[Rugoz]

Have you read guns, germs, and steel?

https://www.amazon.com/Guns-Germs-Steel-Fates-Societies/dp/0393354326/ref=sr_1_1?dchild=1&keywords=guns+germs+and+steel&qid=1625251670&sr=8-1

Why, what's his theory on the scientific revolution? I'm not very fond of grand theories of history.

P.S. Not a huge fan of Fukuyama's book either.

[late]

Why, what's his theory on the scientific revolution? I'm not very fond of grand theories of history.

P.S. Not a huge fan of Fukuyama's book either.

I think it's great.

"Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies (previously titled Guns, Germs and Steel: A Short History of Everybody for the Last 13,000 Years) is a 1997 transdisciplinary non-fiction book by Jared Diamond. In 1998, Guns, Germs, and Steel won the Pulitzer Prize for general nonfiction and the Aventis Prize for Best Science Book. A documentary based on the book, and produced by the National Geographic Society, was broadcast on PBS in July 2005.[1]

The book attempts to explain why Eurasian and North African civilizations have survived and conquered others, while arguing against the idea that Eurasian hegemony is due to any form of Eurasian intellectual, moral, or inherent genetic superiority. Diamond argues that the gaps in power and technology between human societies originate primarily in environmental differences, which are amplified by various positive feedback loops."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guns,_Germs,_and_Steel

[Rugoz]

I think it's great.

"Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies (previously titled Guns, Germs and Steel: A Short History of Everybody for the Last 13,000 Years) is a 1997 transdisciplinary non-fiction book by Jared Diamond. In 1998, Guns, Germs, and Steel won the Pulitzer Prize for general nonfiction and the Aventis Prize for Best Science Book. A documentary based on the book, and produced by the National Geographic Society, was broadcast on PBS in July 2005.[1]

The book attempts to explain why Eurasian and North African civilizations have survived and conquered others, while arguing against the idea that Eurasian hegemony is due to any form of Eurasian intellectual, moral, or inherent genetic superiority. Diamond argues that the gaps in power and technology between human societies originate primarily in environmental differences, which are amplified by various positive feedback loops."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guns,_Germs,_and_Steel

Well, I was wondering what his geographical explanation for the scientific revolution is, if he has any.

[late]

Well, I was wondering what his geographical explanation for the scientific revolution is, if he has any.

If you want it quick and dirty, read the link...

Your library will have a copy, it's a great place to start.

[ckaihatsu]

Have you read guns, germs, and steel?

https://www.amazon.com/Guns-Germs-Steel-Fates-Societies/dp/0393354326/ref=sr_1_1?dchild=1&keywords=guns+germs+and+steel&qid=1625251670&sr=8-1

(Technological determinism, or the liberal bible, in other words.)

[late]

(Technological determinism, or the liberal bible, in other words.)

Bibles don't change...

It's also not deterministic, but then you are known for your extravagance.. (take a look at the relevant journals to see the 'combat' that has gone on since it's publication.)

"And in the last week, a relatively new blog in anthropology -- Savage Minds -- has set off a huge debate over the book. Two of the eight people who lead Savage Minds posted their objections to the book, and things have taken off from there, with several prominent blogs in the social sciences picking up the debate, and adding to it. Hundreds of scholars are posting and cross-posting in an unusually intense and broad debate for a book that has been out for eight years.

Writing in Crooked Timber, Henry Farrell, an assistant professor of political science at George Washington University, writes, "It’s fine and good to challenge Diamond’s evidence and arguments with other evidence and counter arguments. That’s what academic debate should be about. It’s also fine to challenge particular styles of thinking if they’re unable to come to grips with certain kinds of phenomena. But if you want to claim that certain kinds of reasoning are inherently racist and repugnant to right thinking people, which is what seems to be going on here, you had better have strong evidence to back up your accusations. So far, all I’ve seen a lot of vaguely worded innuendo. There’s some underlying deformation of thinking here, and I’m not sure what’s driving it."

