Guns, Germs, and Steel PBS miniseries discussion thread.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by JohnT
I'm surprised that, over 80 years after physics got rid of determinism, that so many people want to work determinism into the social sciences, which are just as chaotic as physics.

I dont think he says things are completely deterministic. a wind gone differently, and Madagascar wouldnt have been settled by southeast asians, for ex. A lucky Peruvian fisherman gets blown off course, and survives, and the Aztecs and Incas get linked, and the Americas are significantly stronger when Columbus comes calling. GGS is a fertile ground for what ifs (look at SHWI if you dont beleive me) but I think he identifies some large driving trends, that answer SOME important questions.

[GePap]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


i think the first parenthetical is weak, though, and thats what all of you are focusing on. missing the point, I think.

You think wrong. I have always "gotten the point". I just think that Diamond is not necessarily wrong when he states that the Papuans are smarter, a rather un-PC statement.

[JohnT]

Originally posted by VetLegion


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).

Well, yeah. The entire meaning of the book, translated into game terms, is "the player with the best starting position, wins." That leads to the following scenario.

"Hey, you wanna play GGS?"
"Yes! When?"
"How about now?"
"Sure."
gamers fire up GGS mp, on the first move they reveal the world map to show starting positions.
"Looks like you're on an island. You lose!"
"$##$!!"
"Wanna play another game?"
"Why not."
gamers fire up GGS mp, on the first move they reveal the world map to show starting positions.
"Looks as if your surrounded by mountains. You lose!"
"WTF?? $##!#&*%!"
"C'mon, one more time. This time we'll play the 'Earth' map."
"I am better at that one, true... OK - I've got time for one more game."
gamers fire up GGS mp, on the first move they reveal the world map to show starting positions.
"Ha-ha! You ended up in India, which is obviously a more losing position than my being on the western-most promontory of Asia!"
"Hell. I'm gonna have to work on my strategies - I'm rougher at this than I thought. Good games!"
"Thanks. Catch ya tomorrow?"
...

[GePap]

Originally posted by JohnT
Here's the thing. If the Chinese Emperor had told Zheng He "Go East, young man!", followed by (as in the European example) the colonization of the "Americas" and the Sinocization of the world, their Diamond equivalent would be arguing that China really had no choice but to find herself on the forefront of global modernization because of her monolithic status, the "ability to command vast resources at her whim."* In fact, the Chinese Diamond would argue that Europe couldn't have done it because the mountain ranges made political Europe "too fragmented", her resources "too poorly distributed" to allow any one of the nations to be at the forefront of modernization.

*That's an ironic quote, btw, which is different from an actual quote. Just FYI.

Not really. First of all, China colonizing the new world would have been horribly difficult for the Chinese- crossing the Atlantic is much easier than the Pacific. Even if the Chinese had sailed east, maybe they get to Hawaii or such central pacific islands, but 10,000 miles is a sure harder to go than 3000 miles.

Second, even if the Chinese had made on successful trip, the vagaries of Imperial politics would have always had the great ability to nix any further actions, whereas in Europe different competing states would each have their own reasons to go out and explore.

What is silly is thinking that a single Chinese overseas trip would have made all the difference in the world.

[GePap]

Originally posted by JohnT


Well, yeah. The entire meaning of the book, translated into game terms, is "the player with the best starting position, wins." That leads to the following scenario.

And yet, on this Civilization site, the correctness of that should be obvious.

If you start the game on a small little island with no resources while your competitors start on a large resource rich continent then you will have a hell of a time catching up.

Hell, with every single new Civ game (and the same will be true of Civ4) the designers try to include more and more "variables" which are meant to simulate all those "cultural, human elements" you seem to think so vital. Yet, at the end of the day, the quality and quantity of the territory you hold and the population it makes possible is always the single most important aspect of winning a civ game. Crappy terrain and no resources will kill you.

[Ramo]

Here's the thing. If the Chinese Emperor had told Zheng He "Go East, young man!", followed by (as in the European example) the colonization of the "Americas" and the Sinocization of the world, their Diamond equivalent would be arguing that China really had no choice but to find herself on the forefront of global modernization because of her monolithic status, the "ability to command vast resources at her whim."* In fact, the Chinese Diamond would argue that Europe couldn't have done it because the mountain ranges made political Europe "too fragmented", her resources "too poorly distributed" to allow any one of the nations to be at the forefront of modernization.

But the concentration of power meant that there would be fewer possible actors to take that sort of risk. So, if Castile, Aragon, Genoa, Venice, France, etc. pass up those trading missions to West Africa, Portugal could pick up the slack. And lo and behold, Brazil gets discovered. But if some European superpower thought that the Ottomans need to be stopped at all costs, this doesn't happen. OTOH, after Zheng He's missions, the Chinese state saw that as not only a bad idea, but actively prevented any resources to going into exploration missions because they were worried about the Mongols.

