Jared Diamond's new book predicts the not to distant collapse of western civilization

[astro]

I thought this more suited for GD than Cafe so I am putting it here. Mods move if you must.

Jared Diamond's "Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies" (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0393317552/ref=pd_sim_b_1/104-6600694-5843136?%5Fencoding=UTF8&v=glance) was seen by many as a revelation in explaning why some societies advance and become dominant and others (relatively) do not.

His latest book "Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed" posits that creeping environmental collapse will occur over time (and not all that long a time) as a result of modern societies (esp the US') ethos of "unbridled consumerism", and as a result those societies will fail.

In Diamond's discussion of this topic with Bill Gates (see Salon article) Gates said essentially "Technology got us into this mess, and I have faith technology will get us out". Diamond quite adamantly disagrees with this point of view, and warns us that if we do not quickly begin to "clean up our act" both metaphorically and environmentally, civilizational collapse is not that far away.

Does his analysis hold water?


Salon interview with the author (http://www.salon.com/books/feature/2005/01/08/jared_diamond/)

New Yorker Review -In “Collapse,” Jared Diamond shows how societies destroy themselves (http://newyorker.com/critics/books/?050103crbo_books)

Amazon listing - Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0670033375/qid=1105206216/sr=8-1/ref=pd_csp_1/104-6600694-5843136?v=glance&s=books&n=507846)

Small chunk from "New Yorker" review -

Diamond’s argument stands in sharp contrast to the conventional explanations for a society’s collapse. Usually, we look for some kind of cataclysmic event. The aboriginal civilization of the Americas was decimated by the sudden arrival of smallpox. European Jewry was destroyed by Nazism. Similarly, the disappearance of the Norse settlements is usually blamed on the Little Ice Age, which descended on Greenland in the early fourteen-hundreds, ending several centuries of relative warmth. (One archeologist refers to this as the “It got too cold, and they died” argument.) What all these explanations have in common is the idea that civilizations are destroyed by forces outside their control, by acts of God.

But look, Diamond says, at Easter Island. Once, it was home to a thriving culture that produced the enormous stone statues that continue to inspire awe. It was home to dozens of species of trees, which created and protected an ecosystem fertile enough to support as many as thirty thousand people. Today, it’s a barren and largely empty outcropping of volcanic rock. What happened? Did a rare plant virus wipe out the island’s forest cover? Not at all. The Easter Islanders chopped their trees down, one by one, until they were all gone. “I have often asked myself, ‘What did the Easter Islander who cut down the last palm tree say while he was doing it?’” Diamond writes, and that, of course, is what is so troubling about the conclusions of “Collapse.” Those trees were felled by rational actors—who must have suspected that the destruction of this resource would result in the destruction of their civilization. The lesson of “Collapse” is that societies, as often as not, aren’t murdered. They commit suicide: they slit their wrists and then, in the course of many decades, stand by passively and watch themselves bleed to death.

[astro]

Sigh PIMF - "not too distant collapse of western civilization"

[Jonathan Chance]

I've always thought that GGS was overly hyped because it seemed so deterministic. It seemed to be saying that, no matter the persons involved, western civilization would have become dominant.

As for the new one...I haven't read it but it'll probably be an interesting read.

[astro]

I've always thought that GGS was overly hyped because it seemed so deterministic. It seemed to be saying that, no matter the persons involved, western civilization would have become dominant.

As for the new one...I haven't read it but it'll probably be an interesting read.

Yes it did, and aside from the analytical issues, that was part of the reason it was embraced with both arms by many. It robbed western civilization of the moral imperative of the assumption that it was it's moral right and destiny to succeed over less virtuous and capable civilizations.

[Jonathan Chance]

Yeah, but wasn't that fighting a battle long over? I'm in my late 30s are remembering reading Kipling's 'White Man's Burden' with scorn in elementary school. I didn't need Diamond to come along and resell the concept.

[Jake the Plumber]

I've always thought that GGS was overly hyped because it seemed so deterministic. It seemed to be saying that, no matter the persons involved, western civilization would have become dominant.
Um, I believe that wasthe point of the book, yes... I don't see what that has to do with it being overly hyped, unless you are suggesting that western civilization succeeded because it is genetically superior to other civilizations? I think he made a pretty strong case for his point, though a rebuttal would be interesting.

Anyway, Dr. Diamond may be very intelligent, but he isn't an all-knowing expert. He has pretty limited first hand experience with social evolution, which was a boon for GGS, and The Third Chimpanzee is interesting, but I don't think he is exactly qualified to enter into plotting (plotting as in predicting, not as in conspiracy) the demise of western civilization. Then again, neither is Bill Gates. Frankly, it is always a matter of time until "something" happens that will change balance. I would be interested in reading his take on it, though.

[Malodorous]

In Diamond's discussion of this topic with Bill Gates (see Salon article) Gates said essentially "Technology got us into this mess, and I have faith technology will get us out".


Is there a word for this attitude. It seems like I encounter it a lot, the idea that some undetermined future technology will solve whatever problem is being looked at. Sort of Dues ex machina with technology taking the place of God, (we could call it machina ex machina perhaps). Certainly it would be cool if technology does step in and save the day, but it seems like poor planning to count on it.

I also don't think much of the idea proposed by astro that Guns, Germs and Steel somehow tried to justify western imperialism by explaining why it happend. I though it was trying to do the opposite, explain why a mistake in geography led to western dominence, and not some divine right for europeans to rule over the world.

[Smeghead]

Yeah, I kind of got off the Diamond bandwagon after reading The Third Chimpanzee, which, IMHO, was just not very good. Or insightful. Color me unimpressed.

FWIW.

[John Mace]

I also don't think much of the idea proposed by astro that Guns, Germs and Steel somehow tried to justify western imperialism by explaining why it happend. I though it was trying to do the opposite, explain why a mistake in geography led to western dominence, and not some divine right for europeans to rule over the world.

I think if you re-read the OP, you'll see that astro actually says the same thing you did. I didn't see any attempt to justify imperialism.

Haven't read the new Diamond book yet, but I've thumbed thru it at the bookstore. I liked GGS and TTC, so I'll probably read C as well. The idea that a lot of past civilizations collapsed due to environmental issues is not new nor particularly surprising. It'll be interested to see his argument about the iminent collapse of western civ...

[ElvisL1ves]

Yeah, but wasn't that fighting a battle long over?We wish. That attitude certainly seemed to underlie much of the pro-Iraq-invasion rhetoric, about bringing them Western democracy and such.

[Evil Captor]

Is there a word for this attitude. It seems like I encounter it a lot, the idea that some undetermined future technology will solve whatever problem is being looked at. Sort of Dues ex machina with technology taking the place of God, (we could call it machina ex machina perhaps). Certainly it would be cool if technology does step in and save the day, but it seems like poor planning to count on it.

I encounter a similar attitude repeatedly in discussions with free marketers. They seem to feel that any economic recession can only be temporary and mild in a free market economy because some new industry/technology/etc. will come along to Solve Everything. Like you said, seems like poor planning. but the impression I have of free market types is that they are against planning.

[Kel Varnsen - Latex Division]

Isn't the situation different now? In the past societies were more isolated. Today with a global market if we run out of a resource we can trade for it or if need be we can steal it. Sure we can use up all the resources, but this will hurt every society not just ours. We have a new modern military that can strike any place in the world in a few hours.

If we wanted to we could crush and control any other society we wanted. The reason we don't now is because the cost are too high for the benefit. But as the numbers change we will find it is in our interest to take tighter control. The only way we are going down is if we take everyone else with us.

[ralph124c]

I too don't find Diamond all that profound-mostly he rehashes arguments that have been around for a long time. His scholarship is pretty sloppy too..most of his referneces are outdated. Mostly, he starts out with a thesis and tries to justify it. Why was Europe different from civilizations like China, India, the Caliphate, etc.? The most cogent explanation I have is that Western Europe was pragmatic and profit-driven. None of the other civilizations developed trade to the extent of Europe..and that is the main difference. As for the end of Wesytern Civilization, the "Club of Rome" has been predicting that (unsuccessfully) for decades.

[Rune]

Guns, Germs and Steel raised some interesting new ideas I hadn’t seen anywhere before. But there was always something of a just-so story about the explanations, not to speak of the lack of a smoking gun – in that it is better classified together with Desmond Morris than Darwin.

And surely it landed far short of the immense hype surrounding it. It now seems clear that its popularity is fuelled more by ideological and political concerns rather than scientific. Also attested by the preface of the book. One of the worst I’ve ever had the misfortune to slug through. “Genetic & intellectual superiority of New Guineans over westerners”? bah… and that in a book which purports to explain why white Europeans have more “cargo” than native New Guineans without resorting to racist explanations – which he calls “loathsome”, perhaps so – though his opinion on this would have been more trustworthy had he not himself just a paragraph above made such prodigious use of racist theories himself, but his emotional response is of little interest to anyone but himself, and hardly an ideal place to start an unbiased investigation. Nor is his repeated assertions that his is not a book of European history, that European history is of only marginal interests, etc. Yes, uneuropean history can be interesting and educational, but why does it have to be done at the expense of demeaning Europe?

And then it was badly written, but I’ve only gotten halfway before I had to put it aside for awhile (for the immensely more rewarding Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire) so perhaps I’m being unfair.

[The Flying Dutchman]

In Diamond's discussion of this topic with Bill Gates (see Salon article) Gates said essentially "Technology got us into this mess, and I have faith technology will get us out". Diamond quite adamantly disagrees with this point of view, and warns us that if we do not quickly begin to "clean up our act" both metaphorically and environmentally, civilizational collapse is not that far away.


I agree with Diamond. I am not optimistic for the future. As I understand it we already have depleted 90% of the oceans usable biomass, and continue like smokers to devastate the lungs of our earth, the tropical rainforests.Never mind that CO2 emissions continue, even escalate, sure to wreak havoc on the global food supply. And one other thing. The increasing prosperity in the world is putting pressure on the global oil supply.

