![Guns_Germs[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/BGJeyTC.jpg "Guns_Germs[1].jpg")
Fill me in on why this book is shit /his/
A cookie cutter anti-euro opinion piece. With that being said it really isn't "Shit" but rather a book no one with an already defined history knowledge should bat an eye to.I wouldn't recommend it regardless.
>>484959
I've heard arguments that it's pro-euro. Basically reducing colonialism to a deterministic process instead of a violent conquest
>>484991
Not completely, but it is referenced to. But it's essentially an anti-euro bias. Especially when talking about "The Old World."
“Not until the beginning of the 20th century did Europe's urban populations finally become self-sustaining: before then, constant immigration of healthy peasants from the countryside was necessary to make up for the constant deaths of city dwellers from crowd diseases.”
>>485030
I don't get this. Determinism doesn't undermine accomplishment. Everything has a cause. That doesn't devalue it.
>>485032
I never said it did, but the only reference to determinism in the book was directed towards the spread of European and African diseases to the new world.
>>484932
basically determinism + exaggerated anti-European bias
>>485042
Okay, but how is that anti-European?
>>485069
>Literally, it's not, but added with the Anti-Euro bias it completely dehumanizes them at the fullest extent.
I don't think dehumanizes is the right word. Human action is caused like anything else. That fact doesn't dehumanize us. I get what you are saying though.
inb4
>sophomoric arguments that free will and individual action must remain important so that we can properly assign blame for history
>sophomoric arguments that free will and individual action must remain important so that we can properly assign praise for history
>reduction of partial environmental determinism to total environmental determinism
If you don't believe in at least partial environmental determinism, you are saying that resources have been infinite, everywhere, always, like an RTS with cheats on
>>484932
It falsely ascribes everything to environmental determinism and ignores genetic determinism.
>>485131
back to pol with you
>>485142
Not him, but do you really think genetics are just """""""not""""""" a thing? When we have clear and concrete ways how it affects everything?
Shoo shoo don't hurt my fee fees?
>>485131
But what could genetic determinism owe its existence but to environmental determinism?
>>485169
Not him but you sound like a faggot with an anime youtube picture
>>485169
>"""""""""""""""""
Does this look clever in your head?
>>485131
This.
>>485175
>>485181
No insecurity here at all
>>485188
>get called out for typing like an obnoxious faggot
>y-you're just insecure
What?
>>485193
Is attacking punctuation the best you can do, buddy?
>>485142
(You)
>>485170
Obviously the genetic differentiation of the different human races is due to environmental factors, however Diamond doesn't argue that. He argues that geography is the sole factor for civilizational development : he denies any influence of racial differences. According to his theory, if you had taken australian aboriginals in 500 B.C. and settled them in Italy, they would've built Rome.
>>485198
punctuation =/= typing like a girl on tumblr
>>484932
Babby's first Annales School
All of the environmental determinism and sweeping claims with none of the academic rigor
>>485233
You're typing like a girl on tumblr lol
You're just trying to deflect because genetic realities offend your delicate sensibilities
>>485225
To expound on my post, I'm not denying the importance of geography in the shaping of history (for instance the mediterranean basin played a tremendous role in shaping history), however it is not the sole determining factor, which is what Diamond claims.
What makes this worse is that Diamond is pretty explicitly an anti-racist ideologue, which hurts his credibility.
>>485237
I don't care about this debate, just thought you were a fag, which you are
>>485243
I know you are but what am I
>>485251
Gay lmao
>>485236
The Annales School isn't that big on environmental determinism, and Diamond shares little in common with it besides writing histories without great men.
>>485243
*recommends to thread that we just ignore this guy"
*
>>485267
>uses meme stars
*rolls eyes*
The fatal flaw of this book is that it ignores the exceptional nature of Portugal and its meteoric rise to dominating the global sphere in terms of art, military strength, and greater culture.
t. Barbosa, Alberto
>>484932
It wasn't so much guns and steel that helped Cortez and Pizzarro in thier conquest of the Aztec kingdom and Inca Empire but hundreds of thousands other Native Americans on thier side.
because he takes one variable (geography, environment) and attributes almost all historical events to it or at least champions it as the root cause. It reeks of Marx's Historical materialism to me. It's impossible to prove/disprove because you can't experiment with history considering it's only happened once.
He also keeps discounting the power of culture and society in the decisions of people. No, there is no rhyme or reason for how social beliefs and culture forms, just because we can see patterns doesn't mean that they're there. Explaining the "reasons" behind the rise of Western Christianity is like explaining the scientific causes for why 90's kids brought yoyos to school for exactly two years, sometimes you just have to except the randomness in life. I know what I'm saying probably doesn't make sense, but what I'm getting at is that history is so complex for one guy to figure out a root cause for. Of course academics and authors aren't going to get far in life by saying "lol life is infinitely complex" so they try and apply simple "scientific" hypotheses on why stuff happens.
That said, I don't think it's a bad book but should be read in conjunction with various other books for a more holistic approach. Books about structuralism, the great man theory, and chaos theory would all be great contrasts to Diamond.
>>485369
Best post ITT.
see screencap
I got a funny feeling from the book. Like at its core it's saying "Everything that happened in history had happened because of this particular factor, of which I happen to be a scholar and proponent. Those parts of history that do not conform to this particular point of view will either be presented as conforming to this view, or, more often, ignored, as will be the existence of other factors just as feasible and likely." I don't want it to sound pretentious. And I'm no expert. But it really feels like one man's rather singulary thoughts applied to huge chunks of history. Which just strikes me as very peculiarly lucky to say the least.
>>484932
Personally I think it gets shit on to much. If someone tries claiming that it's some kind of authoritative last word on why European hegemony occurred, then I'd say they're full of shit. BUT Diamond does make some interesting points about factors which may very well have contributed to European hegemony and help to at least partially explain it.
>>485438
This screencap is shoddy desu
>1
There has always been trade along the length of Eurasia, this is the famous silk road.
>2
Homogeneity of crops makes a culture vulnerable to crop failure, this is incontrovertible.
>4
Listing one to three domestic animals per continent doesn't even address the argument that Eurasia had more.
>5
Here I agree, military technologies historically tended to originate from the steppes and this has changed only relatively recently. However, settled peoples have always had a greater production capacity.
>6
Saying that Europeans had military technology does not address the argument that disease helped them.
>7
Not entirely disagreeing, but it's worth considering that dissidents with boats are likely more influential than dissidents without boats
>8
If you think wilderness survival is only a matter of physical prowess, play less vidya
Saying wrong with an exclamation point doesn't make you right.
>>485225
>According to his theory, if you had taken australian aboriginals in 500 B.C. and settled them in Italy, they would've built Rome.
This is how you can tell someone has never read the book and is preaching an agenda or looking for an excuse to project their insecurities.
It's fine for explaining why Eurasia had an advantage over other continents. Its explanation for why the West came out on top over the rest of Eurasia is shit, but it's not a major part of the book anyway. I don't really like how it's written, but its points are mostly solid.
