Guns, Germs, and Steel PBS miniseries discussion thread.

[JohnT]

GePap. Look at the following sentence:

NOw, maybe that is wrong. Fine , call it supposition, but to call it "racist" is absurd.

1. The fragment "to call it racist" flat out states that I called it racist. Which I did not.

2. This is reinforced by your decision to put quotation marks around the word racist. This, by standard (American) English convention, is a quote. (That's why they're called quotation marks, see?) Especially when preceded by "to call it..."
3. Since the only use of the word "racist" occurs in Diamonds writings, I can only assume you are ascribing to me what he said, but somehow twisting it around so that I am calling Diamond a racist. Or something. I'm not at all sure what you meant.

The point about China is to show that culture, people, and societies do matter when discussing long-term historical trends. Diamond's thesis removes the effect of humans on human societal development... and quite wrongly too.

[Berzerker]

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.

That's true, but how long would it take for either man to adapt to the new system if they didn't die in the first few days or weeks? The Bushman would get by with help, so why not give the New Yorker help in his new region? He'd adapt to the Bushman's system and the Bushman would adapt to ours. Who would adapt faster? The New Yorker. Is that intelligence? I doubt it, the systems aren't equally complicated. Hence, a poor determinant for intelligence.

[GePap]

Originally posted by JohnT
3. Since the only use of the word "racist" occurs in Diamonds writings, I can only assume you are ascribing to me what he said, but somehow twisting it around so that I am calling Diamond a racist. Or something. I'm not at all sure what you meant.

Yes. from your first statement, which you end on a you state that Diamond supposedly hates theories based on race, yet calls the people in New Guinea more intelligent. From the way you wrote it, it seems easy to assume you are saying that Diamond was hypocratical by saying one must ignore race and then he makes a 'racist' statement. Then you describe a long bit from his work to writings in the Bell Curve and said there would be controversy if you substituted the word white for the Papuans, which again leads one to think you are saying his statements are similar to those in the Bell Curve, which I at least consider a racist tome.

The point about China is to show that culture, people, and societies do matter when discussing long-term historical trends. Diamond's thesis removes the effect of humans on human societal development... and quite wrongly too.

Not really. China is a relatively flat- a conqueror can, with sufficient power, easily come to control the entire land of China. Many people have done so. NO State has ever had complete control over the area of Europe- its terrain (lost of natural barriers) has made it difficult for any single government to take over the whole.

So again, NATURE plays a decisive role, if not the only role.

After all, what cultural difference would make it so China comes up with those inventions, yet does not sue them to the extent Europeans did, and wht cultural traits allowed the Europeans to make use of things they did not invent?

[GePap]

Originally posted by Berzerker


That's true, but how long would it take for either man to adapt to the new system if they didn't die in the first few days or weeks? The Bushman would get by with help, so why not give the New Yorker help in his new region? He'd adapt to the Bushman's system and the Bushman would adapt to ours. Who would adapt faster? The New Yorker. Is that intelligence? I doubt it, the systems aren't equally complicated. Hence, a poor determinant for intelligence.

I seriously doubt the New Yorker could adapt to the Bushman environment faster than the Bushman to New York.

In fact, the fact millions of people from everywhere in the world can come and live in New York, while the Bushmentare one of the very few people who live in the Khalahari (if not the only) I think is great evidence that quite the opposite would be true.

Even without help the Bushman through simple observations could come to understand enough in New York not to die. The same can;t be said of the New Yorker, since he might miss very minor differences that lead to life or death.

The fact is New york may be socially conplex, but when it comes to the basic of human life, figuring out New York is a utter piece of cake compared to the Khalahari, and if you can;t get the basics of human life down, what chance do you have to even get the time to master the social complexities?

Besides, the very fact there are so many systems to help people in NY vs. few is any in the Khalahari is a great part of Diamond's point. Only once you remove for a great number of people the need to toil for life can you build something like NY. But, from a natural selection point of view, you also lessen the pressures. NOw, Diamondf may not have given enough thought to the other pressure on evolution, sexual selection, but hs is correct about wich environment is easy and which is hard.