If we had a one world democratic government with a respect for dissident opinion I might agree with Bill Gates . Unfortunately,

The advanced technology that Gates relies on is still at the moment heavily dependant on fuel resources, and I'm not sure any of us have a handle on how long that will last or if we have enough time to develop reliable alternatives. This problem is severely complicated by the lack of concern by and or control on non democratic developing nations.

[spingears]

With ever expanding universal entitlements for citizens, non-citizens, and casual visitors to our shores, unbridled concumerism will be considered last to be the cause of collapse.

[treis]

I too don't find Diamond all that profound-mostly he rehashes arguments that have been around for a long time. His scholarship is pretty sloppy too..most of his referneces are outdated. Mostly, he starts out with a thesis and tries to justify it. Why was Europe different from civilizations like China, India, the Caliphate, etc.?

Huh? Thats not a thesis at all, thats the question he answered.


The most cogent explanation I have is that Western Europe was pragmatic and profit-driven. None of the other civilizations developed trade to the extent of Europe..and that is the main difference.

Which is flat out wrong. Differences in enviroment explain the difference is different societies wealth.

It seems like you read the book without understanding it.

?Genetic & intellectual superiority of New Guineans over westerners?? bah? and that in a book which purports to explain why white Europeans have more ?cargo? than native New Guineans without resorting to racist explanations ? which he calls ?loathsome?, perhaps so ? though his opinion on this would have been more trustworthy had he not himself just a paragraph above made such prodigious use of racist theories himself, but his emotional response is of little interest to anyone but himself, and hardly an ideal place to start an unbiased investigation

I don't have my book with me at the moment but wasn't he in the midst of refuting the intelligence argument when he said that? I.E. he was playing a devil's advocate of sort and showing in the framework of an intelligence argument that the intelligence argument is wrong. Not to mention this is all in the sort of background chapter before he gets into proving his thesis.

Nor is his repeated assertions that his is not a book of European history, that European history is of only marginal interests, etc. Yes, uneuropean history can be interesting and educational, but why does it have to be done at the expense of demeaning Europe?

I don't remember anything specifically demeaning Europe. I think his point is that to discover why societies across the world have different levels of wealth you need to examine each society carefully. His analysis wouldn't have the same weight if he spent 200 pages talking about Europe and only 20 about the rest of the world.

And then it was badly written, but I?ve only gotten halfway before I had to put it aside for awhile (for the immensely more rewarding Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire) so perhaps I?m being unfair.

I agree its a horrible horrible book to have to read but then again how many people find grass seed weight an interesting topic.

I realize its a video game but if you have ever played the Civilization series you can see exactly what Diamond is talking about. If you start on a small island with no resources and I start on an large island with a different resource for each square its not surprising that I will reach motorization while you are still slogging through horseback riding. This is basically a simplification of what Diamond argues. If in Civilization I have horses, gunpowder, iron and a bunch of fertile grassland and you have a small bit of grassland in the midst of a desert with no resources to speak of we can predict that even though we are equal skill I will win nearly every game that we play. To extend this analogy back into the real world Eurasia has the pack animals, right crops, fertile land and a plethora of other things while the New Guinians are stuck on a little island with none of the aforementioned resources. Even if the humans are relatively equal we can predict that if we played out our history over and over again the Eurasians will dominate the New Guinians every time.

[Jake the Plumber]

Without having read the book, so this is kinda off topic, I don't see a rapid collapse of Western civilization as much as I see a gradual advancement of Eastern/"Other" civilizations to eclipse the West (much like how Japan did).

[Rashak Mani]

I think the film "The Corporation" makes for a better and more complete case on why we are in a dangerous situation.

Naturally we must consider time and human reaction. We could be talking about wildly different time frames... decades vs a century.

[WindFish]

I haven't read Diamond's books (been meaning to pick up GGS from the library), but I did want to post a link to Cecil's appropriate column:

"How come Europeans dominated the rest of the world and not vice versa?" (http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a970620.html)

Is there a word for this attitude. It seems like I encounter it a lot, the idea that some undetermined future technology will solve whatever problem is being looked at. Sort of Dues ex machina with technology taking the place of God, (we could call it machina ex machina perhaps). Certainly it would be cool if technology does step in and save the day, but it seems like poor planning to count on it.
That appears to square with what Diamond thinks about Gates's technological solution. In the Salon article, Diamond cites an example of how refigerants replaced toxic ammonia with CFCs, which were considered clean and healthy at the time. It took 20 years to recognize the harmful ozone damage as a result of CFCs. Diamond's point is that technological solutions can have lots of unforseen side effects.

[BrainGlutton]

I've always thought that GGS was overly hyped because it seemed so deterministic. It seemed to be saying that, no matter the persons involved, western civilization would have become dominant.

So what reason do we have to think otherwise?

[Jake the Plumber]

So what reason do we have to think otherwise?
Yea, I'm still waiting for that rebuttal I asked for.

[Tamerlane]

Won't comment on Diamond's latest, as I haven't read it. However...

The most cogent explanation I have is that Western Europe was pragmatic and profit-driven. None of the other civilizations developed trade to the extent of Europe..and that is the main difference.

This is factually inaccurate. While there is still dueling scholarship going on as to the reason for the success of the west ( Diamond certainly isn't the last word ), the idea that non-Western societies were less profit-driven has been pretty well-debunked. See for example:

Trade and Civilization in the Indian Ocean: An Economic History fron the Rise of Islam to 1750 by K. N. Chaudhuri ( 1985, Cambridge University Press ).

Before European Hegemony: The World Sytem A.D. 1250-1350 by Janet L. Abu-Lughod ( 1989, Oxford University Press ).

ReOrient: Global Economy in the Asian Age by Andre Gunder Frank ( 1998, University of California Press ).

- Tamerlane

[astro]

Yea, I'm still waiting for that rebuttal I asked for.

Re your request for a rebuttal to the thesis of "Gun's Germs and Steel", that's a pretty large and somewhat separate issue. You might want to start a separate thread if that's an argument you want to pursue.

[eponymous]

Why was Europe different from civilizations like China, India, the Caliphate, etc.?

With respect to Diamond's Guns, Germs, and Steel, I don't think it was a matter of asking why Europe was different from other civilizations. I think it was more a matter of asking - "What were the important or crucial factors involved that allowed a group of people living in a particular region of the world to surge ahead of other groups (with respect to cultural, political, economic, and military concerns - or however you define dominance)?"

It's not just a matter of cultural dominance, nor just a matter of environmental factors. After all, Europe was at one time a cultural backwater compared to other regions. Similarly, Europe was also once a technological, political, and military backwater compared to other regions. Many would argue that China was the dominant region up until the 17th (if you look at it from a cultural/technological perspective, and in some cases even from an economic, political, and military perspective).

While Diamond's Guns, Germs, and Steel doesn't offer anything radically new that hasn't been written about before, what he does do is shift some of the orientation more towards emphasizing environmental factors. Or rather, if one wants to get a broader understanding of why a group of people living in Europe were able to eventually emerge as the dominant group (relative to other people living in other regions), then one needs to first understand the characteristcs of physical environment within which these people lived (those living in Europe).

But even here, the characteristics of the physical environment are not sufficient to understand the later dominance of this group of people. One also needs to examine how these people adapted to that environment - both in terms of how they adapted to the physical environment, but also in the context of how other groups living in the same region adapted, as well as how those groups adapted to one another as well.

The most cogent explanation I have is that Western Europe was pragmatic and profit-driven.

I think you are missing an important point here. An important question relevent to Diamond's thesis in Guns, Germs, and Steel is "Why did people living in Europe eventually become pragmatic and profit-driven than other groups of people living in other regions?" To say that Europeans were pragmatic and profit-driven doesn't explain how or why people in Europe become so.

Again, at one time in history, Europe was a cultural, military, political, and technological backwater. One could argue that at one time China was more pragmatic and profit-oriented relative to other regions. If true, then what happened? What helped Europe to become even more pragmatic and profit-oriented than China?

None of the other civilizations developed trade to the extent of Europe..and that is the main difference. As for the end of Wesytern Civilization, the "Club of Rome" has been predicting that (unsuccessfully) for decades.

As Tamerlane pointed out, this statement flies in the face of history. One could argue that scope and extent of European trade was much greater than other civilizations, but this then raises another interesting question - why was the scope and extent of European trade so much greater than other groups living in other regions? What elements/factors were crucial in bringing this about?

I can't comment directly on his latest, Collapse as I haven't read it yet (I should be getting it in the mail in a few days). However, I am interested in reading it to see how his arguments compare to those in The Collapse of Complex Societies by Tainter, et al. (1990).

[sleestak]

Wow, another book predicting the downfall of western civilization. It sounds like a new version of "The Population Bomb". Link: http://www.overpopulation.com/faq/people/paul_ehrlich.html

For a totally different opion you might want to read some of Julian Simsons work.
Another Link:
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/5.02/ffsimon_pr.html

Or you can check out www.juliansimon.org

Slee

[pantom]

To me, Diamond's point in GGS was really quite simple; it was all about the geography. Eurasia is by far the biggest land mass in the world, with the largest population, so that the exchange of goods and ideas will be greatest on this land mass than on any other. Just as important, it's oriented horizontally instead of vertically, so that if you find a plant that can be grown in Europe it can also be grown in the Near East and in China, and vice versa. By contrast, a plant discovered in Mexico is not going to be able to be grown in New York state, nor is a plant that can be grown in Nigeria going to be grown in South Africa, at least not without a lot of selective breeding. Yes, corn eventually made it from Mexico to the Iroquois, but it took a long time. And the time advantage is what it's all about.
Even without the animals - horses, pigs, cows, goats - Eurasia would have a huge advantage. With them, the advantage becomes insurmountable. The Americas, Africa, Australia, and of course places like New Guinea simply could not reproduce all of these advantages.