/pol/ just doesn't like it because it's not racist. They have no real argument against it. They'll usually bring up how it's received a lot of academic criticism without realizing that most of that criticism is from liberals who think it's Eurocentric. Then they'll start posting pictures of zebras and that one pathetic screencap because they have nothing else to argue with.
>>485534
>muh genetics
>muh biological makeup which influences literally everything I do as a sentient being
uh yeah it's a tad important duder
>>485591
>Eurasia
>wracked by an Ice Age for the last 50,000 years
>cold
>mountainous
>harsh as fuck and only got a population boost thanks to recent agricultural innovations which made urban growth possible
You're a moron
Who in their right fucking mind thinks Europe has an "advantage"
Africa is a treasure trove of resources with balmy weather and Europeans literally risked life and limb to colonize and have some access to them
THAT's the thing you fail to realize
It's necessity that breeds innovation, not complacency
Harshness makes you stronger as a people
>>485612
memes > genes
>>485440
He's a trained ornithologist senpai
>>484932
it was written by a jew
thats all you need to know
>>485626
Well I can't argue with that
t. Memeticist
>>485626
genes>memes>scenes
>>485639
The defining aspect of being human is the ability to adapt using memes more quickly than natural selection could through genes.
>>485620
I don't even know where to start with this.
>>484932
its shit, op
>>485620
>there is no such thing as equatorial civilization
Literally what?
>>485668
Like clockwork.
>>485664
I don't know what you have to protest. Funnily enough, the "anti-determinism" crowd will USE examples of warm-regional success in building large populations (Mesopotamia, SE Asia, India, etc.) as examples of contradictions, when it merely furthers the notion. These civilizations experienced minor adversity in overcoming the conditions of their land and their development tapered off.
Europeans had a voracious appetite for exploration, trade, innovation, and warfare, derived from their history of hardship, and once agriculture was made accessible to them and population growth possible these qualities manifested in nations rivalling the size of those elsewhere.
What better fucking evidence could you have for a theory like this than the results as they stand.
>No no, having to spend the entirety of your tribal life worrying about the 4 month winter rendering the landscape devoid of food and ample wildlife was actually beneficial and comfy
>>485684
Europeans didn't create any kind of civilization until thousands of years after they started practicing agriculture, and even then it was introduced from the Middle East/Mediterranean.
Why?
>>485711
That is incorrect. Just wrong. Try again.
>the Mediterranean isn't European
kill yourself
>>485719
Your argument is that Europe is some kind of frozen hellhole and that made Europeans superior. The Mediterranean is not a frozen hellhole, it's warm and fucking perfect for civilization. Civilization arose first in the Middle East, and spread quickly to the Mediterranean with its similar climate and close contact with the Middle East. Meanwhile, the colder temperate parts of Europe, despite having agriculture going back to 5000 BC, had no civilization to speak of before they were conquered by the Romans. Civilization then collapsed here, only being preserved in a few monasteries, while the Mediterranean and Middle East continued to flourish. Non-Mediterranean Europe didn't have any indigenous civilization before 800 AD, and even then Europeans had to constantly copy the Mediterranean and Middle Eastern worlds until late in the middle ages.
You're whole theory rests on the idea that colder, harsher climates make people superior, but that clearly doesn't hold true at all.
>>485762
The existence of the warmer Mediterranean Europe as the first landing site of large, orderly civilization in Europe actually supports my stance. Seasonal warmth was a requirement.
Soon, technology advanced and free time for other endeavors surpassed necessity as civilization crept northwards.
The Greeks WERE European. The Romans WERE European. They created the foothold for civilization in the continent that the others built off of and progressed.
>You're whole theory rests on the idea that colder, harsher climates make people superior, but that clearly doesn't hold true at all.
Once the shackles of resource restraint were lifted from the Europeans by technology they were free to pursue their own modes of innovation at an unprecedented rate. Even today, mammoth countries like China are merely creeping up on them in terms of scientific and economic output.
In general, equatorial regions today are places of squalor and low growth. It's important to consider that growth is relative and we are measuring them on a European standard, which may be a false equivalency. It is entirely possible that Europeans (and Westerners) are more adept at developing the notion of modern country we consider today.
>>485806
>The existence of the warmer Mediterranean Europe as the first landing site of large, orderly civilization in Europe actually supports my stance
How?
>Soon, technology advanced and free time for other endeavors surpassed necessity as civilization crept northwards.
How does this differ from the growth of civilization anywhere else.
>The Greeks WERE European. The Romans WERE European.
What's your point? What does that have to do with anything?
>Once the shackles of resource restraint were lifted from the Europeans by technology they were free to pursue their own modes of innovation at an unprecedented rate.
How were 'the shackles of resource restraint' lifted from temperate Europe after 800 AD? Why couldn't they do anything earlier? Why were other people like the Chinese and Persians able to innovate too?
>In general, equatorial regions today are places of squalor and low growth.
Yes, after about 500 years of European dominance. But now equatorial economies are growing far faster than European ones. If Europeans are inherently superior, why is this happening? Shouldn't Europe be able to hold onto its superiority forever?
>>485477
>Here I agree, military technologies historically tended to originate from the steppes and this has changed only relatively recently. However, settled peoples have always had a greater production capacity.
I would disagree insofar that the steppe peoples could only beat the settled peoples after the settle peoples had suffered from an internal disaster (like Rome's crisis of the third century) or weakened by conflict with other settled states (like the conflict between the Jin and Song, the Jin themselves being a recently settled group of nomads).
Even when the nomads were victorious, their empires tended to be short-lived, typically falling apart after the death of the local strong-man like the Huns. The Mongols only avoided this fate by assimilating Chinese administrators and bureaucracy.
>>485664
This is a good start.
>>486144
I've seen this map already, but how do I read this map?
>>486094
Yeah, plus this is pretty wrong:
>military technologies historically tended to originate from the steppes and this has changed only relatively recently
Technologies coming from the steppe were usually limited to ones related to horsemanship, like chariots and stirrups. Everything else, like metallurgy, naval technology, siege engines, gunpowder, fortifications, and so on tended to come from settled civilizations, though they were sometimes spread between civilizations by steppe peoples.
Steppe people were superior because they were both mobile and had a culture of raiding and warfare, not because they were technologically advanced (except when they made settled people work for them like the Mongols did).
>>486182
Yeah, after I posted that I realized I got memed. Was indeed thinking of horse-related techs and forgetting the rest.
>>485867
I think you're misunderstanding my position. I don't think the existence of a period of European dominance disqualifies other regional groups from doing well or accomplishing things. They already have, and for longer. The world is, after all, a global exchange of ideas and resources.
I think, as far as our concept of "modern" and developed civilization goes, Europeans are the most (and that is relative) well suited to the production of this kind of society.
Culturally, to a hazier extent, genetically, they lived in an environment that fostered an inherent, and very serious, need to practice foresight, resourcefulness, spendthrift behavior, their own peculiar modes of environmental analysis. Economists will tell you that a society attuned to the idea of investment, saving, etc. will thrive and one of the popular, although debated, qualifications for European success is Protestant culture itself.