In fact, Friedman says that Diamond should be praised for doing work that relates to so many fields. "By crossing disciplinary boundaries, scholars like Diamond can help shake us out of disciplinary assumptions that might themselves be problematic."
https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2005/08/03/guns-germs-and-steel-reconsidered

Historians want to bring out the context more, they always do. Which means everyone kicked it around for years, and I expect by now that the rough edges have been smoothed. Which means I have assumed the core of Diamonds thesis remains intact, which may not be the case.

But do us a favor and go check it out...

[ckaihatsu]

Bibles don't change...

It's also not deterministic, but then you are known for your extravagance.. (take a look at the relevant journals to see the 'combat' that has gone on since it's publication.)

"And in the last week, a relatively new blog in anthropology -- Savage Minds -- has set off a huge debate over the book. Two of the eight people who lead Savage Minds posted their objections to the book, and things have taken off from there, with several prominent blogs in the social sciences picking up the debate, and adding to it. Hundreds of scholars are posting and cross-posting in an unusually intense and broad debate for a book that has been out for eight years.

Writing in Crooked Timber, Henry Farrell, an assistant professor of political science at George Washington University, writes, "It’s fine and good to challenge Diamond’s evidence and arguments with other evidence and counter arguments. That’s what academic debate should be about. It’s also fine to challenge particular styles of thinking if they’re unable to come to grips with certain kinds of phenomena. But if you want to claim that certain kinds of reasoning are inherently racist and repugnant to right thinking people, which is what seems to be going on here, you had better have strong evidence to back up your accusations. So far, all I’ve seen a lot of vaguely worded innuendo. There’s some underlying deformation of thinking here, and I’m not sure what’s driving it."

In fact, Friedman says that Diamond should be praised for doing work that relates to so many fields. "By crossing disciplinary boundaries, scholars like Diamond can help shake us out of disciplinary assumptions that might themselves be problematic."
https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2005/08/03/guns-germs-and-steel-reconsidered

Historians want to bring out the context more, they always do. Which means everyone kicked it around for years, and I expect by now that the rough edges have been smoothed. Which means I have assumed the core of Diamonds thesis remains intact, which may not be the case.

But do us a favor and go check it out...

I'm being 'extravagant' -- ?

That's quite a specific accusation to make. Would you mind sharing *how* you think I'm being 'extravagant' -- ?

I indicated that your liberal bible subscribes to the ideology of technological determinism, which happens to be incorrect.

Here's a quick treatment that shows 'mode of production' and 'class struggle' to be more historically deterministic than 'technology / technique'.


[1] History, Macro Micro -- Precision

Spoiler: show

History, Macro-Micro -- politics-logistics-lifestyle

Spoiler: show

[late]

I'm being 'extravagant' -- ?

That's quite a specific accusation to make. Would you mind sharing *how* you think I'm being 'extravagant' -- ?

I indicated that your liberal bible subscribes to the ideology of technological determinism, which happens to be incorrect.

Absafragginglutely.

By calling academic work a religion, when it isn't, and deterministic when it ain't. That's the polite version..

Luck isn't deterministic.

[ckaihatsu]

Absafragginglutely.

By calling academic work a religion, when it isn't, and deterministic when it ain't. That's the polite version..

Luck isn't deterministic.

You're definitely mixing scales here, in making unfounded accusations about me personally, and then imputing things onto me that I haven't said.

You're not addressing the problematic of your technological determinism, which isn't valid, and now you're *deflecting* and imputing falsities.

I don't call academic work a 'religion' -- it's not 'deterministic' either, any more than it's *governmental* in nature, and associated with the nation-state, or nationalism.

Finally, I don't know what you mean to say about 'luck' -- again, it's *mixing scales*, because 'luck' is usually attributed to the *individual* scale, while historical determinism is about large-scale *societal* dynamics.

[late]

sorry, dual post.

[late]

You're definitely mixing scales here, in making unfounded accusations about me personally, and then imputing things onto me that I haven't said.