[Rune]

I don't have my book with me at the moment but wasn't he in the midst of refuting the intelligence argument when he said that? I.E. he was playing a devil's advocate of sort and showing in the framework of an intelligence argument that the intelligence argument is wrong. Not to mention this is all in the sort of background chapter before he gets into proving his thesis.No. Not a devil’s advocate argument. He clearly sincerely meant exactly what he wrote; that New Guineans were intellectual and genetic superiority to Europeans. It is also repeated in the main of the book. And that attempted proved by a ridiculous mix of subjective observations (the New Guineans sure look bright), absurd pop psychology (westerners watch too much television) and amateurish Darwinists theories (plush civilized life has regressed our genetic material, while the unspoiled hard life of the New Guineans has refined theirs). It’s actually striking how those explanations he use to “prove” New Guineans genetic superiority so resemble Nazi theories on Aryans superiority, and the old theory on how the harsher climate of the north propelled European races to genetic superiority. It is interesting to speculate how much respect such a book had received had the tables been reserved and it were the white Teutonic races he had attempted to prove as intellectual and genetic superior rather than New Guinean aboriginals. And speculate how much respect he really deserves for this hack. Why should we give any credence to an author which piously declare racist theories are “loathsome and wrong” when explaining European superiority yet shamelessly make use of them when explaining New Guinean genetic superiority? Why is it loathsome to say Europeans are genetic superior and not to say New Guineans are genetic superior?

I don't remember anything specifically demeaning Europe. I think his point is that to discover why societies across the world have different levels of wealth you need to examine each society carefully. His analysis wouldn't have the same weight if he spent 200 pages talking about Europe and only 20 about the rest of the world. No of course not. My contention is not that he his book is not about Europe (given that he states most Europeans are racist and loathsome, I actually prefer it that way) but why can’t he just go ahead and write such a book instead of feeling a need to continuously express how he finds European marginal, uninteresting and unimportant?

On the whole I see his book more as a political treatise comparable to Bernal’s Black Athena (…and written by Desmond Morris) that a work of science.

[SentientMeat]

I wholeheartedly recommend Guns, Germs and Steel and disagree vehemently that it was poorly written - I found it to be a paragon of clear, concise writing for the general reader.

But to get back to the OP's main point (and I have not read his latest book), think of the time lag involved in moving the temperature dial on your shower and take a look at the scariest graph I have ever seen (http://www.ipcc.ch/present/graphics/2001syr/large/01.17.jpg).

The CO2 concentration is currently 378 parts per million (ppm). This is an increase of 100 ppm in just 150 years (http://www.ipcc.ch/present/graphics/2001syr/large/02.01.jpg). Now what that scary time lag graph shows is that even if our emissions peaked right now and technology somehow allowed us to emit no more greenhouse gases within a few decades, the detrimental effects will last for millennia. Our grandchildren are already in for a world of shit.

Now, scarier still: the increase last year was 3 ppm, the largest annual increase in history. Every year we dig our grandchildren deeper into a hole. The scientific consensus is that 550ppm is the absolute maximum we can allow, since the time lagged effects of any more might release methane from the ocean floor and literally cause a mass extinction (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_extinction). And this is a conservative estimate - abrupt climate change might well occur at concentrations around 400ppm, just 8 years away. This is all without factoring in any increase from China, India or anywhere else in the developing world. Given possible forest saturation and industrialisation of the Third World, we could reach 550ppm in just a few decades.

We are that Easter Island logger, staring oblivion full in the face. Let us, at least, take our frigging hand off the shower dial.

[Shalmanese]

No. Not a devil’s advocate argument. He clearly sincerely meant exactly what he wrote; that New Guineans were intellectual and genetic superiority to Europeans. It is also repeated in the main of the book. And that attempted proved by a ridiculous mix of subjective observations (the New Guineans sure look bright), absurd pop psychology (westerners watch too much television) and amateurish Darwinists theories (plush civilized life has regressed our genetic material, while the unspoiled hard life of the New Guineans has refined theirs). It’s actually striking how those explanations he use to “prove” New Guineans genetic superiority so resemble Nazi theories on Aryans superiority, and the old theory on how the harsher climate of the north propelled European races to genetic superiority. It is interesting to speculate how much respect such a book had received had the tables been reserved and it were the white Teutonic races he had attempted to prove as intellectual and genetic superior rather than New Guinean aboriginals. And speculate how much respect he really deserves for this hack. Why should we give any credence to an author which piously declare racist theories are “loathsome and wrong” when explaining European superiority yet shamelessly make use of them when explaining New Guinean genetic superiority? Why is it loathsome to say Europeans are genetic superior and not to say New Guineans are genetic superior?

As far as I remember, it was all of one paragraph in a very large book and was prefaced copiously with perhapses and maybes and it could bes. It at least sounded to me on first read that he was clearly taking a devils advocate position with this stance. I would have to re-read it to see if my impressions are wrong.

[pantom]

I reread the beginning part, where he has a page or so devoted to this genetic question, and Chapter 15, where he promises to get into some stuff related to Australia and New Guinea in more detail.
The page in question, page 21, is indeed a stunningly stupid exposition of a completely unthought-out genetic theory. Chapter 15, OTOH, doesn't mention it at all.
So he goes on for a page and then drops it, far as I can tell. Still, it is stupid. I must admit it went right past me first time I read it. I can see how someone would find it idiotic, because it is.

[Barbarian]

If we wanted to we could crush and control any other society we wanted. The reason we don't now is because the cost are too high for the benefit.

What's going on right now in Iraq should easily demonstrate that while it's easy to drop bombs on an area, occupying the territory is much harder. And if your ultimate goal is to actually use the resources and infrastructure in a region, dropping bombs will do nothing but increase the costs associated with an invasion.

Let's say the U.S. runs out of fresh water. Do you really think it'll be that easy to invade Canada, set up a few pipelines, and ship H2O to Nevada without running into massive uprisings, terrorist actions, and turning the U.S. into a dictatorship/

[jjimm]

In Diamond's discussion of this topic with Bill Gates (see Salon article) Gates said essentially "Technology got us into this mess, and I have faith technology will get us out". Diamond quite adamantly disagrees with this point of view, and warns us that if we do not quickly begin to "clean up our act" both metaphorically and environmentally, civilizational collapse is not that far away. Strangely, Diamond wrote an article for a British paper during the week (I'll see if I can hunt it down), in which he expresses Gates's opinion, nearly verbatim, as his own.

I like Diamond's work, and The Rise and Fall... really changed my view of humanity, but even in that book he seemed naïvely optimistic in his summations, when compared to his actual conclusions.

[Rune]

I wholeheartedly recommend Guns, Germs and Steel and disagree vehemently that it was poorly written - I found it to be a paragon of clear, concise writing for the general reader.Do you then consider yourself genetically and intellectual inferior to the average New Guineans - or do you recommend the book despite those absurd racist theories?

Well the question of how bad it is with the environment, and whether it is actually getting better, is still very much up for debate. As is the cause of the different extinctions.

It is apparent that the comparable low-tech communistic east block countries were vastly more polluting than anything in the west. This is a theme often repeated, and now seen again in the economies of the east. And it is funny he should mention the case of refrigerators, since we have already managed with new technology to create a type of refrigerators that do not use those destructive greenhouse gasses. Perhaps it is with technology as with education, a little is a dangerous thing. The solution to the excesses of modern civilisation is not less technology but more technology. However many environmentalists are puritans in sheep’s clothes. But a puritan ideologue just isn’t ever going to get much of a following. And I predict that environmentalism will never get any traction until it stress alternative consumption in lie of less consumption. Don’t remove the hand from the shower dial. Just don’t heat the frigging water with coal or oil or some such thing.

In any case it is undeniable that we’re on the tigers back with technology and consumption. There’s just no way we’re going to feed 6 billion and counting humans without intensive agriculture and high tech.

I haven’t read the book (and don’t intent to) but it seems strange that he writes the Easter Islanders fate off as one entirely destined by their environmental abuse. John Keegan in the “History of Warfare” describe their demise as while influenced by environmental degradation then ultimately caused more by a culture of incessant warfare, and their ultimate destruction by European slave traders, and foreign diseases.

[SentientMeat]

Do you then consider yourself genetically and intellectual inferior to the average New Guineans - or do you recommend the book despite those absurd racist theories?I don't know how you interpreted the book, but I read those chapters as advocating that New Guinean jungle life required equal intelligence to life in Western civilisation. I certainly don't see where the charge of racism comes from.
Well the question of how bad it is with the environment, and whether it is actually getting better, is still very much up for debate. As is the cause of the different extinctions.Even cranks like Bjorn Lombourg do not question the increase in CO2 concentrations over just the last 150 years and the time lagged temperature and sea-level increases afterwards throughout history. They merely propose different solutions (and notice that I did not propose any in my post - I merely presented the sheer scale of the upheavals future generations will face.)
Polution is a different issue to climate change.
And it is funny he should mention the case of refrigerators, since we have already managed with new technology to create a type of refrigerators that do not use those destructive greenhouse gasses. Ozone depletion is a different issue to climate chage.
Perhaps it is with technology as with education, a little is a dangerous thing. The solution to the excesses of modern civilisation is not less technology but more technology. However many environmentalists are puritans in sheep’s clothes. But a puritan ideologue just isn’t ever going to get much of a following. And I predict that environmentalism will never get any traction until it stress alternative consumption in lie of less consumption. Don’t remove the hand from the shower dial. Just don’t heat the frigging water with coal or oil or some such thing.[/quote]Your hopelessly mixed metaphors mischaracterise earnest, realistic, non-puritan environmentalists such as (hopefully) myself. Yes, let us build more nuclear power stations, turbines and any such thing. But let us also become efficient.

[Malthus]

To me, Diamond's point in GGS was really quite simple; it was all about the geography. Eurasia is by far the biggest land mass in the world, with the largest population, so that the exchange of goods and ideas will be greatest on this land mass than on any other. Just as important, it's oriented horizontally instead of vertically, so that if you find a plant that can be grown in Europe it can also be grown in the Near East and in China, and vice versa. By contrast, a plant discovered in Mexico is not going to be able to be grown in New York state, nor is a plant that can be grown in Nigeria going to be grown in South Africa, at least not without a lot of selective breeding. Yes, corn eventually made it from Mexico to the Iroquois, but it took a long time. And the time advantage is what it's all about.
Even without the animals - horses, pigs, cows, goats - Eurasia would have a huge advantage. With them, the advantage becomes insurmountable. The Americas, Africa, Australia, and of course places like New Guinea simply could not reproduce all of these advantages.