As the punishment for impulsivity and lack of foresight or investment was most severe in colder, more seasonal regions, than in perpetually warm ones, those lacking would simply not survive, much less succeed.
>How does this differ from the growth of civilization anywhere else.
It was only possible once technology made the growth of population in these places possible at all.
>What's your point? What does that have to do with anything?
These are European civilizations that precede your assumption of lack of civilization until the "late middle ages" as you put it.
>>486437
cont.
>How were 'the shackles of resource restraint' lifted from temperate Europe after 800 AD? Why couldn't they do anything earlier? Why were other people like the Chinese and Persians able to innovate too?
I didn't really give an arbitrary date. It was a long-winded process, of both discovery and then application. Given lack of space-time convergence it took a while. I don't discount the ability of the Chinese and Persians to innovate as well.
>But now equatorial economies are growing far faster than European ones.
That's very relative. If I have two chickens and add one more my economy has "grown" by 33% while the rich bastard with 100 who only added one more grew by 1%. And Europe IS still superior. The jury is still out on whether anyone will top Europe/USA anytime soon. They produce A LOT, especially per capita. A lot of China's recent gains can be attributed to fierce borrowing.
>>486168
the colouring is quite shitty, but basically
green = best
blues = decent
orange = okay
yellow /pink = good but easy to ruin
red = consistent but low yields
whites = shit
>>486449
What point are you trying to make with the map? It seems like Europe and North America and Asia have relatively fertile soil?
>>486144
looks like European deforestation really paid off
>>486449
Since I live in Brazil I'm a bit confused
>most of Northeastern Zona da Mata, where a bunch of different cultures (Tobacco, coffee, sugarcane), yet parts of the Caatinga are blue
>coffee, a culture that we became the largest producer uninterruptedly since the 1850, surpassing Java, was mostly grown in shitty areas
>the entire sugar plantations, base of our early colonial economy, were grown in red/orange, coastal areas
>>486535
It seems to grade "soil quality" based on one arbitrary kind of crop or something
the Asian countries do very well for themselves with rice and paddies
>>485762
The Celts and the Germanics had civilisations long before they were conquered by Rome.
>>485030
>“Not until the beginning of the 20th century did Europe's urban populations finally become self-sustaining: before then, constant immigration of healthy peasants from the countryside was necessary to make up for the constant deaths of city dwellers from crowd diseases.”
i wouldn't bat an eyelid if he said 18th century or earlier, 19th century with qualifications, I wonder who he is reading to get a blanket "early 20th century", but if that's the best evidence for an anti-European bias it would seem to be poorly founded hysteria.
>>486595
Europe had huge urban populations during the Roman era, and Byzantium was very urban. It's not technology that matters, it's control. You you need a strong military and a centralised state to have an urban population. Rome had this, Byzantium had this, even the Greek city states had this. When your military falls apart and your state fails, as Rome did in the 400s, and Byzantium after 1204, people abandon the cities for the countryside.
>>486560
I do believe I've heard we use a bunch of fertilizers nowadays. Still, doesn't explain these other oddities.
>>485142
If you are actually saying that all ethnic groups are 100% genetically equal, you are blatantly wrong and retarded.
>>486688
Not that anon, but what genetic determinism are you referring to? Europeans having a high tolerance to alcohol? The production of lactase past childhood?
>all ethnic groups are 100% genetically equal
Nice strawman
>>485691
The idea that the cold had anything to do with civilization is at best impossible to argue to any sufficient degree and at worst is utterly contradicted by the existence of many equatorial civilizations.
I'm not against environmental determinism but the whole cold thing is really really weak.
>>486765
Are you not listening to me at all? I'm saying it prohibited the growth of any significant civilization at all in the region for a long time, while others prospered.
The conditions in colder (not just cold) regions begot a mode of culture (and to another extent genetics) produced from a life of perennial weather adversity.
The tribe led by good leadership taking planning, foresight, resource into account, who planned for stockpiling what they had for winter, shelter, clothing, and trapping/hunting during a period of game scarcity, survived. The one that did not, didn't. By law, these conditions produce some of the more marked cases of cultural value for saving and investment, resourcefulness, etc. It simply wasn't quite as necessary in more comfortable regions, not that it wasn't existent.
So you have a dual existence of Europeans mucking about in small pockets of the continent planning on how to survive while warmer areas flourished. Now, ONCE the technology, often developed in the largest urban areas of the planet, came up to speed, and the land of Europe could be utilized to the max, the population began to explode, and finally reach the levels present worldwide.
A similar population, coupled with their unique set of values, principles, and predispositions, produced a dominant, global hegemon of a continent, as its been for over 500 years.
Do you think its happenstance that Europeans were so incredibly dead-set on global trade, colonization, exploration, cartography, navigation, etc? No one touched their appetite for outward expansion. I think it is the result of a total rejection of cultural/economic complacency, a prioritization of spending, investment, constant foresight, even when it isn't necessary at all. Europeans had a penchant for colonization that bordered on unsustainable: colonies became a net loss with time and ridiculous levels of expansion and investment worldwide.
>>486837
to illustrate this culture some more:
Once Europeans had infought and beat each other down for centuries, the population and resources of the continent came to a head and then they exploded outwards. It's a pattern of unyielding "prospecting" so to speak, that huge civilizations such as China, for example, merely touched on with expeditions such as Zheng He's.
>>486437
So as far as I can tell, you think that temperate Europeans have a genetic advantage over people in warmer Mediterranean and equatorial climates that make them more dynamic and intelligent. That doesn't make any sense considering the history of temperate Europe in relation to the rest of the world.
Here's a quick summary of the growth of civilization in temperate Europe; Agriculture was introduced to temperate Europe around 5000 BC, and from that point on temperate Europe had a fairly large settled population as attested by countless megalithic monuments. There was nothing stopping temperate Europeans from building civilization, but they never did. They spent over 5000 years living in tribal cultures, despite farming the land extensively and supporting fairly complex societies. They never had cities, states, literacy, infrastructure, or any civilization before it was forced on them by the Romans. When Western Rome collapsed, things largely fell apart. Western Europe didn't have much of its own civilization until about 800 AD, when the Carolingians started patronizing culture from the Mediterranean, and the West didn't really emerge as a very significant civilization until around 1000 AD. Before then, civilization in temperate Europe was basically just copied from the Mediterranean, but after that point you start to see Romanesque culture developing in places like France, Germany, and England. Nothing before that point suggests any kind of unique dynamism or intelligence in temperate Europe. Over the next few centuries though, Europe became the world's most dynamic civilization and surpassed the rest of Eurasia.
Now, about the same time that Western Europe started adopting civilization between 800 and 1000 AD, Russia began doing the same. Kievan Rus came under Byzantine influence and patronized Orthodox culture. Like in the West, people living in a colder climate created a literate civilization derived from the Mediterranean.
>>486837
>a life of perennial weather adversity
Droughts aren't adversity, monsoons and cyclones aren't adversity, climatic cycles such as the El Niño - La Niña don't require planning and taking resources into account. The worst weather (you actually mean climate) makes for a better culture and genetics, where's my Tierra del Fuego civilisation m8?
