Is it any good?
What are the common criticisms of his thesis?
Are there any books or articles that address his argument?
What alternative arguments and authors would be ideal to read alongside/instead?
>asking for a review of Guns, Germs and Steel on /his/
>>811382
>not responding to the OP in a constructive fashion
>>811378
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Ny338t8pts&t=1392
>>811378
>Is it any good?
No
>What are the common criticisms of his thesis?
It disputes the superiority of the white race
>>811702
False flag detected
It's pure conjecture and pretty selective in what it puts forward. Attempted justification in terms of resources why the west got ahead but has some major flaws.
>>811378
https://www.reddit.com/r/badhistory/comments/2bv2yf/guns_germs_and_steel_chapter_3_collision_at/
https://www.reddit.com/r/badhistory/comments/2cfhon/guns_germs_and_steel_chapter_11_lethal_gift_of/
Here actual Historians rip it apart.
>inb4 DUUUR REDDIT
Reddit legitimately has the best history boards on the internet due to the need too provide sources on all information.
>>811378
>Is it any good?
No.
>What are the common criticisms of his thesis?
Geographical determinism is taken about as seriously as genetic determinism.
>Are there any books or articles that address his argument?
He doesn't really make one. His strain of extreme determinism is pretty nearly self-refuting tho.
>What alternative arguments and authors would be ideal to read alongside/instead?
Watch the series by Kenneth Clark called "Civilisation" on youtube.
>>811753
>suggesting Youtube as an alternative to reading a book
The fuck anon?
>>811378
I thought this book was going to be really badass when I bought it but all it boils down to is
>m-muh seeds
>m-m-m-muh germination
It's a silly book and I wouldn't recommend it.
>>811378
>Common criticisms
Massive oversimplification and exaggeration of what is a well know factor, presented as a new idea. Also removes all notion of agency in the development of cultures and societies, placing it all on geographical determinism.
>>811767
>muh snobbery
A video is perfectly fine for something like this, especially a fine series like "Civilisation".
Basically it does what every other "idea on how/why something is/happened". It starts fine and takes a decent idea that provides some explanation to the answer but then goes wrong like always and tries to make it the only reason and apply it to every single situation.
So many works fall into this trap. The best course is to read them yourself and put all the different "this is why ideas" together all working and influencing each other.
>>811749
>a refutation of Diamond that isn't just 'he doesn't take race into account'
Fucking finally.
Spengler's theory makes more sense
>>811836
>Spengler's theory
Explain the Ottoman Empire. 400 years without significant regime change should never happen if Spengler is right.
>>811378
It was written by an ornithologist, for the population at large. What do you think? Everyone in the anthropological community hates him. His theories have no academic basis.
I understand the need for popular science, and popular humanities literature, but usually the content ends up being a platform for some asshole autodidact out for glory.
>>811378
Jared Diamond trained as an ecologist and studied birds for a living before deciding to write hist book. He has NO expertise in history, in economics, in politics, in anthropology, or really in anything even remotely relevant when writing a history of the world.
>>811840
Ottoman is the only long lasting empire now?
>>811857
The only one I know of with such a long period of stability. 200 years is generally the upper limit.
What are the arguments against environmental determinism? For the most part, it makes sense to me.
>>811840
It's not set in stone. He doesn't say "this event will definitely happen at this point in a culture's lifetime". He gives a general guideline of 1000 years for a culture's lifetime but it's open to exception.
>>811872
Genes and culture exist.
The book is fine. Take it with a grain of salt though. The idea is fine but not universal. Meaning he has decent ideas but it doesn't apply to every place and there are of course other factors. For example Pacific Islands don't have very big metal ore reserves so didn't really develop metallurgy. This doesn't apply to every culture that didn't develop like the west of course and there were other factors affecting the Pacific Islands as well.
I learned some interesting things like how surprisingly very few civilizations went and independently made a written language.
>>811854
>attacking the debaters credentials instead of countering his argument.
nice ad hominem bro.
as for the book itself. People are so fucking obsessed with Diamond either being 100% right or 100% wrong, which he is neither.
in the end, Geographic determinism does play a part in the rise of civilizations. starches like Wheat and Maize provide more calories and are generally easier to grow than other nutrient plans like Bananas or roots. Beasts of burden like cows and oxen help complete the bigger jobs that llamas and untamable animals can do and so on so forth that's fine.
It doesn't answer the question of why some people-groups still underperform even when given the right conditions to rise as a civilization. Why are the Bahian peoples of brazil overall worse off than Southern Brazilians in a relatively successful nation?
Diamond's on the right track and has merit to back it up, but it doesn't give us a complete answer either and arguments can still be made against it.
