Guns, Germs, and Steel

[Yosho]

Originally posted by ike7
That was an excellent book, very readable.

In addition to the excellent sections on food crop and animal domestication, i liked the chapter on technology indifference.

It seems that many cultures discovered technologies at incredibly early stages, and promptly ignored them, or used them for very mundane tasks. The Japanese ignoring firearms because the samurai ruled their society, the Chinese ignoring ocean-faring vessels.

It's interesting to wonder if that emperor decided to not scrap all the ocean faring vessels and discovered the Americas centuries ahead of Europe. This would be quite a different world altogether.

Yeah...I think the point there was that one isolated, centralized culture can choose to simply abandon a new technology, for whatever reason; but when there's several fairly large cultures right next to each other (like Europe), someone's going to adopt the new technology, and get a competitive advantege; then either everyone else willl follow, or they will probably be conquored; either way, the tech will spread.

For example, if the US was isolated, we could decide to ignore stem cell research, and that would be that; but in an interconnected world someone, somewhere will research it, and if it works better then any alternatives, we'll probably adopt the technology eventually.

On the other hand, too many small, warring cultures also stops technological development. Stuff seems to develop faster when there's a balance, or so he thought.

[gilfan]

Originally posted by zombielordzero
all the show listings for "guns germs and steel" that i get at tvguide.com are for july 11th, 18th, and 25th 2005. is there anywhere that lists for 2006?

I only listed tvguide.com because it has more "name recognition" and some people might be more inclined to use something they recognize. I've always found www.zap2it.com to be a far better tool. Try searching there, instead.

[Denny]

Originally posted by ike7
It's interesting to wonder if that emperor decided to not scrap all the ocean faring vessels and discovered the Americas centuries ahead of Europe. This would be quite a different world altogether.

Interesting thread.

I'm sure there was something on the news the other week that some *really* old maps found in china (alledgely) proved that the chinese DID get round the americas first. Wether they bothered pack a settler on the ships, i don't know! - I'll try and find the link out for you.

Also JimG, Berk is rhyming slang, for an extremely rude word, which i can't possibly post up here! (PM me!)

Denny

[JimG]

Denny - I had a vague memory of what the other meaning of Berk might be - good ol' Wikipedia soon saw me right!
I didn't realise that "He's a right Charlie" has the same rhyming slang meaning though!

[Veritass]

North-south versus east-west.

Another point made in the book stuck out to me, though I admit this has nothing to do with anything that would be ported into Civ. It has to do with Eurasia being oriented primarily east-west and the Americas being oriented primarily north-south.

The theory is that an agricultural product such as rice, once understood and cultivated, could move from tribe to tribe east-west across the Eurasia continent much more easily. This is because as it moves east-west, the latitude stays the same and thus the climate stays much more compatible.

Such a product such as corn (maize) in the Americas travels east-west just fine, but is much harder to spread north-south. This is because the climate goes through several change points as you go through the latitudes. The corn plants can be adapted to the various climates, and that helps explain why there are so many variants of corn in the Americas, but that process is much longer.

All in all, a very interesting read.

[Rook]

Originally posted by JimG

I remember "Connections" too, Rook.
But Burke got far too self indulgent with his later series and hasn't been on British telly for years.
(I don't know if you know, but "Berk" over here means much the same as "dork" )

LOL I didn't know that Thanks for the education.

[JimG]

North Vs South II

Its not just crops, its also inventions. The example I heard was about Africa.
Now the wheel is very useful in the mediterreanean north, but not in the deserts to the south nor in the jungles south of that. Hence it didn't make it to the savanna and temperate land in southern africa.

[Badtz Maru]

Re: North-south versus east-west.

Originally posted by Veritass
Another point made in the book stuck out to me, though I admit this has nothing to do with anything that would be ported into Civ. It has to do with Eurasia being oriented primarily east-west and the Americas being oriented primarily north-south.

The theory is that an agricultural product such as rice, once understood and cultivated, could move from tribe to tribe east-west across the Eurasia continent much more easily. This is because as it moves east-west, the latitude stays the same and thus the climate stays much more compatible.