>>486866
According to your theory, once temperate Europe had adopted civilization from the Mediterranean they, because they were genetically more inclined towards dynamism and economic advancement, should have surpassed everyone else and created a more developed and prosperous civilization. But that isn't exactly what happened. Civilization was introduced to western Europe around 50 BC from Rome, but western Europeans didn't suddenly become innovative and prosperous. Instead what happened was that the Romans ruled over western Europe for a few centuries before their civilization was destroyed by the native barbarians, after which the region fell into chaos until around 800 AD, when they started copying the Mediterranean until about 1000 AD.
Only a thousand years after civilization was introduced did western Europeans start building their own uniquely dynamic and innovative civilization. However, even then the West was not just a temperate civilization, since the Mediterranean regions of Italy and Iberia became some of the most innovative parts of the West. Italy was especially important to the West's intellectual and cultural development, while it was the Iberians who pioneered the exploration and colonization of the globe. Temperate Europe was equally important, with much of the West's political and technological development happening there, but there was nothing to suggest that the colder temperate regions were inherently more innovative or dynamic that the warmer Mediterranean ones.
Meanwhile, the Orthodox civilization that developed in Russia continued to develop, but despite its harsh climate (much harsher than anything in Western Europe) it was not especially innovative, dynamic, or prosperous. Ultimately they fell behind the West and ended up having to adopt Western civilization in the 18th century just to compete.
>>484932
>Muh determinism
>Muh environment
>Pleb tier arguments
Read Daron Acemoglu's why nations fail, much better argument.
>>486837
It's a bad argument. You have no evidence. It's just an unsupported hypothesis.
Also, every place on the world faces many forms of adversity. You are drawing an arbitrary distinction between hardships of "successful" regions and those of "less successful" regions.
The desire to explore was due to the wish to bypass the Ottoman monopoly of the Indian spice trade. The desire to conquer and convert among the Spanish was due to the mindset of the Reconquista. The desire to establish colonial empires was born of the tremendous wealth Spain accrued from the Americas.
>>486875
This.
>>486872
Now, according to your theory, Europeans living in colder temperate climates should have been naturally more innovative and prosperous once civilization was introduced from warmer regions, but that is not the case; western Europe didn't emerge as an especially dynamic or prosperous region until over a thousand years after the introduction of civilization under the Romans, which initially ended in failure.
According to your theory, temperate Europe should have been naturally more dynamic and prosperous than Mediterranean Europe, but for most of the West's history that was not the case; even in the high middle ages, long after civilization was introduced to temperate Europe, Italy was often the most dynamic and prosperous part of that civilization, often being the richest and most urbanized part of the West and being the origin of many cultural developments.
According to your theory, the Russians should have been just as (if not more) dynamic as western Europeans because their very harsh winters would have given them genetic superiority, but that was not the case; Russian civilization developed fairly slowly and ultimately had to Westernize, never able to surpass the Mediterranean civilization which it was derived from.
I could go on:
According to your theory, the Western world should have been economically dominated by northern Europeans, but instead we find that the most economically enterprising people in the West were generally the people with the least northern European blood; Jews.
Basically, your theory doesn't make any sense. It doesn't explain anything that can't be explained by other means, and it is contradicted by the history of both Europe and the wider world. The West certainly was the world's most innovative civilization for close to a millennium, but this had nothing to do with some unique genetic disposition; it was because of the right mix of geographic, institutional, economic, political, and ideological factors, not a single cause.
>>486582
Keep believing that.
>>486614
>people abandon the cities for the countryside.
Death rates in medieval European cities outpaced birth rates, yet young men flocked to them in the hope that they would be like Dick Whittington and climb up from peasantry.
>>486894
Fucking ravaged him. Well done Anon.
>>486869
I didn't omit the existence of other forms of environmental adversity worldwide. 4-5 months of barren cold are standard for non-equatorial regions. This is a long, perennial, and high-effect event, not just random cataclysms, it's not a 1:1 comparison and the results won't be the same, especially over a period of, let's say ~70,000 years of divergent development.
>>486866
>>486872
First off, "temperate Europe" IS the Med zone. Spain, Southern France, Italy, Greece, etc. If you are going to claim they didn't produce civilization and significant achievement, that is laughable. I think this disqualifies most of your first paragraph as you seem to think these are two different regions.
Also, please stop spouting the "Dark Ages" meme, it is wrong. There was no period of "darkness", fucking Charlemagne was overseeing a powerful HRE state during that time frame and the rest of the continent was progressing fine on its own. It doesn't reflect a very thorough knowledge of history.
One civilization does not equal another. The world today, and of this past 500 year period, is much different than that of conventional, ancient civilizations. The presence of conditions I've mentioned doesn't assert that a people living there MUST follow a deterministic path therewith, especially not in an arbitrary period of time you're expectant for. I think the Orthodox region of Europe fell prey to repeated and destructive Mongol and Turkish invasions, on top of not being in a favorable coastal position to expand.
It is worth noting as well, that much of the WORLD, was still progressing very slowly (with regards to the recent rapid pace of development), prior to 3,000 or so years ago. The defining factor was large population zones.
>>486900
>what is Gauls living in villages
>>486894
>should have
>should have
How do you decide the time frame? Why are you expecting things to happen back to back sequentially, as if the application of new knowledge and growth of civilization doesn't take time, anywhere?
>muh tautology
No
>>486887
Why didn't China, or India, or Arabs, Africans discover and colonize the Americas first? With all of their older, and larger civilizations?
Why were they noticeably less intent on outward expansion? Global resource acquisition as opposed to immediate regional gains?
There is an element of agency associated with European powers that is simply unprecedented in terms of impetus.
>>486945
>First off, "temperate Europe" IS the Med zone. Spain, Southern France, Italy, Greece
>>486965
>>486970
>>486965
Uh, is this supposed to contradict what I said?
>>486900
>what is iron working
>>486982
Apart from Scandinavia and Russia, Europe seems to be classified at temperate?
>>486989
So, you are looking at Europe in particular. Which part of Europe would you call "temperate Europe", as opposed to, well "non-temperate Europe".
Bear in mind I didn't really start introducing this term into the discussion.
>>486991
Obviously there is going to be a temperature gradient, and we could also differentiate on the habitat level. I was mostly pointing out that 'cold' and 'temperate' are very general terms.
>>486945
>First off, "temperate Europe" IS the Med zone. Spain, Southern France, Italy, Greece, etc. If you are going to claim they didn't produce civilization and significant achievement, that is laughable. I think this disqualifies most of your first paragraph as you seem to think these are two different regions.
Do you not understand your own theory? You say that Europeans were disposed towards innovation and economic development because their harsh winters made them more dynamic and intelligent. If you include warm Mediterranean regions which did not experience winters any harsher than those in the Middle East and many other parts of the world, then your whole theory makes no sense. How could the Greeks and Romans and Italians have been made more dynamic by the harsh winters that other Europeans experienced, but not them? Europe was not and is not a unified body.
>Also, please stop spouting the "Dark Ages" meme, it is wrong. There was no period of "darkness", fucking Charlemagne was overseeing a powerful HRE state during that time frame and the rest of the continent was progressing fine on its own. It doesn't reflect a very thorough knowledge of history.
