aztecs were denied the use of the llama as a domesticated Animal.

the problem is that neither you nor him have any experience with agriculture, potatos grow in panama, corn grows almost anywhere

the majority of crops will grow in most places humans can survive without specialized gear, what he assumes is a major hurdle is less than a pebble

Simon De Montfort wrote:
Both the Aztec and the Inca civs lived in similar climates, cool, dry highlands and could have exchange crops, animals and ideas thus furthering their development. But they were prevented from doing so because the were separated by a tropical zone in which neither their corps nor animals could live.

somebody lived in the tropical zone, but hey, lets humor this theory

the vikings
romans
turks
eqypt
carthage
british
russians
chinese

all of these cultures managed to trade with eachother across a much broader continent, again, not as difficult as he makes out

Simon De Montfort wrote:
As for the smelting of gold that's easy. Gold melts at a much lower temperature. The smelting of gold always comes long before the much more difficult smelting of bronze and iron, useful tool making metals. Gold is too soft to be used for tools. Once again had the Aztec and Inca had more contact the resulting exchange of ideas may have allowed the develop more advanced metallurgy by 1492.

i was mostly just mentioning it as a way of marking their advancment

Simon De Montfort wrote:
Quote: Simon De Montfort wrote:
3.) How having more productive crops allowed people to develop civilization and technology.

he assumes that wheat and such grains were so productive to begin with, not neccesarily true, spend enough time breeding plants and almost anything is possible, someone said that corn wasnt as big as it is now, i have nothing to suggest a similar thing didnt happen with the "cereal grasses"

he assumes the modern staple just fell into their lap

Well I wouldn't call them modern staples since modern wheat barely resembles ancient wheat. But I do think wheat fell into the laps of the people of the ME since they happened to live in an area where such a useful plant grew wild.

but we dont know what it was back then, it could have been just as good as any number of gathered plants here that they just decided to plant, the sheer number of valuable edible plants in america should show you this is false, in fact i think we even have wild rice growing in america, there are plenty of plants which could have been domesticated (for lack of a better word) just as wheat was


Simon De Montfort wrote:
Quote:
Simon De Montfort wrote:
5.) Eurasia was blessed with having the best animals to domesticate.

deer, buffalo, goats, the americas have plenty of animals which could be domesticated, and yes, many of these animals have been domesticated, perhaps not as docile as the modern variants but i doubt the ancient domesticated animals were either, they all started out wild

Actually you are missed informed. What is surprising about America is the lack of animals that can be domesticated. Deer and buffalo can't be domesticated and goats aren't native to America. In fact the largest load baring animal in all of the America's prior to 1492 was man. The llama isn't that strong. There were no horses, cattle, goats or even swine in the Americas prior to 1492. The Amerindians were seriously screwed by geography.

incorrect
bisons are now being domesticated, turkeys and rabbits have been, and deer are also becoming popular. these are just the ones i know about here in the midwest. america has mountain goats and bighorn sheep

im sure you will tell me that these are wild animals that cannot be tamed, as Diamond claimed, bulls**t, there was no pig cow or sheep just waiting to be milked and harnessed, they had to slowly breed docility into them

once again he assumes the only docile animals were dropped in the middle east, false, it takes work, on either continent wild animals are wild animals


Simon De Montfort wrote:
Quote: Simon De Montfort wrote:
Major gaps in his theory:

1.) The effect on culture in a society's development. Why did Europe pass China? His theory doesn't address that question.

2.) The effect of history on a society's development. The actual events of the past effected development of people for good and ill.
its because he is some kind of biologist, not a sociologist or historian


I think you have hit the nail on the head. That's why his theory is only partially useful. But since much of his argument take place prior to written history we are forced to really on such theories to explain events. I think he as provided a logical explanation for events at which we can only guess at.

i found out his specialty, geology and physiology, perhaps he should have spent alittle time learning something about agriculture

I would recommend reading the book. The 3 part TV series was very cursory, though good. All of your questions are answered in detail in the book, so don't judge too quickly.

ive got enough to read, and if he answers the questions like you do i would do better to read something else anyway


plum wrote:
Corn back then wasn't what it is today, it yielded far lower calories per-acre than the ceriel crops of Eurasia`and it was not native to all the America's. Secondly, the natives didn't have any domesticatible animals to plough fields with. Third, the spread of crops was drastically reduced by the large north-sourth axis of North America. Crop diffussion couldn't reach different regions because of ecological constraints to ancient peoples. It was only with modern technology that this diffusion became possible.

seems odd that when europeans arrived corn was a crop as good or better than their own, so good they brought it back with them, since it could be grown almost anywhere, they did that with several crops if i remember right, there must have been a evolutionary jump of unprecedented proportions for corn to go from crap to equal to western staples

i have addressed the animals thing, as i will again in a second

while the spread of crops was reduced that wouldnt have affected the area where they were adapted, at least not by his accounting, for example lets say texas and texas alone was great place to grow corn, and anyplace outside of texas couldnt, why wouldnt an amazing civilization grow in this area? he claims its because the seed couldnt spread, i say its because lack of competition for resources hampered innovation


plum wrote:
Your reference to those other cultures ignores virtually all the factors Diamond talks about. You are jumping forward thousands of years.

my reference to those cultures is entirely proper, simon was speaking of 2 south american tribes being unable to trade or communicate because of the vast ecological and physical distance between them, yet the cultures i mentioned were only alittle more advanced and traded just fine, and actually i am jumping backward, since the south american tribes were at least 1600s, and the vikings were gone by then


plum wrote:
Apparently you don't understand what domestication means.