When I read the book, that is what I got out of it - and it was okay as far vas it went; but this simply "narrows it down" to Eurasia.

His thesis as to why Europe and not (say) China "came out ahead", I thought lame in the extreme.

I have my own opinions on that (such as the prevelance, over the last few centuries, of single imperial structures in the *competing* centres of civilization such as China, the ME, India, and the relative absence of a central authority in Europe - which is not, in my opinion, a pure matter of geography) - but I suspect there is probably no *one* reason for it. If I had to choose a single determinative factor, how about the fact that the Mongols invaded everywhere except Europe, inposing their imperial system - copied in part by those they invaded? I could defend that thesis better than the "geography done it" thesis.

Geographical determinism only goes so far.

That is the problem with Diamond - he takes a perfectly good thesis (such as "geographical factors explain why Eurasia out-competed everywhere else"), and pushes it too far - makes it into an all-explanatory solution; plus he often throws in silly ideas half-digested into the mix (New Gineans genetically superior? WTF?).

I read "Collapse". I liked the parts about the past and the present. I got a bit pissed off about the parts concerning the future. He seems to be preaching rather than analysing - always a dangerous thing to do; I don't know enough about environmental science to comment one way or the other, but when an author includes a list of FAQs in order to refute any questioning of his thesis, I get a bit nervous (for example, at one point he says not to worry about the fact that similar "environmental collapse and disaster" books had proven wrong in their predictions before - just like you don't disregard a false fire alarm, because eventually one will be real - WTF? This is like saying "even if I'm wrong, I just know that I'll be right eventually". That isn't science, it is faith!).

In short, he has *some* good ideas, can be really readable, but is really motivated by what appears to be a secular version of faith. He is of course embraced by others who share his outlook; for those of us who require convincing with argument and analysis, he can be disappointing.

[eponymous]

Geographical determinism only goes so far.

Malthus makes a good point, and one I'm sure Diamond has gotten criticism for by academic geographers. While I laud his attempt to reintroduce an emphasis on environmental factors into the debate, geographers themselves are keenly aware of the pitfalls inherent in relying too much on the environment for causal explanations. One of the issues that got (academic) geography into trouble was an overemphasis on the environment in explaining things (referred to as environmental determinism). Environmental determinism ended up as an intellectual cul-de-sac and, some would argue, helped bring about the marginalization of the discipline in the US.

Geography (or environment) is important, but by itself it is not destiny; it's just one element in our overall understanding on how things turned out the way they do.

[Avumede]

(for example, at one point he says not to worry about the fact that similar "environmental collapse and disaster" books had proven wrong in their predictions before - just like you don't disregard a false fire alarm, because eventually one will be real - WTF? This is like saying "even if I'm wrong, I just know that I'll be right eventually". That isn't science, it is faith!).

That's not faith, that's just logic. It would be illogical to try and disprove his argument using the faults of others who make similar arguments.

[Malthus]

That's not faith, that's just logic. It would be illogical to try and disprove his argument using the faults of others who make similar arguments.

Him claiming that we should not ignore environmental doom-sayers just because they have always been wrong so far is exactly the same argument as a Christian millenialist arguing that we should not disbelive in the Apocalypse, just because so many have predicted its arrival and it hasn't arrived yet.

Both are equally true, but trite. "Prophets speaking in tounges are like fire alarms for God ...". Would that convince you? It is just as "logical".

The difference of course is that there is *evidence* based on *scientific research* concerning the former, and none for the latter. Not in this particular book, though.

[RickJay]

I don't know how you interpreted the book, but I read those chapters as advocating that New Guinean jungle life required equal intelligence to life in Western civilisation. I certainly don't see where the charge of racism comes from.
From _Guns, Germs and Steel_, p. 22:

Why did New Guineans wind up technologicall primitive, despite what I believe to be their superior intelligence?
He presents it as an OPINION, and does not pretend to have proof he's right, but he is clearly not stating an opinion of equal intelligence. He believes they're smarter than Europeans, game set and match.

[SentientMeat]

Well, OK, but that still says nothing of "genetic superiority" (whatever that is, as Jared would likely ask), and we Westerners are clearly descended from people who were in a similar situation requiring that New Guinean intelligence before our comfortable lifestyle largely eliminated the "be really clever in the jungle or die" knife-edge. I certainly did not take from the book any of the things some here are crticising him for, but in any case he might just as well have been indulging in a little Devil's advocacy just to keep your attention.

[Malthus]

From _Guns, Germs and Steel_, p. 22:


He presents it as an OPINION, and does not pretend to have proof he's right, but he is clearly not stating an opinion of equal intelligence. He believes they're smarter than Europeans, game set and match.

In my opinion, the reason that Diamond is so irritating in places is the same reason he is so popular - he is saying what a lot of people want to hear.

The romantic view of the "primitive" has been around in the West ever since Rousseau; geographical determinism is a good antidote to Western triumphalism; doomsday books are always popular.

The problem is that, while Diamond has some good ideas, his instinct is always to simplify, to go for the path that supports his prejudices (and I think those of his readers). His heart overrules his head. He always goes too far, pushes his theories well in advance of the evidence.

So, while there is nothing wrong with finding New Guineans wonderful people, Western triumphalism obnoxious or the beauty of Montana seductive, these things should not get in the way of his science - but they do.

[Rune]

“From the very beginning of my work with New Guineans, they impressed me as being on average more intelligent, more alert, more expressive and more interested in the things around them that the average European or American is. At some tasks that one might reasonable suppose to reflect aspects of brain function, such as the ability to form mental maps of unfamiliar surroundings, they appear considerable more adept than Westerners.”Ok, this is his personal opinion and presented as such, so that’s ok I suppose. We all know it’s permissible to think some people more intelligent than others, as long as it's not Europeans that are on top.

“It’s easy to recognise two reasons why my impression that New Guineans are smarter than Westerners may be correct. First, Europeans have for thousands of years been living in densely populated societies with central governments, police, and judiciaries."This is such an incredible stupid assertion that one is forced to wonder if that man has any idea at all of European history.

“That is, natural selection for promoting genes for intelligence has probably been far more ruthless in New Guinea than in more densely populated, politically complex societies, where natural selection for body chemistry was instead more potent.

Besides this genetic reason, there is also second reason why New Guineans may have come to be smarter than Westerners. Modern European and American children spend much of their time being passively entertained by television, radio, and movies In contrast, traditional New Guinea children have virtually no such opportunities […] This effect surely contributes a non-genetic component to the superior average mental function displayed by New Guineans.”

That is, in mental ability New Guineans are properly genetically superior to Westerners

[…]

Thus, the usual racist assumption has to be turned on its head. Why is it that Europeans, despite their likely genetic disadvantages and (in modern times) their undoubted development disadvantages, ended up with much more of the cargo? Why did New Guineans wind up technologically primitive, despite what I believe to be their superior intelligence?”Nice how he manages to insert this little barb about racist theories being nearly universally accepted, of course he also later asserts that most Europeans are racist, but I suppose he, in a prologue, can be excused for his opinions, his observation of New Guineans and the environmental arguments for our stupidity (even if they’re hopeless simplistic and not really fitting for a book that purports to be scientific), but as I said, it is uncanny how these genetic theories of his so resemble those Nazi ones on Aryan supremacy and of how the harsh Nordic climate has created a race of super humans. For the fact is that a racist assumption turned on its head is merely another racist assumption. Jared Diamond is clearly a racist. That’s ok, if he just had had the courage to stand by his racist assumptions. But he hasn’t. In fact he pretty much invalidates his book, by a prior declaring all racist theories such as his own “loathsome”.

[Jonathan Chance]

I hadn't really thought about Diamond much after reading GGS. But after reading this thread I heard him this morning on NPR. Did anyone else hear this?

He brought up the issue of northern Europeans in Greenland (or someone did). He discussed the comparative survival abilities of the Inuit and Europeans and claimed (close quote...not exact) 'The Inuit were better adapted to survive because they were more skilled hunters. But since the norse were european Christians they dismissed the inuit skills as not being worth learning.' When the interviewer called him on the 'European Christians' thing he backpedalled pretty quickly but I think that's pretty damning.

[Jake the Plumber]

When the interviewer called him on the 'European Christians' thing he backpedalled pretty quickly but I think that's pretty damning.
I don't think it is very damning. It may indicate that he has a slight prejudice against Europeans, but unless you want to make a case for European Christians adopting the skills and techniques of the locals... *shrugs*

[Acsenray]

No, he did not "backpedal very quickly." He said that the Norse believed their lifestyle to be superior and, for cultural reasons, refused to adapt to the environment.

[SuaSponte]

I haven't read Diamond's new book but I did read his ad for it - er, New York Times Op-ed piece - a week or so back, which summarized his argument.

And I had problems with it. The biggest problem I had was his over-generous use of extrapolation. His primary thesis is that the US and the West were heading for a fall due to environmental change. He used as a basis of his thesis the fates of the Greenland colonies, Easter Island, the Mayan culture and one other I forget at this moment.

Well, duh.

Mayans - 60,000 mi sq., centered on the Yucutan peninsula, one climatic zone.
Easter Island - 171 mi sq., a dinky island, one climatic zone.
Norse Greenland colonies - no idea, but bloody small, one climatic zone.
United States - 2,500,000 mi sq., sub-arctic to sub-tropical, myriad varying climatic zones.

A long-term drought affecting a 100,000 mi sq. area can certainly cause the collapse of a culture that is completely or mostly within the boundaries of the drought area, as is believed to have occurred to the Mayans.
A long-term drought affecting a 100,000 mi sq. area within the United States? Hell, we've had more than one of those, and it didn't cause the collapse of the American culture.