You're spouting memes yourself with this 'Dark Ages' never happened thing. Reread my post, and you'll see that I said European civilization was revived by 800 AD, though it was still dependent on the Mediterranean until about 1000 AD with the rise of Romanesque culture, soon followed by Gothic. Before 800 AD however, there was little indigenous development in Western Europe; literacy was limited to a few isolated monasteries while most former Roman Gaul and Britain declined. Some civilization still remained in Visigoth Iberia and Ostrogoth Italy for a while, but neither lasted and either way, both were Mediterranean.
>>487009
>One civilization does not equal another. The world today, and of this past 500 year period, is much different than that of conventional, ancient civilizations. The presence of conditions I've mentioned doesn't assert that a people living there MUST follow a deterministic path therewith, especially not in an arbitrary period of time you're expectant for.
I have no idea what you're trying to say here, or how it contradicts my argument.
>I think the Orthodox region of Europe fell prey to repeated and destructive Mongol and Turkish invasions, on top of not being in a favorable coastal position to expand.
Yes, I agree. This region failed because of geographic and political regions, as did other regions in Eurasia. The West however, did not face these problems; it had an advantage in being mostly sheltered from steppe invaders and having a long coastline. These among many other facts lead to the West's dominance. Genetics and winter don't factor in.
>It is worth noting as well, that much of the WORLD, was still progressing very slowly (with regards to the recent rapid pace of development), prior to 3,000 or so years ago. The defining factor was large population zones.
Yeah, okay. What's your point?
>>486614
but he isn't talking about classical populations. he's talking about 20th century populations.
which what he said was true.
wealth was funneled upward and the vast majority of the population was basically peasants.
Anything said of European populations that is slightly negative means it's a bias? Every region has good and bad. You are just acting /pol/ish.
>>487002
I didn't introduce the term "temperate". I've only been referencing Europe as a continent in total and the anon I was discussing with started distinguishing between "temperate Europe" and the Mediterranean which doesn't really make any sense.
Because someone wrote a much better version of it ten years prior and no one noticed. Alfred Crosby's "Ecological Imperialism" asks the same question and comes to a similar answer, but with far, far more thought and elaboration.
Instead of the NYT list-grabbing "Herp, Derp & Derp" answer, Crosby more-or-less argues that Europeans pretty much exported the entire European ecological system when they started exploring, and that the rats, grasses, weeds, horses, etc, etc, had a far bigger impact than anyone really gives credit for.
>>486988
The same thing that every backward-ass tribe in Africa had?
>>487013
>started distinguishing between "temperate Europe" and the Mediterranean which doesn't really make any sense.
By temperate, I mean the areas that actually have harsh winters. These are the only places where your theory actually applies.
>>486962
Many reasons.
Mainly that Europe has more sea around it, forcing those cultures to invest in a Navy more than others. Same reason japan expanded the way it did.
All cultures were interested in outward expansion. But going by land was much slower than going by sea, and sea faring had reached a point where many cultures saw it as too expensive to invest into, not knowing how much sea life would benefit the populations.
Whereas Europe had no other option BUT to go out into the sea.
>>487014
>rats, grasses, weeds, horses, etc, etc, had a far bigger impact than anyone really gives credit for.
How so?
Somebody mentioned a better book than this one the other day I forgot what book was it?
>>487029
To clarify, I mean the green/blue parts of Europe in this map. Italy, Greece, and most of Iberia on the other hand have climates more like that in much of the Middle East.
>>487032
I won't be here. Respond now or just give up, I'm sick of this argument.
>>487014
>Ecological Imperialism
I see people mention this book a lot, but they don't seam to realise that it and GG&S are trying to answer completely different questions; GG&S is about why Eurasia came out on top over Africa, America, and Australia, while Ecological Imperialism is specifically about European colonialism. They are related, but separate theories, and they don't really conflict.
>>487040
Not that anon and I haven't read that book, but would it have been as easy for Europeans to have established colonies if they weren't able to bring their domesticated plants and animals? For example, if they had to rely completely on the species found in Australia, would they have been able to colonise it at all?
>>487084
But the thing is that a lot of bomb ass domesticated plants came from the Americas.
Europeans exported their lifestyles like their farming practices and that's why the regions with the most whites to this day are temperate, but to say they exported their agriculture seems like an odd way to put it. Also, I don't see the value in wording it that way. What significance is there to Europeans exporting their ecology? Is he saying other peoples were unable to export their ecology?
>>487040
This guy >>487084
almost has it, but also European grasses grew more aggressivley and choked out the local plants because European hoofed animals were trodding all over and eating the local ones, which weren't adapted to it.
This means that horses and cattle disrupt an ecosystem well enough that, with the addition of some European weeds and grasses, the whole thing collapses and you end up with a "Neo-Europe" in ecological terms within a few decades.
There are dozens more examples to explain this, and the book actually spends a lot of time focused on New Zealand because it's colonization is well documented from both the perspective of the settlers and the natives, and what we learn is that the Maori collapsed because the ecosystem they had come to depend on also largely collapsed in the face of European invaders. Sure, they adapted, but by then the whites were in possession of most of the country.
>>487072
Okay, that sounds right. I was confused about the implied relevance.
"anti racist" ideolog. so basically, you who are arguing this book is shit are racist ideologs. none of you are worth the shit clinging to his shoes. none of you have seen 1 millionth of the world that he has seen. im not saying he's a god. hes just a popular anthropologist. just saying that you people are complete idiots who would do the world a favor by committing suicide. just saying.
>>487116
Supposing that European grasses overtook American grasses, what impact would that have even had on humans?
And it's not like the Americas didn't have animals that grazed on grass.
All in all, there is a much better case for diseases playing the largest role in the success of Europeans in the Americas.
>>487109
I'm not talking about domestic plants, I'm talking about invasive species, domestic or otherwise, and unintended outcomes from introducing them. For example; The first attempt to settle Argentina failed, but some horses got loose and went feral. By the time anyone tried again, there were millions of horses and most of the local grasses and shrubs had been eaten or trampled and the only things left to grow were European plants that could survive that. There was no human decision for that to happen, it just did, and Whites were able to reap the benefits almost purely by accident.
>>487137
What happens to a hunter-gatherer society when all of their plants, with known utilities like food or medicinal use, are replaced by unknown ones?
>>485369
I'm sorry I never understood this argument. SO say it is hard to prove( you can't really PROVE anything in science btw, only support it as something that makes more sense to believe in) Why does it make any better to default and say it's all "muh genetics." DO you even know what that's? Saying that means their are a specific set of genes or at least linked genes that contribute to certain behaviors. We can't even attribute a specific set of genes to many diseases, yet somehow, you just want to waltz on in and say everything with mechanisms we can't explain has to be genetics. That's intellectually lazy if not dishonest and you know it.
>>487143
But that didn't happen. Pigs were a nuisance and horses changed how Great Plains Amerindians hunted buffalo, but beyond that their agricultural and hunting practices were left intact.
