Periodic discussion/commentary on Guns, Germs, and Steel?

[BlooInBloo]

Hi science geeks,

(it takes one to know one )

I was lucky enough to get my hot little hands on a pdf of this the other day, and am planning to read over the next few weeks. I'd like to get thoughts from others who've read it as I go - or simply have good ideas w/o reading it. So I think I'll do a post/journal entry every couple of days with my thoughts over what I've been reading. It'll probably cover a chapter-ish, but who knows, really - at least it'll cover a big enough chunk to be worth saying something about.

If you're not already familiar with the book: Generically, it attempts to answer the question "Why did these guys get so far ahead so quickly, while these other guys didn't?". If I understand correctly, it attempts to answer the question using largely/only environmental reasons - as opposed to genetic/racial reasons. Here's a link you can use to find out more about the book:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0393317552/sr=8-1/qid=...


Anyway - your guys' thoughts would be welcome - 1st post one should be out Tues/Wed!

[Crunchy Frog]

1. I read that one a few years ago and LOVED it.

I would be happy to discuss it with you on here.

[rockymountaindem]

2. I thoroughly enjoyed that book.

I thought his explanations of the way things worked out in the world were quite logical. In particular, I like how he first generalized his arguments, and then demonstrated how they worked out in specific examples from across the spectrum of humanity. For instance, we all know how the Europeans stack up against the Myans, but what about highland New Guineans against the Lowlanders? Using the same yardstick around the world he really did manage to show why some groups get the upper hand over others using natural factors, and how the Europeans got the most out of nature's goodie bag which allowed them to take over the world. Very, very interesting.

[NYC]

3. It is on my list of books to read.

I'll bookmark this thread so I can read what you post. Thanks.

[dcfirefighter]

4. Excellent Book

He's got a new one out as well.

[megatherium]

5. A fine book. Lots of fascinating details. For example, why Africans

didn't develop horseback riding, but the Asians did. Turns out the predominant horse of Asia was very tractable for humans to handle; they were easy to domesticate. But the predominant horse in subsaharan Africa is the zebra, and zebras are extremely difficult to domesticate.

Even better book: Diamond's new book Collapse, which considers ecological causes in the collapse of civilizations, and also how some countries or civilizations survived similar ecological pressures. An interesting example: Tokugawa Japan, which in the 17th century became concerned by the threat of deforestation. Japan was a dictatorship, run by the Shogun, and was able to impose strict controls on logging. Today, Japan is one of the most heavily forested countries in the world.

[bemildred]

6. OK. nt

[YankeyMCC]

7. Very interesting

a useful new way to look at Human History and some good insights. I think there'll be a lot of follow on work by others to refine, explore details, and even shake up some of his assumptions but I think he's made some very good points and at the very least pointed people, historians in particular, in a good and useful direction.

[trotsky]

8. You bet!

I posted on it awhile back - http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

Very cool stuff.

[sutz12]

9. Been a while since I read it.....

but remember it being an excellent read with some really well thought out positions that could ruffle some feathers. If one takes it the wrong way, it irritates, because it reads a lot like a 'cutltural evolution' text. Highly recommended from this party. Definite

[Igel]

10. It has a bunch of nifty insights.

But it can't be the full story; people loved it because it implied that the winners had nothing special going for them as people, but were gifted with success (largely) by their situation and position. I think of it as preconditions for success.

JD's "Collapse" followed up because GGS obviously left out some important things: if geography and resources were important, why did some civilizations expand and succeed, and then--given the same geography and resources--fail. After all, if GGS was right, we should see the same areas winning fairly consistently; instead, we see the winners shifting around. Some recur, but only after periods of decay. So "Collapse" looks at a bunch of other necessary conditions, beyond where GGS took us.

But that's still probably not the whole story. I'm fairly sure that I can come up with a few civilizations that pretty much rotted from the inside, while all the GGS preconditions for greatness were still met, and the factors in "Collapse" hadn't obtained, as well as a few that achieved greatness even if they weren't especially blessed, in GGS and "Collapse" terms.

[Odin2005]

11. My veiw of history is a mix of Diamond and Toynbee.

Diamond is right that the right location helps, but a location that is TOO fruitfull is also bad, if Toynbee's premise that the rise of a civilization requires a challenge from the natural or human surroundings.

Enviromental degredation does not always lead to collapse. There are records of the Ancient Greeks complaining about the degredation of local farmland. What did they do about it? They started colonies in areas with rich farmland, allowing the mother city-state to specialize, like Athens did with wine production; the Graeco-Roman Civilization would survive untill the Roman Empire eventually collapsed from economic and social rot, not enviormental distruction. Collapse from enviromental degredation, IMO, happens when a civilization is in decline anyway and has therfore lost it's cretive edge to do what the Greek city states did when Graeco-roman civilization was still young and creative. This is what Toynbee calls the Challange-and-Response concept, a growing civilization will rise to a challange and beat it, a civilization that has went into decline losses it's creative edge as the creative class that helped the civilization grow degenerate into a parastitic dominant class that fails to meet the challange, whether from a deteriorating enviroment or from human-caused challanges, and the civilization collapses.

A civilization goes through 5 stages: Early Growth, Rennesaince, Time of Troubles, Universal State, and Collapse.

A civilization statrts going in decline during the time of troubles as the states of the civilization fight amoung themselves for the spoils of imperialism and the creative class (philospher-arsitocrats in the Graeco-Roman civilization, euntrepenures, scientists, and inventors in the West) begins to degenerate into a parasitic dominant class. assimilation of other peoples into the civilization goes from voluntary joining to forced conquest. At the end of the Time of Troubles a single state dominates all others in the civilization, a Hegemeon or Universal State (the West is exceptional for having 2 quasi-universal states, the US and EU, as a result of nationalism and democratic traditions). Once the Universal state is in place there will be one final "Indian Summer" and then the terminal decline and finally collapse (Rome) or absorption (Like how the West absorbed the main body of Orthodox Christendom, Russia being the the surviving section of Orthodox Christendom, in the Balkans after the collapse of the Ottoman Empire).

For Graeco-Roman and Western civilizations the timeline would look like this:

Early Growth: 900BC-600BC/800AD-1400AD
Rennesaince: 600BC(the reforms of Solon in Athens)-431BC(start of the Peloponnesian War)/1400AD-1618AD(start of the 30 Years War)
Time of Troubles: 431BC-31BC(birth of the Roman Empire)/1618AD-1989AD(end of the Cold War)
Universal State: 31BC-395AD/1989AD-
Collapse: 395AD-600AD(the East Roman enpire becomes the root of the Orthodox Christian civilization)

[deadcenter]

12. fascinating read

er, listen (bought on cd for a long trip through radio wasteland).

I really enjoyed and was enlightened by his descriptions of early societies and why some succeeded while others failed. While my thoughts on early civilization lied along similar lines, my hypothesis was that "free time" leads to innovation. While his statement that roasted grain can be stored longer without spoilage was new to me, I had to wonder, who figured that out and how? I mean, if you're a subsistence level agricultural community, I don't see the folks giving up a portion of their subsistence to experimentation. Or maybe it was just a happy accident? I dunno, but thought provoking (for me anyway).

Anyway, I very much enjoyed the book and am planning to give it another listen on my next road trip.

[Viva_La_Revolution]

13. can you share the pdf?

It's on my list, depakid recommended, but I have no spare cash.

PM me if you can shoot it to me.