Diamond may have a solid point, and I will be reading his book. But, on the face of it, he is doing himself a disservice by pointing to these (relatively) dinky cultures as canaries in the coal mine. If Diamond had been able to point to but one major, widespread culture being done in by environmental catastrophe, then he would have a much stronger argument (and, for all I know, he does have such examples in the book, but for some reason decided not to address them in his promotional efforts). And there are certainly enough examples of major cultures that have collapsed. The fact that he hasn't asserted that the Roman empire, or the Babylonians, or the Mongols were done in by climate change is, IMO, a big problem with his thesis.

Sua

[RM Mentock]

And I had problems with it. The biggest problem I had was his over-generous use of extrapolation.
When you're predicting the future, though, what options do you have? :)

[Spoke]

...The fact that he hasn't asserted that the Roman empire, or the Babylonians, or the Mongols were done in by climate change is, IMO, a big problem with his thesis....



I haven't read the book or the op ed piece you mention, but didn't Diamond discuss in Guns, Germs and Steel decreasing agricultural production in the Fertile Crescent owing to increased salinity of the soil (caused by centuries of irrigation)? And didn't he suggest that the Fertile Crescent is no longer a power base because of this agricultural collapse? (Going from memory here, and my memory may be fuzzy.)

[Tamerlane]

I haven't read the book or the op ed piece you mention, but didn't Diamond discuss in Guns, Germs and Steel decreasing agricultural production in the Fertile Crescent owing to increased salinity of the soil (caused by centuries of irrigation)? And didn't he suggest that the Fertile Crescent is no longer a power base because of this agricultural collapse? (Going from memory here, and my memory may be fuzzy.)

Yes, but the Fertile Crescent is another example of a limited geographical area. The Babylonians were probably a poor choice of an example for Sua to use. It is likely the equally geographically restricted civilization of the Sumerians fell in just this way.

In point of fact, we can also use this example as part of the disruption of a large state. One of the causes for the decay of the Abbasid Caliphate was probably exactly this process ( which apparently has been cyclic over the millenia ), which caused a financial crisis as land revenues from the Iraqi economic engine that was central to the state sunk by the mid-Abbasid period to ~1/3 what they had been under the Umayyads.

However this was only one factor among several and I'm not sure I'd be willing to get deterministic about it.

- Tamerlane

[Spoke]

Maybe it can't happen here, but we are using irrigation over most of our farmland in the US, and areas of the country where crops might be grown without irrigation are increasingly losing their topsoil to residential development. (I'm thinking of Southern and Northeastern farmland here.) So if our heavily irrigated farmlands in the Midwest and the West start developing salinity problems decades or centuries hence, we may not have a good backup plan at the ready.

[Spoke]

(In my previous post, I'm using "Northeastern" broadly, to include Mid-Atlantic states, plus Pennsylvania and Ohio. Farmland there and in the South is being steadily lost to development.)

[Malthus]

Maybe it can't happen here, but we are using irrigation over most of our farmland in the US, and areas of the country where crops might be grown without irrigation are increasingly losing their topsoil to residential development. (I'm thinking of Southern and Northeastern farmland here.) So if our heavily irrigated farmlands in the Midwest and the West start developing salinity problems decades or centuries hence, we may not have a good backup plan at the ready.

Nobody would, I think, discount the possibility of environmental disasters. Certainly, the use of water resources, loss of topsoil, etc. may be the recepy for serious trouble in the future.

The question is whether such trouble will bring down our civilization into collapse, like that of the Easter Islanders or the Maya - such that, in some future time, explorers from elsewhere come across the remains of US cities overgrown with forest, and maybe some scattered tribes of Americans living here and there in the ruins.

The problem with this scenario is that it is hard to see, connected as the world is, that any disaster in one place could not be mitigated by help from another - at least, among the already rich countries.

In Mr. Diamond's book, he is well aware of the importance of inter-connectedness (it is one of his factors). However, he eventually expresses the opinion that this inter-connectedness can be a *danger*, because if there is a collapse, it will take out everyone.

I'm not so sure, and certainly his examples do not prove it (how could they?). It seems to me that some places are already undergoing a Malthusian/environmental crisis right now (Diamond makes the case that this is happening in Rwanda), to general indifference and lack of impact in the West; whereas others may be hit by a natural disaster (like the recent Tsunami), and gain instant support and relief.

In my opinion, the world is dividing up into places that "matter" to other wealthy countries, and places that do not -- and the environmental/Malthusian events that happen in the latter are unlikely to have much real impact on the former -- which are all inter-connected and unlikely to allow any part to collapse.

[Rune]

The Viking Greenlanders also seem a really uncertain example to me. Theirs was always a very marginal collection of settlement, never of any great number of extend. Nearly cut off from any contact with the rest of civilisation. I think this was served by one trade ship sailing from Bergen once a year.

It is assumed that climate shift to a colder era (the small ice age) is one of the elements that drove them extinct or away, but nobody really knows. It could just as well have been The Black Death. Or perhaps escalating strife with the Eskimos. Political changes in Scandinavia between Denmark and Norway at the time, broke off regular contact with Greenland. Might have been that. Might have been any number of things. Might be they just though life was too damn miserable and cold and went to Iceland. Some of them apparently decided to live with the Eskimos, according to DNA surveys. Most likely there were also Viking settlements in North America which went extinct. Those had nothing to do with climate change.

[Spoke]

The problem with this scenario is that it is hard to see, connected as the world is, that any disaster in one place could not be mitigated by help from another - at least, among the already rich countries.

But ultimately, the entire planet is an island, no? (Probably why Diamond likes the Easter Island example so much.)

When I think of civilization collapsing, I'm not thinking of just US civilization, but the whole global civilization. If we are reckless with our resources as a global society, mightn't that be the risk?

Maybe technology will save us. Or maybe not. It's a gamble. Shouldn't we hedge our bets?

[Malthus]

But ultimately, the entire planet is an island, no? (Probably why Diamond likes the Easter Island example so much.)

When I think of civilization collapsing, I'm not thinking of just US civilization, but the whole global civilization. If we are reckless with our resources as a global society, mightn't that be the risk?

Maybe technology will save us. Or maybe not. It's a gamble. Shouldn't we hedge our bets?

That's just the issue. The whole world is *not* "just like Easter Island". Easter Island is a single, tiny island. The world is a great big planet. There are lots of similarities and lots of differences. The question is, which are more important - similarities or differences?

Any analogy hinges on that.

I'm not one to discount the danger of a global collapse. It certainly *could* happen. But if you wish to change present policy in order to avert future disaster, you have to demonstrate which things are going to make it *more* likely, and which are not.

For example, in your previous post you mention, specifically, loss of topsoil and residential development as problems.

Presumably, the answer you would like to see is a halt to practices that erode topsoil, and a halt to residential development.

I point out that these may be purely *local* problems, ones that can be mitigated by inter-connectedness (I never mentioned "being saved by technology", so you must be reading that in somehow). For example, if all of the farmland in part of the US gets covered by city, this is only a problem if you can't buy farm products from elsewhere.

Now, the policies you would presumably champion (I'm making that assumption for the sake of argument) have costs. A halt on residential development means that the price of housing increases, which means that more and more people will not be able to afford it - which could be a big problem.

So, we have to know if this policy is actually worth the cost. And that means being specific about the dangers. Platatudes like "the world is an island" are not going to convince people to overcome the "tragedy of the commons" problems of natural resources!

And that is my problem in a nutshell with Mr. Diamond's book. As I said, I think his heart is in the right place. I too worry about environmental degredation and the possibilities of global collapse. But if we want to convince people to *do* something effective about it, we must aknowledge that this has heavy costs - perhaps people left homeless and hungry - and so requires a serious level of proof, and not just nice-sounding phrases.

[Spoke]

The "saved by technology" bit in my previous post goes back to the OP.

For example, in your previous post you mention, specifically, loss of topsoil and residential development as problems.

...

I point out that these may be purely *local* problems, ones that can be mitigated by inter-connectedness (I never mentioned "being saved by technology", so you must be reading that in somehow). For example, if all of the farmland in part of the US gets covered by city, this is only a problem if you can't buy farm products from elsewhere.

Perhaps. But I think it may be as dangerous to rely on interconnectedness to save us as it is to rely upon as-yet-undeveloped technology. The US is the breadbasket of the world. Is there another "breadbasket" at the ready to replace us if we deplete our topsoil? Or is it possible to reach a point at which the world cannot produce enough food to fill everyone's belly? I don't know the answer to that question.

(This is the sense in which I mean that the entire world is an island. It is a closed system of finite resources. Granted, a much larger system than Easter Island, but that just means that it has larger limits, not that there are no limits.)

Now, the policies you would presumably champion (I'm making that assumption for the sake of argument) have costs. A halt on residential development means that the price of housing increases, which means that more and more people will not be able to afford it - which could be a big problem.

So, we have to know if this policy is actually worth the cost. And that means being specific about the dangers. Platatudes like "the world is an island" are not going to convince people to overcome the "tragedy of the commons" problems of natural resources!

And that is my problem in a nutshell with Mr. Diamond's book.

I didn't propose a specific solution, because I don't have one. But there is value in pointing out the problem, so that people recognize it as a problem, and maybe start to think about possible solutions.

[Rune]

The US is the breadbasket of the world. Is there another "breadbasket" at the ready to replace us if we deplete our topsoil? America the bread basket of the world? Never heard that before. Anyway there are plenty agricultural vastly underdeveloped areas. Ukraine, Russia, Poland, Brazil, Argentine, Zambia, Zimbabwe springs to mind.

[Spoke]

America the bread basket of the world? Never heard that before. Anyway there are plenty agricultural vastly underdeveloped areas. Ukraine, Russia, Poland, Brazil, Argentine, Zambia, Zimbabwe springs to mind.

Yes, and an Easter Islander cutting down a tree no doubt assured himself that there were plenty more where that came from.

[RaftPeople]

The US is the breadbasket of the world. Is there another "breadbasket" at the ready to replace us if we deplete our topsoil?

America the bread basket of the world? Never heard that before. Anyway there are plenty agricultural vastly underdeveloped areas. Ukraine, Russia, Poland, Brazil, Argentine, Zambia, Zimbabwe springs to mind.