Disease and infighting (due to higher demand for fur trapping grounds and the introduction of firearms) are what led to European success in the Americas, not grass.
>>487158
>Why does it make any better to default and say it's all "muh genetics."
It doesn't. But if you are in among a crowd that genetics is the cause of socioeconomic differences then there is no problem with bringing up Diamond. Diamond's arguments have just as much if not more merit than any argument about genetics.
>>487170
I havent read the books he's referring too, but it seems like that may have been the case on New Zealand, which was brought up earlier in the thread, that the Maori had troubles adapting to the new flora and fauna, and when they did, it was too late.
>>487202
Didn't they struggle a whole hell of a lot more with disease?
>>487263
Probably, but isnt that part of the "European package" so to speak? Disease has usually worked in the Europeans favor when it came to colonization, but other anons are right in pointing out that flora and fauna brought in from Europa changed the life of the original inhabitants in pretty large ways sometimes. The Incas only had llamas before cows and horses, and you dont use llamas for agriculture lemme tell you that, and they aint THAT good at hauling shit around either when you compare the weight an ox can pull.
>>485534
>>tumblr
>there's no difference between human sub-races guys, we can interbreed i mean come on its almost 2016, we're all equal which is also why most important inventions/discoveries came from Europe!
>And the only reason they've done so well is becuase of them exploiting others i mean come on, it doesn't matter that there are isolated tribes which lives Their lives as primitive as possible becuase they haven't been given the tech of europe, they'll figure it out themselves!
>>487280
Europeans used domesticated animals to their advantage but those species didn't largely contribute to the downfall of Amerindian populations by themselves.
Guns, Germs, and Steel seems to have a better explanation for the asymmetry of European fighting for and colonization of Amerindian lands and other isolated human populations like Polynesian peoples.
>>487301
I'm not really claiming that the animals brought on the downfall, but rather that their very introduction into the environment and into the lives of those Amerindians living there, they changed the way those people lived their lives and the work they could preform. Much more land was put to use after the Colombian exchange due to the introduction of horses and cattle.
So while germs had a bigger influence on the outcome of the fighting, the lives of the remaining 10% of Indians not fucked to shit by smallpox were probably changed more by the new animals and plants brought to them.
If it sounds like I'm downplaying germs here, I'm not, just trying to give some credit to beasts and shit.
>>487323
The way people were going on about Crosby's argument it sounded like they were saying that Europeans caused an ecological collapse. I have no evidence of any such collapse and the fact that ecological was brought up kind of implied anons were talking about factors that weakened Amerindians in the face of conflict with Europeans. But it seems to me that the introduction of horses and cattle were largely a benefit to Amerindians. They were afterall bred to be useful tools for humans.
Maybe I'm missing the point of Crosby's arguments.
>>487290
>it doesn't matter that every country on this planet is built from the foundation and up through european inventions, ideas, technology, i mean come on!
fuck, you would expect some critical thinking to be common on a board which is based on history, but apparently there's more black lives matter members here than at the local welfare agency
>>487344
Well in the end the Europeans were, a lot of "useless" species have gone extinct and biological diversity or what you would call it has gone down. This is a "bad" thing in theory, because it sucks when things disappear, but most animals Europeans brought with them were useful tools for them, and thus were useful tools for the indigenous population where-ever they went (usually, I bet there's exceptions). Same way with what the Europeans brought back, I mean potatoes are crazy, just look how it helped the Irish until it didnt.
I believe Crosby's argument is that things died and that's bad. And the fact that human lives improved a lot isn't as important. Maybe its an quantity over quality argument he makes, I'm not sure since I've not read the book but only read other things on the subject and this is just my take on it.
>>487385
>I believe Crosby's argument is that things died and that's bad. And the fact that human lives improved a lot isn't as important.
That clears up my confusion, but if that's the case then I really don't care about Crosby's conclusions. Everyone already knows that globalism is reducing global biodiversity and I personally care more about humans or how ecology effects humans than ecology itself.
>>487401
I agree. I'd rather that we could improve our lives without killing off species, but taking what we know now and applying it to people back then who clearly where not in a globalist mindset or really aware of the consequences of their actions feels a bit unfair.
>>486728
Or perhaps he's referring to intelligence?
Or are you a SJW who genuinely believes intelligence has NO genetic basis whatsoever? If that's the case there's no point arguing with you because you're an idiot.
A Chihuahua and a Golden Retriever are both dogs but one is, in general, much smarter than the other.
>>487038
That's a cheap copout. Shoreline isn't unique to Europe and there's plenty of it worldwide.
>Same reason Japan expanded the way it did
lmao, their entire history has been largely isolationist save for that small 10 year period in WW2.
>>487190
>lmao it's all luck of the draw
I don't really think so
he has almost no objective ground to stand on and his book is a huge, speculative mess
We do have SOME empirical data to support a genetic stance
>>487501
The evidence is obvious. Afro-Eurasia had a HUGE interconnected population and a lot of specialists freed up from manual labor thanks to domesticated animals. The negative impact germs had on Amerindians was just as obvious.
>>487527
>The evidence is obvious
How is that a sufficient response. What about the enormous plagues in Europe? (of which there were multiple)
Also who cares if Amerindians were wracked by European plague if they didn't even have the means to resist their far superior technology regardless.
I could probably find a hole or contradiction in every paragraph of his book.
>>487547
>What about the enormous plagues in Europe? (of which there were multiple)
That's the whole point m8, Europeans had a longer temporal period of exposure to these pathogens in which to develop adaptations.
>>487559
but that's genetic lel
>>485534
>Literally the only argument I ever see
Because you're illiterate, I guess.
>>487571
Yes it is, no one is claiming that a disease with a high mortality rate doesn't result in a strong selection pressure for resistant traits.
>>486728
No, there's a whole bunch of factors that are influenced by genes, including temperament, self control, endurance, strength, intelligence etc.
Why would you make the assumption that all ethnic groups would be equally good at everything when they evolved to survive in different environments?
For example, if a European and an East African were both raised in an East African tribe. I would have no doubts than the African would be more successful in traditional African hunting, ie hunting a prey until exhaustion.
>>487599
and the reason why this can't be extended to other human traits is ____________
>hard mode: no "muh fee fees"
>>487741
>there's a whole bunch of factors that are influenced by genes
yes there are, I'm not sure if you're thinking about it on the relevant time frame however.
>Why would you make the assumption that all ethnic groups would be equally good at everything when they evolved to survive in different environments?
The fucking strawmen, come on.
the post you are replying to "Europeans having a high tolerance to alcohol? The production of lactase past childhood? "
Am I not implying that Europeans have a better ability to consume alcohol (without dying) than say Australian Aboriginals, or that populations which have the gene's to digest dairy products are 'better at utilising this food source' which is the opposite of what you claimed.
>equally good at everything
>>487747
Not all selective pressure have such a direct cause as something which is likely to kill you quickly. The time frame is the problem, in addition to the division of effects between genetic and environmental, genotype and phenotype. Not the heritability of human traits, more the speed at which genetic mutations occur, and the various factors influencing the expression of your genetics. (All humans have genetics for being amazing long distance runners compared to other species, hasn't stopped millions from becoming obese)
>>487747
It's certainly possible, but it doesn't explain, why, for example, Mespotamia developed agriculture long before Europe, or why Egypt developed a unified nation-state millennia before any kind of written history appears West of the Danube.
