I did a quick scan of threads discussing GG&S and couldn’t find one on this topic - if I missed it, please help me out with a link and we can shut this one down straight away.
Anyway, the Thread Title sums it up. Given GG&S’s basic premise - that no human ethnicity is genetically superior, and Western Europeans ended up with the societal advantages of Guns, Germs and Steel due to a unique combo of environmental factors - does that translate to Nurture being more important than Nature?
I am struggling with this, but it seems like a logical conclusion - if all peoples start off the same place genetically and WEuro’s have ended up in a position of power and conquest due to their environment - that’s Nurture more than Nature, right? And yet we also have increasing evidence that certain behaviors, mental approaches, etc. have a basis in our genes, i.e., Nature over Nurture. I recognize it is a rhetorical dichotomy but am curious how the conclusions of GG&S inform the discussion.
Perhaps I am confusing a micro question - shaping of an individual’s personality due to N vs. N - with a macro anthropological analysis?