"Brazil, long a leading exporter of sugar, citrus and coffee, is emerging as the world's leading low-cost producer of major farm commodities once hardly associated with the tropics. Now, it is threatening the United States' standing as the world's farming superpower, a development that could have profound consequences for rural America."

http://www.startribune.com/stories/462/4647358.html

[Spoke]

Maybe we can get by, shifting from one agricultural breadbasket to another. Maybe a "fallow" of US farms forced by the emergence of Brazillian agriculture would allow US topsoil to recover.

On the other hand, maybe we'll deplete one breadbasket after another until there are none left.

I don't know enough about the problem to know which is true. But I do know it is dangerous to assume (as did the Easter Islanders) that we'll always have plenty of resources.

[RM Mentock]

Maybe we can get by, shifting from one agricultural breadbasket to another. Maybe a "fallow" of US farms forced by the emergence of Brazillian agriculture would allow US topsoil to recover.
Somehow, I don't think that's the problem, right now.

[JKellyMap]

Rune and others: IMHO, Diamond's introductory contention (in GGS) that his New Guinea friends seemed more "intelligent" than your average Westerner was meant just as a sort of (naively-written) devil's-advocate eye-opener, and is hardly the main point of the rest of the book (which I generally enjoyed, BTW).

In any case, I think that both you and Mr. Diamond should stop focusing so much on "intelligence" anyway -- the concept can be defined in so many ways, and historically (and today) has contributed to much harm without illuminating a whole lot. I recommend to both of you my favorite Stephen Jay Gould book, The Mismeasure of Man, as an antidote to your fixations with "intelligence".

[Acsenray]

I agree. And it's not that Diamond was fixated on "intelligence." He was setting out his premise that there's some reason that societies develop at different rates and it's not because the people of a particular society are lacking in or benefitting from some inherent virtue, such as intelligence, or rectitude, or industriousness.

[ralph124c]

I too , find a lot that is unscientific (and just plain stupid) in Diamond's book. First: there is NO evidence that the greenlanders "died out". Bodies buried in the cemetray at Gardar, greenland, were found dressed in the latest fashions of the time. The most likely explanation for the disappearence of the Greenland colony was their abduction by english pirates. There were only a few hundred people anyway, and it is true, life for them was getting increasingly hard. The worsening climate was making dairy farming almost impossible.
Second, if the new Guineans are so "intelligent', then how come they never evolved any writing method? or even this; there is no evidence that any of the mountain tribes ever even BOTHERED to trade with the coastal tribes. Their odd customs (like eating human brains) also doesn't bespeak of much "intelligence"-particularly when people started dying after the funeral feast!
So Diamond is a lot like freud-a mountain of reasonable speculation, but no real proff of most of it.

[Acsenray]

Second, if the new Guineans are so "intelligent', then how come they never evolved any writing method? or even this; there is no evidence that any of the mountain tribes ever even BOTHERED to trade with the coastal tribes. Their odd customs (like eating human brains) also doesn't bespeak of much "intelligence"-particularly when people started dying after the funeral feast!

What does any of this have to do with intelligence? Diamond's point is that technological developments like writing are not the result of intelligence, but, rather a concatenation of circumstances, most of them being environmental.

If there never was a "tipping" point that made writing more useful than not to New Guinean society, then their failure to evolve it is not evidence of a lack of intelligence, but just that they never "evolved" a need for writing.

What evidence do you have that New Guineans started dropping like flies after a funeral feast? Maybe the number of deaths or illnesses never became common enough to effect a change in the culture?

So what if mountain tribes never even BOTHERED to trade with coastal tribes? That signifies a lack of intelligence? What were the circumstances? Did they need to trade with coastal tribes? Were there reasons not to?

[SentientMeat]

First: there is NO evidence that the greenlanders "died out". Bodies buried in the cemetrayThen they did die, or were they fashionably buried alive?
The most likely explanation for the disappearence of the Greenland colony was their abduction by english pirates. There were only a few hundred people anywayCite? And why would pirates abduct hundreds of people?
and it is true, life for them was getting increasingly hard....ultimately causing the settlement to "die out", perhaps?
Second, if the new Guineans are so "intelligent', then how come they never evolved any writing method?If you're so intelligent, Jared would ask, how come you'd be dead within days or weeks if left in the jungle? A jungle is a difficult environment to scratch an existence from, leaving little time for the pursuits whose specialists can be fed by agricultural surpluses.
there is no evidence that any of the mountain tribes ever even BOTHERED to trade with the coastal tribes.Why do you say this? The anthropologists and sociologists whom Jared cites all give first hand accounts of meetings between these different tribes and groups, in which items were exchanged.
Their odd customs (like eating human brains) also doesn't bespeak of much "intelligence"What is inherently unintelligent about eating human flesh and offal? I've often wanted to try a bit myself.
So Diamond is a lot like freud-a mountain of reasonable speculation, but no real proff of most of it.Beware that you sound very much like a Creationist demanding instant, single item "proff" of evolution. Anthropology is just as scientific an endeavour, but requires an overview of a great deal of evidence from various directions.

[Larry Borgia]

If you're so intelligent, Jared would ask, how come you'd be dead within days or weeks if left in the jungle? A jungle is a difficult environment to scratch an existence from, leaving little time for the pursuits whose specialists can be fed by agricultural surpluses.

This is just a nitpick, but it seems to me that the reason the New Guineans can survive in the jungle and we can't doesn't have anything to do with inherent intelligence, but rather training and experience. If the jungle is where you grew up, the jungle is what you learn to cope with. It would be as silly to expect a New Guinea islander to pass the California Bar Exam or negotiate alease with a landlord as it would be to expect an urban westerner to outperform said islander in his habitat. The ability to outperform a new-comer in an environment you're used to is not a sign of your inherent intelligence. The NG's might indeed be super-minds, but their jungle skills are not evidence of this.

[ralph124c]

New Guinea and post-funeral deaths: the custom of eating dead relative's brains has been the cause of considerable death among the new Guinea highlanders. In fact, the mad-cow like symptoms were well known in new Guinea. I would conclude (though I am just an "ignorant" westerner, that something BAD , indeed happens to people who eat human brains. The incubation period of this disease is pretty short.
Greenland and the "mysterious' disappearance of the norse colonists. the best evidence of this is the following:
-the last recorded wedding in greenland took place in the year 1470. Greenland then had a small population, but one that still had contact with europe. the burgundian-style men's hats (seen on the corpses in the graveyard) is proof that there was contact untill 1500 AD, at the least. The norse farms were abandoned (quite suddenly) in the early 1500's. Helge Ingestad gives several cites of traders landing at towns in greenland-and finding feral cattle and sheep-no people.
So, yes, there is considerable proof that greenland was abandoned quirte suddenly. the abduction by english pirates is the most lilkely fate of the colonists.
No, they did NOT die off peacefully.

[SentientMeat]

Agreed, Larry - that was my point. Writing is something that we have learned just as ingenious methods of staying alive (like, say, following the monkey you fed with salt to a water source) are what NGers learn from an early age. This thread is (or became, after something of a diversion) about Jared's suggestion that the knife-edge in the jungle, in which you have to be ingenious or die, might be a stronger evolutionary pressure than current Western civilisation in which stupidity and laziness do not have so dramatic a consequence to the individual. He could have said "NGers are differently intelligent to us", but that perhaps doesn't inspire as much debate as suggesting that they might even be more intelligent than us.

[Acsenray]

This is just a nitpick, but it seems to me that the reason the New Guineans can survive in the jungle and we can't doesn't have anything to do with inherent intelligence, but rather training and experience.

Eeeeexactly Diamond's point. Differences in technological advances are not the result of differences in "intelligence" or other virtues.

[SentientMeat]

In fact, the mad-cow like symptoms were well known in new Guinea. I would conclude (though I am just an "ignorant" westerner, that something BAD , indeed happens to people who eat human brains. The incubation period of this disease is pretty short.3-6 months (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuru_%28disease%29) is not "pretty short" in terms of a foraging people identifying a causative agent. Any number of things could have caused kuru - it even required extensive research by Western doctors to correlate it to the brain consumption.
No, they did NOT die off peacefully.Ah, now you specify "peacefully". Harsher environmental conditions make violent death more likely as resources become more scarce. None of this impugns Jared's description of the Grennland settlement as "dying out".

[JKellyMap]

I agree. And it's not that Diamond was fixated on "intelligence." He was setting out his premise that there's some reason that societies develop at different rates and it's not because the people of a particular society are lacking in or benefitting from some inherent virtue, such as intelligence, or rectitude, or industriousness.

I'm with you, Acsenray. I just think that Diamond perhaps shouldn't have momentarily violated (in order to make a quick, eye-opening point, and so spur the reader on to better things) his own general argument against "intelligence" as a particularly useful concept.

For a debate on how temporarily contradicting one's general principles in order to prove a larger point may or may not be a wise tactic, check out:

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=293957

[Pleonast]

His latest book "Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed" posits that creeping environmental collapse will occur over time (and not all that long a time) as a result of modern societies (esp the US') ethos of "unbridled consumerism", and as a result those societies will fail.Returning to the OP, I disagree. I have read Collapse. In my opinion, Diamond's thesis is that environmental factors have been significant in the sudden demise of multiple societies in the past. And that societies that solve these environmental problems have survived.

Diamond then extrapolates that such environmental factors could (not will) cause a collapse of our present societies. He also highlights how pro-environment policies, instituted by either a centralized government or by grassroots actions, can counteract environmental degradations. He then states that both the forces worsening and sustaining the environment are increasing in strength. He explicitly states that the final outcome is unknowable at this point.

[Larry Borgia]

Agreed, Larry - that was my point. Writing is something that we have learned just as ingenious methods of staying alive (like, say, following the monkey you fed with salt to a water source) are what NGers learn from an early age. This thread is (or became, after something of a diversion) about Jared's suggestion that the knife-edge in the jungle, in which you have to be ingenious or die, might be a stronger evolutionary pressure than current Western civilisation in which stupidity and laziness do not have so dramatic a consequence to the individual. He could have said "NGers are differently intelligent to us", but that perhaps doesn't inspire as much debate as suggesting that they might even be more intelligent than us.