Such a product such as corn (maize) in the Americas travels east-west just fine, but is much harder to spread north-south. This is because the climate goes through several change points as you go through the latitudes. The corn plants can be adapted to the various climates, and that helps explain why there are so many variants of corn in the Americas, but that process is much longer.

All in all, a very interesting read.

Something related to this could probably be modded into the game very easily, since the engine can take into account city latitude. Make it so that cities only get the health bonus for the grain resources (Corn, Rice, & Wheat) if they are within 10-20 degrees latitude of where the resource exists in the wild. Multiple instances of the same grain could be considered different strains adapted to different latitudes. Maybe give the Granary bonus to any city that builds a Granary, but not the bonus that you get just for being connected to it.

[Son of David]

Africa - the richest continent in the world in terms of raw resources, today the poorest continent in the world.

North America - likewise bountiful in resources, but almost completely unused until European immigration.

Europe - tiny peninsula of Asia. Source of most of the world's civilization.

Hmm go figure. You'd think race was an element in this.

[Badtz Maru]

Originally posted by Son of David
Africa - the richest continent in the world in terms of raw resources, today the poorest continent in the world.

North America - likewise bountiful in resources, but almost completely unused until European immigration.

Europe - tiny peninsula of Asia. Source of most of the world's civilization.

Hmm go figure. You'd think race was an element in this.

Africa and North America had very few large grained cereal plants. North America had hardly any large land animals suitable for domestication by the time population densities started reaching the point where it was worthwhile to give up the nomadic life. Europe and Asia had an unusual number of large seeded cereal plants and friendly herd animals.

[Yosho]

Originally posted by Son of David
Africa - the richest continent in the world in terms of raw resources, today the poorest continent in the world.

North America - likewise bountiful in resources, but almost completely unused until European immigration.

Europe - tiny peninsula of Asia. Source of most of the world's civilization.

Hmm go figure. You'd think race was an element in this.

Actually, northern Europe is not the "source of most of the world's civilization". The key ingredents of civilization, like farming, writing, metal working, and so on, were all imported from elsewhere, mostly the middle east.

So, if you really want to talk in terms of race (which has no basis in biolagy or science anyway) does that mean that the European race is inferior to the middle eastern race? Or, are there other factors involved?

Read the book. That's the very kind of question it was trying to answer...

[JimG]

Europe is very much favoured by it's geology too. There are a lot of different terrains check by jowl - and whilst the mineral depoits aren't huge they were easily accessable & workable for developing societies.
For example here in England we had iron ore, coal and limestone (required to make steel) in close proximity and rich farmland to support workers in heavy industry.
None of those resources are of a size to be useful in modern terms, but they kick started our industrial revolution.

[xenophile58]

Originally posted by Son of David
Africa - the richest continent in the world in terms of raw resources, today the poorest continent in the world.

North America - likewise bountiful in resources, but almost completely unused until European immigration.

Europe - tiny peninsula of Asia. Source of most of the world's civilization.

Hmm go figure. You'd think race was an element in this.

The whole point of 'Guns, Germs and Steel' is to attempt to explain why it was that Europeans were able to invade and conquer most of the planet - without resorting to scientifically dubious concepts like race. You might also try reading 'Collapse' and ponder how the civilised Norse in Greenland were destroyed by the primitive Innuit.

[Nikolai]

Guys, while I am no mod, I feel disturbed by some of the posts here. I'm sure the same applies to the mods too. This doesn't belong anywhere, and particulary not here.

[JimG]

Xenophile, I've not read 'Collapse' but over the years I have built up the idea that it was the 'little ice age' of the 13th century that did for the Norse in Greenland.
There was a "Horizon" (BBC) program which also pointed the finger of blame at the Church for not allowing the Norse settlers to interact with the pagan Inuit and so learn their techniques for dealing with extreme condictions.
So did the Inuit actually destroy the Norse or just triumph through the Norse's inability to adapt?