[VetLegion]

Is there a torrent? Where can I download this!!!

[VetLegion]

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

It was about Yet Another Alternative Civ Project. Name was chosen some time into it and wasn't authorised by Jared Diamond. The development of the game stopped and the forum has been closed (but the threads are archived).

[JohnT]

In fact, the fact millions of people from everywhere in the world can come and live in New York, while the Bushmentare one of the very few people who live in the Khalahari (if not the only) I think is great evidence that quite the opposite would be true.

No it doesn't. It just shows the relative desirability of living in the two regions.

[JohnT]

From the very beginning of my work with Europeans, they impressed me as being on average more intelligent, more alert, more expressive and more interested in the things around them that the average New Guinean 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 Guineans.... It’s easy to recognise two reasons why my impression that Europeans are smarter than New Guineans may be correct.

... Besides this genetic reason, there is also second reason why Europeans may have come to be smarter than New Guineans.

You're right. That wouldn't cause a bit of controversy.

Regardless, GePap, I didn't say that Diamond was racist and my comparison was to the Bell Curve controversy not the book itself. I know English isn't your first language, but please: try to be more careful next time.

[GePap]

Originally posted by JohnT

From the very beginning of my work with Europeans, they impressed me as being on average more intelligent, more alert, more expressive and more interested in the things around them that the average New Guinean 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 Guineans.... It’s easy to recognise two reasons why my impression that Europeans are smarter than New Guineans may be correct.

... Besides this genetic reason, there is also second reason why Europeans may have come to be smarter than New Guineans.

You're right. That wouldn't cause a bit of controversy.

Regardless, GePap, I didn't say that Diamond was racist and my comparison was to the Bell Curve controversy not the book itself. I know English isn't your first language, but please: try to be more careful next time.

Cause the controversy with the Bell Curve had nothing to do with race, nope, never.

To intellectual dishonesty, yours.

[GePap]

Originally posted by JohnT

No it doesn't. It just shows the relative desirability of living in the two regions.

How desireable a place is is based on how easy the living is. Hence, desireable= easy to thrive in.

The Khalahari is a hard, unforgiving place. Of course its undesireable. So, form someone to live there, they must be a tought, hardy people. New York is a lot easier to live in.

[Theben]

I think John's point stands, GePap, in that, if you remove all other variables, facing the Khalahari or NYC on your own without any support network are both incredibly dangerous.

The fact that NYC would have a support network for the Bushman doesn't credit him extra intellegence.

[Theben]

After all, how many animals that weigh 2+ tons are barreling down narrow paths at 30-40 mph? And would he recognize that danger before it's too late?

[GePap]

Originally posted by Theben
I think John's point stands, GePap, in that, if you remove all other variables, facing the Khalahari or NYC on your own without any support network are both incredibly dangerous.

The fact that NYC would have a support network for the Bushman doesn't credit him extra intellegence.

And yet that's not true. New York's more temperate weather, gretaer supply of fresh water, and much greater availability of food make is a much simpler place to live than the horribly arrid Khalahari, a place tough on any life.

And Diamond's point about intelliegence is based on simply on natural selection. If two populations are compared, and one is faced with greater selective pressures then its obvious to assume that traits favorable to survival will increase faster in the population facing the greater selective pressures.

[Berzerker]

No it doesn't. It just shows the relative desirability of living in the two regions.

Bingo

How desireable a place is is based on how easy the living is. Hence, desireable= easy to thrive in.

The Khalahari is a hard, unforgiving place. Of course its undesireable. So, form someone to live there, they must be a tought, hardy people. New York is a lot easier to live in.

Were we talking about intelligence?

[GePap]

Originally posted by Theben
After all, how many animals that weigh 2+ tons are barreling down narrow paths at 30-40 mph? And would he recognize that danger before it's too late?

Yes. Most people won;t stand near a large strange looking noisy moving object, specially if they see it coming towards them.

Its very simple to realize cars are a threat. What takes time to learn is that most of the time they are not.