You're not addressing the problematic of your technological determinism, which isn't valid, and now you're *deflecting* and imputing falsities.

I don't call academic work a 'religion' -- it's not 'deterministic' either, any more than it's *governmental* in nature, and associated with the nation-state, or nationalism.

Finally, I don't know what you mean to say about 'luck' -- again, it's *mixing scales*, because 'luck' is usually attributed to the *individual* scale, while historical determinism is about large-scale *societal* dynamics.

Oh, goody, another train wreck.

You need to learn what Jared Diamond means by luck..

[ckaihatsu]

Oh, goody, another train wreck.

You need to learn what Jared Diamond means by luck..

So you like hearing yourself talk....

[wat0n]

I would say all the elements that have been mentioned ITT are relevant. I also think technology is key, mostly because some types of social changes would not cross one's mind if it were impossible to even think about coming up with a new technical improvement that could make such a change implementable in the future.

For instance, a society that was permanently sedentary was basically unthinkable before agriculture was discovered/invented and improved.

[ckaihatsu]

I would say all the elements that have been mentioned ITT are relevant. I also think technology is key, mostly because some types of social changes would not cross one's mind if it were impossible to even think about coming up with a new technical improvement that could make such a change implementable in the future.

For instance, a society that was permanently sedentary was basically unthinkable before agriculture was discovered/invented and improved.

I continue to be *astounded* at how people here are unable to address the macro-scale societal factors of *mode of production* (feudalism, capitalism), and also *class struggle* (balance of class interests).

If technological development alone is so deterministic, then why don't we have *flying cars* yet, since such has been technologically possible since, arguably, the '60s ('The Jetsons').

Likewise, why didn't the U.S. Southern slavocracy simply ditch slave labor when they could and join the North in adopting *industrial* (technological) mass production techniques -- ?

[late]

If technological development alone is so deterministic, then why don't we have *flying cars* yet, since such has been technologically possible since, arguably, the '60s ('The Jetsons').

Likewise, why didn't the U.S. Southern slavocracy simply ditch slave labor when they could and join the North in adopting *industrial* (technological) mass production techniques -- ?

We don't have flying cars because we don't have the tech to support such a thing. Most people are never going to be competent at flying, and most live in areas where air traffic control would be utterly beyond anything we can currently handle. There are a bunch of other problems, like making wing deployment convenient, getting Joe Six Pack to maintain his vehicle to aviation standards.

That *may* happen after we get AI, and the ability to make hydrogen engines safe and reliable.

This is why you need to read Guns, Germs and Steel. It was an agricultural, largely mercantile economy. They didn't live near iron ore, and they would be entering a highly competitive sector. They were already rich, and by far had the most lavish lifestyle of any group in the country. As history shows, they were all in for slavery.

[ckaihatsu]

We don't have flying cars because we don't have the tech to support such a thing. Most people are never going to be competent at flying, and most live in areas where air traffic control would be utterly beyond anything we can currently handle. There are a bunch of other problems, like making wing deployment convenient, getting Joe Six Pack to maintain his vehicle to aviation standards.

You're making it sound as though it's too much of a *logistical* hurdle to be administered effectively, by government, yet we have *commercial* aviation, and the orderly organization of such, plus motor vehicle registration of millions of cars, etc.

You're sounding like a glib fatalist.

That *may* happen after we get AI, and the ability to make hydrogen engines safe and reliable.

What *is* this -- a 'promise' -- ?

You have the 'inside track', and you're 'promising' something, once the hydrogen infrastructure is all laid out -- ? What *gall*.

This is why you need to read Guns, Germs and Steel. It was an agricultural, largely mercantile economy. They didn't live near iron ore, and they would be entering a highly competitive sector. They were already rich, and by far had the most lavish lifestyle of any group in the country. As history shows, they were all in for slavery.

Thank you, that's better. You're confirming that, on the basis of *class*, the slaveowning minority had more of a vested interest as *slaveowners* than as 'technological developers'.