My mistake. Carry on. :)

[Eolbo]

3-6 months (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuru_%28disease%29) is not "pretty short" in terms of a foraging people identifying a causative agent. Any number of things could have caused kuru - it even required extensive research by Western doctors to correlate it to the brain consumption.

To add to your point, the Fore had been eating brains for a long time but the Kuru disease only emerged in recent times. It was not a traditional risk associated with brain eating. Whether it was a cross-species migration of some type, or whether from contact with white men, individuals with Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease had been introduced into the gene (and eating) pool, something had changed. And it wasnt obvious what that change was.

[Zoinks]

Second, if the new Guineans are so "intelligent', then how come they never evolved any writing method? or even this; there is no evidence that any of the mountain tribes ever even BOTHERED to trade with the coastal tribes.

"If they're so smart, why don't they have rocketships?" Is this seriously your argument? Fine, here's one possible explanation -- I suspect Jared Diamond would make a similar environmentally-based argument:

First, writing was likely invented as a consequence of agriculture. Rulers needed to keep track of the tribute their subjects gave them, tribute that could only exist because of the surplus food provided by agriculture, surplus that was impossible to get with hunting and gathering (whose products could not be stored and stockpiled). The need to keep track of tribute led to the tribute lists familiar to students of early Mesopotamian history and archaeology, as well as students of early writing.

Consider that New Guinea is mostly composed of difficult terrain -- mountains, hills, and rainforests. It is not very fertile, and intensive agriculture would not be possible as a long-term survival strategy. Also consider that the most-intensive food production techniques that New Guineans practiced was horticulture (i.e., they grew food in gardens, not farms). That was the most that their land could support. Not much surplus could be produced, so unproductive members of society, like scholars, scribes, and a separate ruling class to employ them, would quickly drain resources. With no rulers demanding taxes, then there is no tribute to keep track of, and no need of methods to keep track of tribute.

The bands>tribes>chiefdoms>states continuum is considered simplistic and intellectually sloppy in modern anthropology, but it serves as an easy explanatory framework. The greatest cultural complexity possible in New Guinea, using local resources, was at the level of the chiefdom. Chiefdoms can operate well enough without writing because they don't get too large, relative to states.

So, there you go, an environmental explanation to why New Guineans didn't have writing. They didn't have writing because they didn't need it, and they didn't need it because their environment didn't allow them to achieve more political and cultural complexity.

[Zoinks]

Also notice that nothing in my argument requires any assumption of intelligence levels in New Guineans or anyone in particular.

[Zoinks]

I know I'm posting again for a 3rd time, but I forgot to ask this of ralph124c: if you would, please indicate where you got the information about the collapse of the Greenland colony being caused by English pirates.

[Lochdale]

Having read only two chapters of Diamond's books (time to download it to my ipod I think) I am not in a position to comment. Reading all the above posts, however, it strikes me that Diamond is basically putting European sucess down to location, location and location. Seems a little simplistic to me.

[Blake]

Consider that New Guinea is mostly composed of difficult terrain -- mountains, hills, and rainforests. It is not very fertile, and intensive agriculture would not be possible as a long-term survival strategy. Also consider that the most-intensive food production techniques that New Guineans practiced was horticulture (i.e., they grew food in gardens, not farms). That was the most that their land could support. Not much surplus could be produced, so unproductive members of society, like scholars, scribes, and a separate ruling class to employ them, would quickly drain resources. With no rulers demanding taxes, then there is no tribute to keep track of, and no need of methods to keep track of tribute.


Ahem.

The highlands of New Guinea posess some of the most fertile sols on theplanet. The agriculture of New Guinea supported the highest population densities on the planet until less than 1000 years ago. They still suport the highest population desnities of agricultrual people that have ever existed anywhere on the planet, and that largley without the aid 20th century fertilisers, irrigation or engineered crops.

Saying that New Guinea isn't very fertile, can's support many people, can;t be used for intensive agriculture and can't produce a surplus is nonsense. New Guinea is an island but it's a freakin' big island. Larger than middle east. Syaing that New Guinea is any of those things is like saying that the middle east is any of those things.

[Blake]

As others have said, Diamond is a reasonable anthropologist but that means he can study what humans do, it gives him no ability at all to study what they can do. I haven’t read this latest book and I don’t think I will do, but I suspect that it depends, as does a lot of Diamond’s more strident environmentalist stuff, on cherry-picking references and ignoring obvious counter examples.

Easter Island itself is a classic example of this. Diamond has said many times before this book was published that Easter Island was essentially pillaged and that this is an example of how technology can’t save a society. Yet he ignores the fact that technology did save the Easter islanders.

Diamond simply ignores the fact that after a period of civil war the Easter Islanders invented a new technology, Writing. They are the only Polynesian people ever to invent writing and with the Mesopotamians and Meso-Americans may be tone of only three people anywhere in the world to make this technological breakthrough. That’s not to shabby for an isolated population of a few hundred thousand people. What’s more astounding is that using this new technology the Easter islander’s produced a novel social system found nowhere else in the world, another technological breakthrough. And by doing this they managed to unite the warring tribes and produce a sustained peace and sustainable lifestyle.


Diamond says that today Easter Island is “a barren and largely empty outcropping of volcanic rock” Well of course it is. The people were enslaved, deported, raped, forcibly converted to Christianity and scourged by European diseases. That the island is barren and empty is not the result of environmental degradation, it’s the result of European and later South American colonialism.

At the time of first European contact Easter Island supported a thriving, vibrant and more importantly advancing society of some 2000 people. That was certainly less than the peak population of some 6000 but the island was far from the “barren and largely empty outcropping of volcanic rock” that Diamond tries to portray it as. The fall of Easter island is just another of the many examples of the catastrophic impact of European contact on indigenous cultures so well references in “Guns, Germs & Steel”. What it is [I]not[/I[ is an example of a society that advanced so far that it destroyed its environment and couldn’t invent technology to save itself.

Indeed Easter Island is a stirling example of exactly the opposite. It’s a premier example of where people, faced with challenges caused by resource depletion, swiftly evolved a range of technologies to overcome those problems and produce a new and sustainable society.


I would have a lot more respect for Diamond if he would at least acknowledge these facts. He can choose to interpret them any way he likes but to date he has simply pretended they don’t exist. He has repeatedly portrayed Easter Island as an uninhabited rock because of environmental changes when in fact it supported very high population densities before being decimated by European contact.

[RM Mentock]

Reading all the above posts, however, it strikes me that Diamond is basically putting European sucess down to location, location and location. Seems a little simplistic to me.
So, what else you got?

Diamond says that today Easter Island is “a barren and largely empty outcropping of volcanic rock” Well of course it is. The people were enslaved, deported, raped, forcibly converted to Christianity and scourged by European diseases. That the island is barren and empty is not the result of environmental degradation, it’s the result of European and later South American colonialism.
This webpage (http://www.apj.co.uk/rapanui_primer/primer_environment.asp) says first contact was what 1722? And the island was "barren" then.

Also, that website mentions that Fischer in 1995 translated some of the heiroglyphics, and claims that the writing was a late introduction copied from the Spanish in 1770.

[Lochdale]

So, what else you got?


Well it would strike me that are similarly situtated geographical patterns in Asia, South America and Africa. How does he account for the rise of the Greeks for example?

[ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies]

I'm reading GGS currently, and will move on to Collapse next. I find all sorts of resonance between Diamond's work and the ideas proposed by Daniel Quinn.

Further, I think the global vs local culture/societal facets of this debate can be put in an interesting perspective if you use Quinn's Taker vs Leaver dichotomy.

It is the Taker world view that is at risk of collapse with our current trajectory and momentum. The Taker world view just happens to bring all sorts of other species and resources down along with it.

The "technology will save us" perspective is largely species-centric as well. Even if, hypothetically, we are able to eventually develope and impliment technology that is able to sustain a stable human population indefinitely, if we continue on the same path that we're on currently, I fear the only species left on the planet will be species that directly support humanity, and that is not a world of which I would want to be a part.

[Neurotik]

Well it would strike me that are similarly situtated geographical patterns in Asia, South America and Africa. How does he account for the rise of the Greeks for example?
Well, the first problem you're having is that he's not specifically talking about Europe for most of the book, he's talking about Eurasia as a whole. Basically, he's asking why was Eurasia so advanced, while most of Africa and the Americas were still stuck in the stone age. Essentially, it comes down to geographic luck of the draw.

Eurasia had native wild crops like wheatgrass that were extremely easy to domesticate. Not only that, but the east-west axis of Eurasia meant that crops developed in Europe could easily be transplanted to Asia and vice versa. You had a lot of agricultural sharing that way. The Americas and Africa didn't really have those easily domesticated native crops that were basically ready to go, they had to gradually develop them over thousands of years. Moreover, the north-south axes made it more difficult to transplant crops through normal trade.

Eurasia also had a variety of native animals that were easily domesticated than either Africa or the Americas. He gives the example of the horse. Why didn't native Africans domesticate zebras the way that central Asians domesticated the horse? Well, it's not because the Africans were stupider, it's that the zebra is nearly impossible to domesticate, unlike the native horses of the central Asian steppes.

Essentially, Eurasia had huge advances over the other continents in terms of things necessary to start and maintain large civilizations.

[Zoinks]

The highlands of New Guinea posess some of the most fertile sols on theplanet. The agriculture of New Guinea supported the highest population densities on the planet until less than 1000 years ago. They still suport the highest population desnities of agricultrual people that have ever existed anywhere on the planet, and that largley without the aid 20th century fertilisers, irrigation or engineered crops.

Saying that New Guinea isn't very fertile, can's support many people, can;t be used for intensive agriculture and can't produce a surplus is nonsense. New Guinea is an island but it's a freakin' big island. Larger than middle east. Syaing that New Guinea is any of those things is like saying that the middle east is any of those things.

