Guns, Germs, and Steel PBS miniseries discussion thread.

[JohnT]

In case y'all don't know, there's a GGS miniseries starting tonight at 10:00pm (EST), continuing tomorrow and Wednesday.

Tonights episode is about New Guinea - I hope Mr. Diamond goes further into what he was saying in the prologue, about NGers being genetically smarter than Westerners (though theories based upon race are bad, bad! )

[GePap]

He said that because of the ongoing eugenics program in New Guinea: ie, the weak and stupid die because there are no systems there to help them live.

Hence, his statement is not that Papua New guineans are as a race smarter, but that because the weak and dumb are culled out there much more viciously than here, you would have to assume they have less dullards around.

And then of course, even though the stupid and weak are culled out, that does not mean they are leading the world in technology, hence sayting whites are more advanced because they are genetically more intelligent is stupid.

[JohnT]

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.... 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.... 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?

So many opinions, so little corroborating evidence. Replace NG with European in the above passage and think about what the reaction would be - it would've been a controversy on the size of The Bell Curve.

*Huh?

[GePap]

And yet that passage does nothing to negate what i said.
to Quote:

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.

NOw, maybe that is wrong. Fine , call it supposition, but to call it "racist" is absurd. If he claims a superioriryt, it is based on a belief that endless natural selection will invariably select for those traits that support survival, and he assumes intelliegence is one of them.

In fact, I seriously doubt the writers of the bell curve this Europe is a den of disease and crime and death that culled the white ancestors so successfuly, while Africa is this placid place were the weak are left to live long and multiply.

[JohnT]

Please note that the use of the word "racist" that you quoted was from Diamonds writings, not mine.

At best Diamond showed why it was likely that an Eurasian civilization would be the one to dominate the globe. What he didn't do at all was explain why it was the Europeans that did so - but so, so many claim that's what he did.

[Patroklos]

attrition via disease would even things out I should think.

[JohnT]

Whatever happened to the GGS forum that used to be here? And, btw, what was that all about?

[GePap]

Originally posted by JohnT
Please note that the use of the word "racist" that you quoted was from Diamonds writings, not mine.

I have quoted only part of what you quoted, and my bit does not include the word racist at all. So what the frak are you talking about?

At best Diamond showed why it was likely that an Eurasian civilization would be the one to dominate the globe. What he didn't do at all was explain why it was the Europeans that did so - but so, so many claim that's what he did.

European domination of the world is based on Europes extraction of the New World's resources. That Europe happened to be the bit of Eurasia closest to the new world should be clear and obvious from a map.

Plus, I believe Diamond does go into why Europe's geography made singular monolithic states difficult if not impossible, which is why you could not get a single authority like in China to control and slow society.

[Berzerker]

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.... 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.... 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?

Population and geography, assuming of course his perception and interpretation correct. Why do we find pygmy elephants on islands? Genetic flow is reduced, so is technological flow. Traditions, often harmful to technological advances, survive longer in static and
~isolated peoples. Or maybe Diamond is just seeing a group of people adapted to their region and not recognising that westerners have been adapting to both changing regions, climates, and systems (traditions) for longer. But Diamond knows this stuff, I think he's just asking for the audience so he can answer.

Put a Bushman in NYC and see how smart he is... Put a New Yorker in the Kalahari and...you get the picture...

[JohnT]

I have quoted only part of what you quoted, and my bit does not include the word racist at all. So what the frak are you talking about?

GePap, do you not even read what you write?

NOw, maybe that is wrong. Fine , call it supposition, but to call it "racist" is absurd. If he claims a superioriryt, it is based on a belief that endless natural selection will invariably select for those traits that support survival, and he assumes intelliegence is one of them.

Plus, I believe Diamond does go into why Europe's geography made singular monolithic states difficult if not impossible, which is why you could not get a single authority like in China to control and slow society.

However, China was just as advanced as Europe in the 1500's (probably more so) and had their sailing fleets ready to take over the world... until China stopped supporting their oceanic voyages in favor of more localized (SE Asia) trade. The fact that China was a monolithic state might have hindered it in the 15th century, but it doesn't necessarily mean that they couldn't do it because of a lack of GGS. They just didn't.

[Berzerker]

But thx for the heads up John, I'll try and watch

[GePap]

Originally posted by Berzerker

Put a Bushman in NYC and see how smart he is... Put a New Yorker in the Kalahari and...you get the picture...

There is a difference there thought- unless the Bushman runs out into the street, while he may seem like an idiot at first, it is unlike the Bushman whould die so rapidly as to be unable to get a handle on the basics of life in NYC, quite apart form whether he likes it or not.

The New Yorker in the middle of the Khalahari on the other chance has a VERY good chance of dying because of his inability to find water, or adequaste food, or shelter from the environment.

[JohnT]

Put a Bushman in NYC and see how smart he is... Put a New Yorker in the Kalahari and...you get the picture...

In the episode tonight Diamond mentions the second possibility but doesn't bother to explore what would happen in the first.

[Berzerker]

Is this on national PBS?

[GePap]

Originally posted by JohnT

GePap, do you not even read what you write?

Since when are the things I write equal to things i quoted?

re your statement:

Please note that the use of the word "racist" that you quoted was from Diamonds writings, not mine.

Or are you unsure about what "to quote" means and what makes it different from "what you write"?

However, China was just as advanced as Europe in the 1500's (probably more so) and had their sailing fleets ready to take over the world... until China stopped supporting their oceanic voyages in favor of more localized (SE Asia) trade. The fact that China was a monolithic state might have hindered it in the 15th century, but it doesn't necessarily mean that they couldn't do it because of a lack of GGS. They just didn't.

Ahem.. The point is that only because Cina was one huge monolithic empire could a single central authority all of a sudden say "The Chinese won't sail anymore". If China had been broken up into independent and competing states, then a single Emperor could hae never put an end to Chinese exploration, speically because certain Chinese states would have seen the possible advantages to them from continuing.

But of course, the Chinese reaching and exploting the New world would have always been far mroe diffciult than for Europeans, given the difference in distance and current between the New World and Europe vs the New World vs. China.