If genetic causes were responsible for history, I'd expect that effect to be consistent across time. Western Europe has only really differentiated itself from the rest of the civilized world in the last 500 years or so. If you could travel the world and compare notes in 1000 AD, Europe wouldn't even be on your radar what with the Chinese and Arabs.
>>487795
It's fairly well accepted that, as human population groups spread and diverged, they went through serious bottlenecks along their path of migration.
We can see tangible evidence of athletic and physiological differences, physical differences, I mean they're all human but some groups of humans are just better at certain things than others, depending on how you split your group up
>>487799
>It's certainly possible, but it doesn't explain, why, for example, Mespotamia developed agriculture long before Europe
Something to do with "large, fertile valley" and "nexus of population movement".
>If you could travel the world and compare notes in 1000 AD, Europe wouldn't even be on your radar what with the Chinese and Arabs.
Rome and Hellenistic Greece trounce any civilization produced in these areas in terms of influence within that recent period. Do you even history dude?
The Chinese did fuck all in terms of geopolitics, other than being a reclusive trade destination.
>>487802
>I mean they're all human but some groups of humans are just better at certain things than others
But does that majority of the variation exist within a group or between groups? are 90% of x group better than y group at z, or are 55% of x better than y at z?
>>487817
In the case of innovation, development is driven by a very small group of highly able people within the larger population group. Something like 1-5%, while the rest kind of go through the motions.
Let's say you have two bell curves representing two respective populations and their abilities. One curve is shifted slightly more to the right. While there will be a lot of crossover, the tail-end group of the rightmost curve will be considerably larger, rendering development more rapid and the ceiling higher.
It's the easiest way to conceptualize it. Especially if one group has a more pronounced amount of variance within said trait.
>>487802
also the major bottle neck for all humans was the Toba eruption.
we can see evidence, here's one significant example
>This implies distinct mechanisms of adaptation to low oxygen supply occurring in the two distinct populations. In this way they are able to evade both the effects of hypoxia and mountain sickness throughout life. Even when they climbed the highest summits (like the Mt. Everest), they showed regular oxygen uptake, greater ventilation, more brisk hypoxic ventilatory responses, larger lung volumes, greater diffusing capacities, constant body weight and a better quality of sleep, compared to other people from the lowland.[31] Recent research indicates that altitudinal adaptation in Tibetan people is associated with a version of the EPAS1 gene acquired from archaic hominins (Denisovans).
As I was saying the time frame is an issue, as it says, these weren't recent genetic mutations, but inherited from Denisovans an survived through the genetic bottlenecks.
>>487158
>Why does it make any better to default and say it's all "muh genetics."
where did I say anything like that in my post? Did you reply to the right person?
>>487849
meant we can see evidence of physiological differences
>>487812
>Something to do with "large, fertile valley" and "nexus of population movement".
What's that?
Geographic factors mattered more than ethnic factors? Say it isn't so.
>Rome and Hellenistic Greece trounce any civilization produced in these areas in terms of influence within that recent period.
Well, the Arabs had a far more lasting political and cultural impact on MENA.
China administered the world's largest population, and is to this day the world's largest nation.
Rome and Greece, in the long term, were only relevant because the influenced what form the European nation-states would take after the Enlightenment. Prior to the Scientific Revolution and the Enlightenment, Europe was pitiful compared to the Chinese, or compared to whatever empire was dominating the Middle East at that time.
You can try to suit history to an ethnic narrative, but the evidence isn't really there. Western Europe came very late to the civilized world, and almost immediately receded back from literacy and urbanization.
>>487834
>the case of innovation, development
But these aren't a simple trait dependant upon a single gene, selection pressure is going to be a complex interaction of many factors likely to influence most human populations.
Comparing a genetically identical population of hunter gatherers and a population with agriculture, you would expect more innovation and development in the agricultural population.
>>487849
If a population was separated for 50,000 years from another, I would think it stands to reason that they would develop tangible differences
I mean, they have. Skin color, hair color and texture, slight skeletal differences, etc.
I think Australian Aboriginals are one of the clearest cases of this, they are very odd and have been in near-total isolation for 50,000+ years
>>487864
This is an abhorrently ignorant post.
> Geographic factors mattered more than ethnic factors? Say it isn't so.
Yes, one of the first and largest urban centers in the world developed some of the first important bits of civilization. Where are they now?
> Well, the Arabs had a far more lasting political and cultural impact on MENA.
Which has been an irrelevant shithole for 800 years, to use your kind of black and white reasoning
> China administered the world's largest population, and is to this day the world's largest nation.
And has accomplished nothing and at 1.5 billion people is still lagging behind a country of 300 million in TOTAL economy
> Rome and Greece, in the long term, were only relevant because the influenced what form the European nation-states would take after the Enlightenment. Prior to the Scientific Revolution and the Enlightenment, Europe was pitiful compared to the Chinese, or compared to whatever empire was dominating the Middle East at that time.
Not at all. The influence of Rome and Greece echoed throughout European history and influenced a ton of civs thereafter, notably the HRE. China made rudimentary rocket-sticks, little Portugal made actual guns and sold them to them in the 15th century.
> You can try to suit history to an ethnic narrative, but the evidence isn't really there. Western Europe came very late to the civilized world, and almost immediately receded back from literacy and urbanization.
>he spouts the dark ages meme
I really can't, you speak like a typical liberal revisionist
>let's focus on all of the best qualities of other regions while diminishing Europe
not an effective strategy my friend, do you want to start this one?
>>487873
But evolution doesn't just happen for the fun of it, and there is no foresight 'aiming' towards greater intelligence or anything. of course there is always going to be some degree of genetic drift, but this by definition doesn't refer to non randomly selected traits.
also they're more closely related to Europeans than some African populations.
>>487868
And what if these populations are not genetically identical? I was never alluding to a genetically identical set of groups, hence the discrepancy.
If one group produces more individuals better at something than another, they'll do it better and dominate.
>>487898
and all of the variation in from that pic fits into the bottom line in, pic related
>>487898
For the same reason humans developed higher intelligence over other primates, would individual human groups develop higher intelligence (in some domain) over other human groups, dependent on subjective experiences. Intelligence is more prioritized in some cases than others.
>>487894
>dark ages meme
>people are literally so analblasted by history that they just put their hands over their ears and start yelling whenever somebody brings it up
I can't help but notice that around 300 BC you had Rome, Carthage, Athens, Sparta, and Macedon, all of which were extremely literate, urbanized societies.
Around 600 AD, none of these survived. In fact, there were no civilizations at all in that part of the world.
>>487911
>extremely literate, urbanized societes
Well, they stayed urban. "Extreme literacy", that's a stretch, education has historically been confined to the academic and upper classes until recently and that didn't change.