Bison, Deer, Mountain Goats etc... these have certainly not been domesticated. Locking animals up in a cage does not equal domestication. Again, read the book, he goes into great detail on this point. Look up for instance the Anna Karenina principle. You have been misinformed.

i understand exactly what domestication means, i work cattle, they are not tame, just stupid, and they are only stupid because thousands of years of selective breeding made them stupid, if you tied up a deer, then bred that deer with more docile deer then eventually you would have a domesticated deer

my point, the eurasian area didnt get handed the best domesticated animals, they took the material they had and made something of it, they had decent material while some (read, very few) had crap, but make no mistake, it was not luck alone


plum wrote:
Again, you don't seem to understand some of the basic principles behind his theory, which is why your criticisms, although thoughtful, are incorrect.

It's not a tough read at all actually. But I would recommend against making any further judgements or conclusions or calling his research "bulls**t", if you haven't even read the book.

It's well worth it, it's a book that everybody should read. And just so you know, this book represents the prevailing academic attitude today, this isn't his pipedream.
the prevailing academics of the day need to pull their heads out of their asses and stop with the collective mental masterbation, its just another sissy attempt to give it all up to luck, its only partially luck, the part that landed enough people on the western continent to make them fight, and therefore innovate, im not saying native americans were any less capable of innovation, but they didnt have the need

more touchy feely liberal crap posing as scientific evidence HE IS GUESSING
which is two steps from lying

[plum]

Like I said, I'm not going to waste my time explaining the whole book to you.

You have lots of questions, but a great many of your assumptions are based on a lack of understanding of some basic concepts he deals with.

But apparently all of academia is stupid, and you, who hasn't even read one page this book, are smarter than everyone else.

Read the damn book. Don't sit there, think yourself smart because you ask a few questions based on complete ignorance.

Read the book, educate yourself, then get back to your criticisms. But right now, you're the only one who looks stupid.

[Quicksurf]

What I don't understand about this theory that it fails to mention trade? Europeans have been trading with Africa for quite some time now, and you don't think that they eventually obtained some livestock?

[plum]

Quicksurf wrote: What I don't understand about this theory that it fails to mention trade? Europeans have been trading with Africa for quite some time now, and you don't think that they eventually obtained some livestock?

He does deal with these issues.

But you guys are all jumping ahead thousands of years here.

His books deals primarily with early human history. How and why human civilization sprouted in certain parts of the world to begin with. The majority of his book deals with history say 10,000+ years ago. Right back to the very beginning of human societies around the world.

Many of the issues you guys are bringing up are much more contemporary issues, which have their roots further back. You guys are jumping ahead many thousands of years here, far beyond what the focus of his book is dealing with.

The sequel "Collapse" deals more with these issues of later civilizations.

But Guns Germs and Steel deals with issues far earlier than the ones you are mentioning.

It's a really good book. Read it, then make your criticisms. But I'm not going to be able to explain 450 pages of theory in 2 or 3 posts.

[mathurin]

sure, ill see if my library has it, see if he puts any proof of any kind behind his conjectures

surely you understand that the world of modern academia has a lack of common knowledge, studying something in theory is no substitute for life

surely you know what i mean

[plum]

mathurin wrote: sure, ill see if my library has it, see if he puts any proof of any kind behind his conjectures

surely you understand that the world of modern academia has a lack of common knowledge, studying something in theory is no substitute for life

surely you know what i mean

Modern academia has a lack of common knowledge? I can't say I understand. Who knows better? Bricklayers?

From what I understand, these theories are the culmination of years and years of archeological, anthropological and historical research, that have been formed through the process of years of observation, experimentation and analysis.

I'm not saying it's gospel, but these theories represent the research of the most educated people in the world on the subject of the origins of societies and civilizations.

But judge it for yourself.

[Prole]

Eynon81 wrote: mathurin wrote: has anybody been watching Guns, Germs, and Steel?

i just was a saw an implication i disagreed with, he talked about how europe had advantages of geography, implying that was the only advantage, that the middle eastern people with their farming were able to spread out to the east ad west more than north american peoples could, and that this allowed the europeans to stay in a similar lattitude than the north americans, which he implied was more or less the entire reason why europe became more advanced

im calling bull, heard of corn, it was native to america, grows almost anywhere, im pretty sure they are growing corn right now in canada, and i know they grow it in central america, so there goes his theory right there, an excellent crop, which only needs a bit of ash in the pot to provide most of what the body needs (the indians knew this as well)

basically what he is trying his very best to do is show that the only reason europeans became so advanced and other nations did not is because of geographical luck, and not ingenuity or exceptional intelligence, that i cannot totally disagree with, the implication was specifically towards the conquistadors and the various south americans they conquered, but he is a great deal wrong, though in a way he is right, he has ignored the lack of resources and high population europe had, that forced them to war, that increased spending on weaponry which meant the spaniards had armor swords and guns, while the south and central american indians had swords, technically they had clubs with bits of sharpened obsidian stuck into them

why didnt the nations of america have them? broader stretches of land provided plenty of food for nomads, not enough competition to drive them to actual attrition warfare



i contend that it was war that made european powers powerful and spurred innovations which never would have happened otherwise, why bother beating iron into pots, copper is plenty good, but for armor, now theres a use for iron, swords have no hunting use that isnt better filled by something else

You would love this book:
http://www.uncommonknowledge.org/700/736.html

It's called Carnage and Culture, and while the author doesn't refute Guns and Steel, he does focus a lot on Western Eurasia's culture of war, and how it differed from other groups.
During European history, Switzerland didn't come up much; it pretty much just kept to itself, was never a real superpower unlike England, France, Spain, Holland, Portugal, Italy and Germany all were at one point. The Swiss tradition of being a neutral power has been a long standing one.

The greatest technological achievement of the Swiss? The cuckoo clock. Staggering.

I think that illustrates the author's point pretty well.