[Ramo]

I actually enjoyed the book - plenty of cool stuff about plant and animal domestication, linguistics, Madagascar, etc, etc - he brings stuff together and synthesizes well.

Though he is apparently wrong on a number of specifics - in particular he accepts the Renfrew hypothesis on the expansion of Indo European.

It's been a few years since I've read the book, but I seem to recall that Diamond kept repeating himself over and over again. The book should've been a lot shorter.

[lord of the mark]

lets keep things in perspective. GGS is largely about MACRO history. The principle lesson is why Eurasian civs - Europe, Mideast, India, China - emerged into the late iron age, "civilization" while everyone else was still at early bronze or less when outisders came in (except for subsaharan africa, which was marginallly iron, but way behind the above list) The section of the book on why Europe, and not the others, is pretty skimpy. It contains some useful points - the mideast faded as it could not sustain intensive agriculture - and the terrain of Europe, which was conducive to multiple nation states, while chinas was conducive to a single empire, certainly helped europe.

But that is NOT a statement of inevitability. China was divided into 2 states, occassionally more, at various points since the Han dynasty. Conduciveness is NOT the same as inevitability. Had China in 1450 been in a two or three state situation, instead of under Ming control ( ) it might well have gone exploring and/or trading. Similarly, while it was vulnerable to an isolationist regime, a string of good luck might have avoided such, until the momentum was too great to turn back.

Alternatively, the division of Europe was not inevitable either. A different set of events could have saved Rome, perhaps. Or united Germany under the Ottonians, with who knows what consequences. Or led to Hapsburg dominance.

And while a divided europe makes it impossible for a central regime to stop exploration, there are lots of possibilities that could slow it down, I think.

So while Diamond has identified some strong TENDENCIES, its NOT wholly deterministic.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Ramo


It's been a few years since I've read the book, but I seem to recall that Diamond kept repeating himself over and over again. The book should've been a lot shorter.

Yeah, he does that a bit.

You want a book based on an interesting and important concept, that is abysmally written? Try Barnett's "The Pentagons New Map" "I was thinking that we really needed more peacekeepers and less focus on China, as I went to the next briefing with the committee of Super connected analysts and generals, and prepared my brief, and let me tell you, giving good briefs is really important in the Pentagon, you live and die by them, and Im really the master of Powerpoint, ya know, and ..."

[JohnT]

First of all, China colonizing the new world would have been horribly difficult for the Chinese- crossing the Atlantic is much easier than the Pacific.

However, Magellan was able to accomplish this task after already travelling 5,000 miles, on ships smaller and less well-equipped than the Chinese.

Again, there's more to modernization that mere geographical position. There's the human element as well.

[JohnT]

Originally posted by GePap


And yet, on this Civilization site, the correctness of that should be obvious.

If you start the game on a small little island with no resources while your competitors start on a large resource rich continent then you will have a hell of a time catching up.

Hell, with every single new Civ game (and the same will be true of Civ4) the designers try to include more and more "variables" which are meant to simulate all those "cultural, human elements" you seem to think so vital. Yet, at the end of the day, the quality and quantity of the territory you hold and the population it makes possible is always the single most important aspect of winning a civ game. Crappy terrain and no resources will kill you.

True, a really crappy position can kill you. However, one starting at a marginal position, depending on the player (read: culture) can still beat a player that starts in OCC-heaven.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by JohnT

First of all, China colonizing the new world would have been horribly difficult for the Chinese- crossing the Atlantic is much easier than the Pacific.

However, Magellan was able to accomplish this task after already travelling 5,000 miles, on ships smaller and less well-equipped than the Chinese.

It's one thing to sail around the world. It's another to try and colonize it. Note that Magellan didn't make it the whole way.

[lord of the mark]

hell, the polynesians managed to colonize all the way to Easter Island, using outrigger canoes. Course it took them a rather long time to do it.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap


And yet, on this Civilization site, the correctness of that should be obvious.

i actually think this is one of the points of Civ (havent played Civ3) to show the overriding importance of geography, not only in determining who wins, but in HOW they must evolve to win.

GePap, were you around for the debate about putting civ specific attribute into Civ3?

[JohnT]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


It's one thing to sail around the world. It's another to try and colonize it. Note that Magellan didn't make it the whole way.

And that's my point. There's more to colonizing the planet than mere geographical happenstance. People have to want to colonize the planet. China didn't want to, Europe did, and that's how we ended up speaking English here in the New World. And that "wanting" is cultural - one of the elements Diamond removes in his narrative and dismisses as unimportant.