>calling Sparta and Macedon highly literate
lol
>in fact, there were no civilizations at all in that part of the world
There were plenty, they just weren't the mega-Empire that Rome had been and were therefore comparatively less prominent.
>I can pinpoint a date in the calendar when less stuff happened than usual
great
>>487911
>Around 600 AD, none of these survived. In fact, there were no civilizations at all in that part of the world.
You know that the Roman Empire was still around. In 600 AD they were probably the second most powerful state on earth after Sui.
>>487930
>I can pinpoint a date in the calendar when less stuff happened than usual
And I can point out a period where human society in a large part of the world went backwards by 500-1000 years.
>>487934
The Byzantines existed, but in Western Europe?
Not really.
You wouldn't get the first signs of life returning in that region until Venice and the other Italian merchant states, and the Carolingians.
>>487910
>would individual human groups develop higher intelligence (in some domain) over other human groups
Of course, but the time frame is the problem, over thousands of years only the most minuscule differences would be accumulated.
But for example if someone of average intelligence develops farming and or herding for their tribe then the subsequent apparent increase in intelligence (from more food and potential for greater specialisation) for the population would be explained much more thoroughly by the fact that human intelligence has evolved over millions of years and has reached the point where developments such as these became possible (rather than potential selective pressures in the past couple of thousand years), the individual may have been slightly smarter on average so the lucky genetics may have been a role, but the 'luck' to have domesticable species in your region, and the environmental effects from this shift in food acquisition method would be far more important in explaining the different 'intelligence' of the two populations.
>>487949
>in that part of the world
>Athens, Sparta, Macedon
>>487949
>the Byzantines are suddenly not European
that's funny, I swore you just named Athens, Sparta, and Macedon as "European" societies. In 600 AD, Constantinople was the largest city in the world and the center of Christendom. They still held large parts of Europe including most of the Italian Peninsula.
>>487964
If you have information about what happened to Greece in Late Antiquity, I'd be glad to stop shitflinging and talk about that.
This subject interests me.
>>487949
>mention Greece
>suddenly backpedal like a mofo when someone points out Greece was under Byzantine control
>>487949
Since when are Carthage, Macedon, Sparta and Athens western Europe?
>>487910
Also check out https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect
What do you guys think of this book?
>>488091
I think picador are a shitty mass market publisher.
>>488091
The graphic design is not good
>>488091
I think the eyes of those horses are creepy.
>>487910
Those differences are likely inconsequential because of the relative recent genetic bottleneck of all of humanity and the fact that humans adopt largely memetically rather than genetically. The tribe with the best structure and tech wins rather than the tribe with the much more slowly evolved better genes.
>>486875
OP here, this is next on my reading list. Had to read a few of Acemoglu's papers for a business class. His stuff seemed to make a lot of sense
>>484932
Its not, but apparently 400 well-argued pages with citations is easily countered by screaming ANTI-WHITE PROPAGANDA, RACE WAR NOW, NIGGERS ARE DUMB xD
>>485620
t. someone who has never been to africa and doesnt know anything about it
>>486535
coffee usually has to be grown at high altitudes. Unfortunately Brazils coffee is becoming more unbearably shit every season from only planting the same variety (bourbon) at lower altitudes. Gigantic acres of coffee being fucked up by mechanical pluckers and pesticides. Fortunately some areas in Minais Gerais are producing drinkable stuff
I read this book some years ago, and provided many "aha" moments. Diamond's explanations are extremely compelling, even to someone with more than a passing education in history, geography and historiography. Of course, they are all a "just so" story, rather than an accurate representation of how things turned out. Geography *of course* is important in the historical development of different nations and civilizations. Is geography (along with associated factors of agricultural technology, domesticated animals and his pained explanation about why Europeans were better with guns than the Chinese who invented them) the only factor in why Western Civilization grew to dominate others? Of course it isn't. Europe had no unique access to these things: Asian civilizations had arguably superior such advantages. Victor Davis Hanson makes a similar "one factor" argument in his book "Carnage and Culture." Hanson's argument is that Westerners are simply better at war than other civilizations, because most Westerners were influenced by the Ancient Greeks, who developed a superior method of combat and of developing innovations than other nations did. Is Hanson's theory 100% the One True Answer? No, the rise of Japan and the invincibility of Mongol raiders rather puts his theory to fault, but it's at least as important as geography.
There are all kinds of "one factor" arguments possible, all of which could make for as convincing a book as this one. Victorian historians thought it was the vigor of "nordic" civilizations which made Western world domination inevitable: also convincing if that was the only book you had read on that particular day, and also ultimately deeply silly (basically, this means the West dominates because it is dominant). Other Victorian historians made out human history to be the product of great battles, all of which had a huge element of random chance. Spengler also famously thought of civilizations as "cultural organisms" which eventually get old, become frail and die, just like any other organism whose telemeres have gotten shorter. I would imagine, like in, say, finance, the actual explanation for history is kind of complicated. I bet the Greek way of war has something to do with it, along with geography, culture, the Catholic Church, language and a whole lot of random chance. It's nice to think we know exactly why something happened, but a lot of what happens in the world, especially the world of human beings, is just plain random noise. Putting one factor explanations on history as Diamond does is not particularly helpful.
Finally, there are the matters of Diamond's historical veracity and bigotry. To address the second thing first, he seems to take a sort of perverse glee in making racial pronouncements to the detriment of "Western" people. According to Diamond, Western people are dirty, and have developed special immune systems; something I find hard to believe, and doubt is backed up by anything resembling statistical fact. Why wouldn't east Asians have developed superior immune systems? They lived in cities longer than the ancestors of most Westerners. Also, according to Diamond, he can tell that the average New Guinean is "on the average more intelligent, more alert, more expressive and more interested in things and people than the average European or American. (page 20, along with a tortured explanation of why Diamond's vacation perceptions are supposed to be superior to a century of psychometric research)" This is the sort of casual bigotry that used to inform Nordicist history about the dominance of the West, except somehow it becomes politically correct when pointed at Western people in modern times. Personally, I figure this just makes Diamond a garden variety modern bigot: a late 20th century version of a pith helmeted Kipling type who yammers on about "lesser breeds without the law."
To make matters worse, he's also empirically wrong: New Guineans have an average IQ of around 85, wheras Europeans and Americans are closer to 95 or 100, depending where you look (source; wakipedia). His historical veracity leaves rather a lot to be desired as well. I don't think he actually *knows* any history, other than the type of silliness you pick up in High School history classes. Diamond is a professional zoologist by trade, and it shows. For example, his ideas about China would be laughable to a Chinese person conversant with their history. He also got some of the dates and a lot of facts wrong about the conquest of South America. Sure, lots of Aztecs and Incas died of disease: most of them *after* they were conquered by the Spaniards. In fact, the few Spaniards there were were far more afflicted by tropical diseases than were the Aztecs: this is recorded historical fact. Yet, it doesn't fit Diamond's "Westerner as plague rat" theory, so he doesn't think to bring it up. Either he learned his history of the conquest of South America in a comic book, or he's deliberately misleading the reader. This is a complete travesty, and rather indicates you shouldn't trust anything else he's stated either.