>>811877
I guess I understand the genes part, but isn't culture just a byproduct of a people's shared way of life. Wouldn't the activities of their way of life be shaped by their available resources and environmental conditions? It seems as if the environment would play a huge role in determining how quickly a people develop technology and the type of technologies they need.
>>811927
Environment influences both genes and culture, but it doesn't determine either. Culture matters, it is the primary difference between the Spanish colonies in the New World and the British ones.
>>811944
Doesn't environment determine genes?
Genes which are not conducive to survival in a particular environment probably won't make it very far through the generations.
>>811872
Environmental determinism is too strong. The idea that certain communities have it better due to environmental factors is not wrong, but drawing lines along continental lines is arbitrary particularly given Diamond's starting point and only really done so he can express why Europe fucked everyone using 20/20 hindsight rather than justify why France lost against the Germans in the 20th century repeatedly due to weather.
Nobody would dispute that environmental factors matter, though they will dispute by how much they do, but environmental determinism puts it as the centre of everything, moving it from "an explanatory factor" to "the explanatory factor". Maybe accepting environmental determinism doesn't mean we have to justify every historical event in terms of rainfall and present fertilities, but does encourage an overly simplistic look at things.
Basically, it just not good practice. Rejecting environmental determinism is not the same as ignoring the environment. It is just leaving the theoretical door open for other visitors.
>>811861
Islam is very legalistic and probably helped.
>>811952
>determine
No. It influences the spread of genes within genepools, not least by isolating different populations from one another. But evolution doesn't have a "direction", if you re-ran history you'd see completely different genes spreading despite the "same" environment. So the particular genes a community accumulates is not inevitable, and is not determined by environment alone. Culture and genes also interplay in complex and difficult to predict manners, as for example with marriage customs.
>>811944
That makes sense, thank you. Haven't read the book. Just a confused layman.
>>811967
>Just a confused layman.
This is also an accurate description of Jared Diamond, who is not a professional historian but just a layman with a kooky theory no-one takes seriously. It's kind of weird how popular he is online.
>>811872
I would say it's culture more than anything. I once read an essay a few years ago about how the reason the Romans never tried to cross the Atlantic was because they didn't have the number zero. Nothing didn't exist to them and all they cared about was their immediate reality. They were aware the world was round but they didn't care to try to sail around the other side.
I read another essay on how monotheism encouraged scientific advancement because if you have only one god who's supposedly omnipotent but is also a bit of a lazy dickhead, you are encouraged to find solutions to problems yourself instead of praying to another god that you think could fix your problems. Something like that, my memory is shady on this one.
Think of that what you want, I don't remember these theories too well nor do I fully believe in them, but it's something to think about.
>>811924
>People are so fucking obsessed with Diamond either being 100% right or 100% wrong, which he is neither.
Nice arguing from the middle there.
>>811999
The middle is virtuous, extremes are vices.
>>811994
>the reason the Romans never tried to cross the Atlantic was because they didn't have the number zero. Nothing didn't exist to them and all they cared about was their immediate reality. They were aware the world was round but they didn't care to try to sail around the other side.
What a profoundly retarded theory. Not only did the Romans in fact have a word for "nothing" (nihil), the point is stupid anyway because people don't think in words but in images and in abstractions.
>I read another essay on how monotheism encouraged scientific advancement because if you have only one god who's supposedly omnipotent but is also a bit of a lazy dickhead, you are encouraged to find solutions to problems yourself instead of praying to another god that you think could fix your problems.
This is, quite possibly, even more stupid than your last theory. I will simply point out that both Europe and the Middle East are monotheistic despite the simply overwhelming difference in scientific achievement. Please, for the love of all that is Holy, gas yourself.
>>812015
Worked so well at the Caudine forks.
>>812015
Diamond is, AT BEST, about 3% correct. His "ideas" are based on his profound ignorance of history and his myopic eurocentrism, you will not find his book being citied by any academic who values his reputation.
>>812019
There are exceptions in all things. Moderation applies even to theories advocating moderate approaches, I suppose
>>812016
>Not only did the Romans in fact have a word for "nothing" (nihil), the point is stupid anyway because people don't think in words but in images and in abstractions.
The point is that nothing cannot be something. Zero. Language and cultural thought are not mutually exclusive either.
>I will simply point out that both Europe and the Middle East are monotheistic despite the simply overwhelming difference in scientific achievement.
Obviously. I just gave a brief sentence of what I read some years ago that I don't remember fully, the only reason I remembered it at all was because of that other guy's post.
>>811999
nice tu quoque you're pulling, you're just answering criticism with even more criticism instead of trying to argue my point.
I don't even want to waste energy on this anymore. It's obvious you're not interested in a discussion, but just want to tear people down who don't agree with whatever echo chamber you're shouting into. c'est la vie.