The highlands of New Guinea had even less population density 1000 years ago than 300 years ago. The greatest limiting factor on agricultural cultivation (and thus population) in the highlands was altitude. Yam falls out of cultivation by about 1800 m, marita pandanus shortly afterwards and by 2100 m bananas, sugar cane and a number of vegetables are also not cultivated, while taro's limit is effectively 2100 m. Sweet potato, however, can be cultivated at an altitude of up to 2700 m. The introduction of the sweet potato (most likely by Europeans in the 16th century) allowed people to settle at higher altitudes. The sweet potato was also more prolific than taro (the previous staple) and could be cultivated over a wider range of soils.

In the eastern highlands in particular, which had little or no history of intensive cultivation, the sweet potato radically altered life there, with greatly increased human and pig populations. However, this state of affairs is only three centuries old. In the Arona valley, for example, there is no evidence of human occupation older than 200 years. Fore groups are even believed to have only adopted the sweet potato only 100 years ago, while for other eastern highlands societies it was adopted within living memory. Before the arrival of the sweet potato, eastern highlands societies were probably small and scattered in population.

Yes, it is a source of debate how revolutionary the introduction of sweet potato really was, but the contention that the sweet potato allowed greater intensification of plant production and pig husbandry is an uncontroversial one.

To reiterate: the population density of highland New Guinea is a historically recent phenomenon. I don't even see how you can argue that New Guinea's population density is the highest of agricultural people that have ever existed, since population density is notoriously hard to estimate before state censuses, and practically any city would have more. Obviously, ethnographic analogy would not hold, either. It is nonsense to think that present conditions can be projected onto the past, or to assume that New Guinea's Neolithic prehistory is a uniform entity. The introduction of yams and taro, the abandonment of swamp cultivation, the creation of anthropogenic grasslands -- these all happened before New Guinea's recorded history.

Anyway, perhaps I should have said, "Not much surplus could be produced relative to state-level societies." I stand by the rest of what I said. Surplus in horticulture-based societies cannot support as large a non-productive population as in intensive agriculture. Note that when I say agriculture I am referring specifically to farms, which New Guinea never had before historical times. What it did have was horticulture.

However, I retract what I said about New Guinea chiefdoms. They never existed, and I was thinking of Polynesian examples.

[Zoinks]

To those taking issue with the environmental determinism in GGS, it would actually be more accurate to refer to Diamond's viewpoint as environmental possibilism. That is, the form of a society is not determined by the environment, but the environment does limit what a society can become. One would not expect subarctic dwellers to form vast empires, nor inhabitants of land-locked countries to form vast merchant fleets.

Diamond's fixation on the environment in GGS is a legitimate criticism of the book though, as well as his avoidance of the role of individual agency in social change and his strategic blindness to contradictory data (his dismissal of precolonial African history, for instance).

That said, I still think his book is a brilliant synthesis of the knowledge of diferent disciplines. I view Diamond's mistakes the same way I view Marx's reliance on shaky ethnographic data: while the details can be argued on, the general thrust of the work is something not to be ignored. Who would even argue now against the view of economics being the driving force (or at least a major one) of social change?

While most of what Diamond says is not new to anyone who has studied anthropology (or should not be), his popularization of these issues is certainly a good thing.

[Lochdale]

Well, the first problem you're having is that he's not specifically talking about Europe for most of the book, he's talking about Eurasia as a whole. Basically, he's asking why was Eurasia so advanced, while most of Africa and the Americas were still stuck in the stone age. Essentially, it comes down to geographic luck of the draw.

Eurasia had native wild crops like wheatgrass that were extremely easy to domesticate. Not only that, but the east-west axis of Eurasia meant that crops developed in Europe could easily be transplanted to Asia and vice versa. You had a lot of agricultural sharing that way. The Americas and Africa didn't really have those easily domesticated native crops that were basically ready to go, they had to gradually develop them over thousands of years. Moreover, the north-south axes made it more difficult to transplant crops through normal trade.

Eurasia also had a variety of native animals that were easily domesticated than either Africa or the Americas. He gives the example of the horse. Why didn't native Africans domesticate zebras the way that central Asians domesticated the horse? Well, it's not because the Africans were stupider, it's that the zebra is nearly impossible to domesticate, unlike the native horses of the central Asian steppes.

Essentially, Eurasia had huge advances over the other continents in terms of things necessary to start and maintain large civilizations.

Interesting. What role does he ascribe to culture and religion though? For example, the reformation clearly resulted in social and scientific development. Further, does he suggest that humans evolved differently? Mind you this is a dangerous area but if one culture were more technologically inclined due to geography would this have a long-term affect on succeeding generations?

[Shalmanese]

He argues that due to the fractured nature of europes geography, the reformation would have been developed somewhere and then gradually spread to other regions via traders. Asia on the other hand was much flatter which allowed a single ruling party to control most of the land so good ideas had to be developed within the ruling system which limited innovation.

Personally, I thought that was the weakest point in his book but that's his opinion as far as I can grasp it.

[Blake]

This webpage (http://www.apj.co.uk/rapanui_primer/primer_environment.asp) says first contact was what 1722? And the island was "barren" then.


The webpage claims it was barren, and then goes on to say that it was grassland. Which was it, barren, or grassland? The problem here is the idea that grassland is somehow barren. That’s a nonsense. Most of the British isles were grassland not so long ago, yet they were no means barren.


bar·ren
1. a) Not producing offspring.
b)Incapable of producing offspring.
2. Lacking vegetation, especially useful vegetation
3. Unproductive of results or gains; unprofitable:

Easter island was covered in vegetation. It supported a stable population of around 2000 people on an island of around 150km2. By no stretch of the definition was it barren. At best one might say it was barren of trees, but it requires that specific qualifier to make the statement in any way accurate.

Also, that website mentions that Fischer in 1995 translated some of the heiroglyphics, and claims that the writing was a late introduction copied from the Spanish in 1770.

He did indeed claim that, a claim that has been pretty much universally rejected. A decent critique of Fischer’s so-called ‘tranlation’ is given here (http://www.netaxs.com/~trance/rongo2.html). There is no actual evidence that it was copied form the Spanish or any other language. All the archaeological evidence and hence majority opinion says that the writing predates European contact.

[Blake]

The highlands of New Guinea had even less population density 1000 years ago than 300 years ago.


But once again you make the mistake of referring to the highlands as though it is an homogenous area. It’s akin to referring to “The Middle East” and then averaging the desert, mountain and alluvial areas to arrive at population densities. If we do that then Mesopotamia never supported high population densities either.

This is the problem I’m having with your statements. You say that the NG highlands have infertile soils, can never be productive and can never support high populations, all the while ignoring that some areas are immensely fertile and support extremely high populations. This is no different to the situation in the Middle East where most areas are essentially unproductive while there are small area of immensely productive land.



To reiterate: the population density of highland New Guinea is a historically recent phenomenon.

No. it isn’t. As far as can be established it has been that way ever since the first Melanesian farmers settles there.

I don't even see how you can argue that New Guinea's population density is the highest of agricultural people that have ever existed, since population density is notoriously hard to estimate before state censuses, and practically any city would have more.

Umm, city densities may be higher, but those densities aren’t supported by cities. This is a strawman position. You’re saying that because 12 people sleep in one room in a city therefore that area supports a population of 12 people/10m2. That’s neither sensible nor true.


It is nonsense to think that present conditions can be projected onto the past, or to assume that New Guinea's Neolithic prehistory is a uniform entity. The introduction of yams and taro, the abandonment of swamp cultivation, the creation of anthropogenic grasslands -- these all happened before New Guinea's recorded history.

Yes. And this is a stirling example of special case pleading. When you want to argue that NG can’t support high populations you are quite happy to pretend you have some idea of what past population was like. When I point out that NG can and does support massively high populations suddenly present conditions can’t be projected.

What are you basing your claims that PNG never supported high populations on?

[q.uote]Anyway, perhaps I should have said, "Not much surplus could be produced relative to state-level societies."[/quote]

But you’d still be wrong. Because those areas are so incredibly production huge surpluses could be produced.


I stand by the rest of what I said.

In that case I’m calling you out. Can I please have a reference that New Guinea “is not very fertile”. I can provide any number that show that parts of it are incredibly fertile, some of the most fertile andproductive soils on the planet.

I will also ask a reference that “intensive agriculture would not be possible as a long-term survival strategy”. I can provide references showing that intensive agriculture has been practised in some areas for centuries.

[Lochdale]

Seeing as I cannot edit my posts I'll post again!

I'm on chapter three but I guess I am fundamentally disturbed by any book that has such as pat answer as "geography" to the development of the planet. I'm not sure I have every seen a problem, big or small, that has such a simple answer. Just a gut feeling.

[you with the face]

I'm on chapter three but I guess I am fundamentally disturbed by any book that has such as pat answer as "geography" to the development of the planet. I'm not sure I have every seen a problem, big or small, that has such a simple answer. Just a gut feeling.

The author's thesis does not just boil down to "geography". The number, diversity, and productivity of domesticatable plants and animals that are indigenously available to settlers in a particular region; the ease at which diffusion of these commodities as well as people (and indirectly, ideas and technology) can progress from area to another, and the kind of government that characterizes a region (which are mostly the product of all those other factors, plus others that Diamond postulates towards the end of the book) are the main thrusts of the book's message. When you start out with the premise that agriculture is crucial for the development of a technological society, then you should consider what environmental factors made agriculture less feasible in some areas as opposed to others. Interestingly enough, those areas that had the best conditions for agriculture (right climate, right kind of plants, close proximity to other centers of food production, right kind of animals to help till the ground, etc.) also happened to develop into technologically advanced societies. Throw in the presence of disease resistance and you have a technological society that can conquer other societies with weapons as well as epidemics like small pox and measles.

Although I found the book to be very interesting and informative, I didn't think that Diamond's thesis was all that ground-breaking. Who can really argue that the Austrialian aboriginee started out on an even playing field as the Chinese or the Italian? One can argue that some cultures are superior to others, but then we are still plagued with the question of where did these cultural differences come from?

[msmith537]

With regard to technology:

It's a little more complex than "some miraculous technology will save us". What people like Gates are arguing is that we need to research new technologies now to try and solve these problems before they become too large. Quite frankly I don't know what the alternatives to finding a technological solution are.