You're supporting my point that *class*, and *mode of production* (feudalism / slavery) trump 'technology' and 'technique', in determining history.

You can safely discard Diamond now.

[late]

1) You're making it sound as though it's too much of a *logistical* hurdle to be administered effectively, by government, yet we have *commercial* aviation, and the orderly organization of such, plus motor vehicle registration of millions of cars, etc.

You're sounding like a glib fatalist.





What *is* this -- a 'promise' -- ?

You have the 'inside track', and you're 'promising' something, once the hydrogen infrastructure is all laid out -- ? What *gall*.





2) Thank you, that's better. You're confirming that, on the basis of *class*, the slaveowning minority had more of a vested interest as *slaveowners* than as 'technological developers'.

3) You're supporting my point that *class*, and *mode of production* (feudalism / slavery) trump 'technology' and 'technique', in determining history.

4) You can safely discard Diamond now.

1) That was hysterical. Take some flying lessons, learn all the fun ways there are to die in the air.

2) Absolutely.

3) You're trying to shoehorn your ideology into the discussion, that's awkward as hell, from my point of view.

4) I've safely discarded somebody, but it's not Diamond. Starting sometime in the 70s, history started using methods from other sciences, and things like forensic analysis, sophisticated economics accounting, etc, etc. Diamond is part of that new tradition. He's made what seems to me to be an obvious point: that the success of the West was largely dumb luck.

[ckaihatsu]

(Yeah, sorry, forgot to *number* the lines of my responses.) (grin)

1) That was hysterical. Take some flying lessons, learn all the fun ways there are to die in the air.

I think I'm going to need a mentor for that.... (grin)

2) Absolutely.

---

This is why you need to read Guns, Germs and Steel. It was an agricultural, largely mercantile economy. They didn't live near iron ore, and they would be entering a highly competitive sector. They were already rich, and by far had the most lavish lifestyle of any group in the country. As history shows, they were all in for slavery.

3) You're supporting my point that *class*, and *mode of production* (feudalism / slavery) trump 'technology' and 'technique', in determining history.

3) You're trying to shoehorn your ideology into the discussion, that's awkward as hell, from my point of view.

Again, the question that *anyone* can raise is, 'Did slaveowners benefit mostly from their *class* status, moreso than from the *technology* being used.'

It wasn't 'guns, germs, and steel' (technology) that explains the slaveowner's position -- it was the fact that that's how *society was organized* -- feudalism / slavery -- for agricultural production, in the U.S. South (etc.).

It's not an ideological thing, it's an *empirical* thing.


philosophical abstractions

Spoiler: show

---

4) I've safely discarded somebody, but it's not Diamond. Starting sometime in the 70s, history started using methods from other sciences, and things like forensic analysis, sophisticated economics accounting, etc, etc. Diamond is part of that new tradition. He's made what seems to me to be an obvious point: that the success of the West was largely dumb luck.

The 'West', who, exactly -- ? Care to elaborate, because you're not providing enough information here.

[late]

Again, the question that *anyone* can raise is, 'Did slave owners benefit mostly from their *class* status, more so than from the *technology* being used.'

Good point.

[Rugoz]

If you want it quick and dirty, read the link...

Your library will have a copy, it's a great place to start.

This part?

Diamond also proposes geographical explanations for why western European societies, rather than other Eurasian powers such as China, have been the dominant colonizers.[2][5] claiming Europe's geography favored balkanization into smaller, closer nation-states, bordered by natural barriers of mountains, rivers, and coastline. Advanced civilization developed first in areas whose geography lacked these barriers, such as China, India and Mesopotamia. There, the ease of conquest meant they were dominated by large empires in which manufacturing, trade and knowledge flourished for millennia, while balkanized Europe remained more primitive.

Rather unconvincing. Most of Western Europe was part of the Roman empire. It wasn't "balkanized" or "primitive". Southern Europe can be accessed through the Mediterranean sea. In the North there are large rivers. Both should facilitate Empire-building.