Guns, Germs, and Steel

Does Sup Forums like this book? Personally, I thought it was a very interesting read on why some civilizations advance and some don't. It's because of geography.

Other urls found in this thread:

livinganthropologically.com/archaeology/guns-germs-and-steel-jared-diamond/
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

>Red pill me on this book.

Australia is a shithole of a continent where everything evolved to kill you.
No one could ever possibly make it a functional home. Why, even the natives haven't done shit with it in 40,000 years!
>dump a few thousand drunken Irish criminals off and wait a hundred years.
Holy Fuck! What kind of sorcery made Australia a first world country while Africa is still a shithole??!?

Currently reading this right now. About 40% into it. Pretty fun and accessible yet deep in content read, although some of the chapters on food were overlong and kinda boring.

I did find it funny that the book starts with 'hai guys this isnt racist or indicative of race, okay?' and then goes on to talk about evolution and adaptation in food and germs, ignoring that those same types of changes would've happened in the races, which would've played a factor.

>what are European crops
>what are European livestock
>what is European technology

If you dumped those drunken Irishmen without any European conveniences given to them they wouldn't last a week.

Honkey magic, user. It's more potent than voodoo.

(((You)))
>Jared Diamond was born in Boston, Massachusetts, United States. Both of his parents were from East European Jewish families

So... potato niggers are white afterall?

Nice try shill.

>it's because of geography
There's no way to prove this is the sole reason, it's unfalsifiable, and it's technically a "theory" which means shoehorning and the pidgeon whole principle abound.
It's a faux deflection of biological determinism. Might as well say if our societies are the products of geography then so are the people who make them.
Cortez made ships in Tlaxcala. It was because the Aztecs were bloodthirsty and stupid that they didn't cross the sea. The Norsemen and Maoi crossed with less.
Greece has a shit navy despite their nation borders being 80% water.

>It's because of geography.

it's funny because the writer is stupid enough to use this excuse and drag it on as a main point

>MUH DOMESTICATION

Yeah African niggers HAVE those. Are you dumb or something?

What he doesn't account for is culture. He makes the point that other civilisazion in the fertile crescent, China, etc. were well ahead of Europe and yet never managed to exert as much dominance over the globe like the European newcomers- and that is entirely down to culture.

>the hatchet, rope, shovel, pick, hammer, and bucket are now high technology
Those drunken Irishmen didn't have anything in Australia. They barely had enough tools. The European flora and fauna came after they made the land sustainable.
Why stop there though? Why not say the European mind gave them an advantage?
I mean, it's not as if European supremacy is in question, it's European agency. Strip a man of his concept of self and you strip him of everything.
Jews pls, if you can't disprove something which has been believed for 5,000 years, it is defacto true.

It's a great book.

Sup Forums just hates it because it BTFO of white supremacistsl.

I stopped reading after he "debunked" travel across the Eurasia landmass. The Silk Road literally connected every Empire that exist in Europe and Asia for a thousand years. Trade is a helluva drug

>Greece had a shit navy
Athens was a naval giant that nearly was an Empire

Goddamn you're stupid

We have a screencap for this for awhile now.

>here is why Europe wins
>"Europe isn't really winning because you have a head start in everything."
>"this means you must take Jamal and Abdul into your nations because winning is bad if you have no agency in it."
Just fucking say no one has any agency at all, we are just machines, there, now we can justify killing niggers for being shitty machines.

>It BTFO of white supremacists

No it just seems to tip toe around that biological conclusion.

Someone get me my rake.

normie approved = kike shit

>Personally, I thought it was a very interesting read on why some civilizations advance and some don't. It's because of geography.
>GEOGRAPHY MATTERS, BUT GENETICS AND BIOLOGY DON'T, GOOOOOOY!

Nice try, lying kike.

>Athens was a naval giant
>he actually believed the Deilian propaganda
Athens had ship tributes from every city in Greece. Also Athens =/ Magna Graecia.
Look at Italy, shit navy, even today.
Look at Germany, absolutely top tier navy, despite having only 8% of its borders in water.

good idea, but terrible execution. the logic doesnt flow, many outright lies.

All of which Africa now has access to.

If you want the real reason:

Sub-Saharan Africa had abundant resources and a mild environment, so there was little selective pressures to force change and adaptation.

Colder climates where Euros and Mongoloids come from, had many selective pressures which forced the smartest to breed and survive.

Pure Darwin.

If we're going to play that game then we have to also take into consideration the evolutionary differences between the drunken Irishmen that were dumped on the completely foreign continent and the natives that literally evolved and had the best fitness for survival in the environment.

We also interbred with Neanderthal, but I don't think that's why we're smarter.

One conspicuous fault is that no one agrees that disease was only a factor post-conquest.
That diseases preceded Europeans in NA is factual. There is no controversy about this.
Another thing that preceded Europeans? Their horses. Just like diseases, horse spread naturally, and through domestication by Native Americans.
It is true that tropical diseases were as hard on Europeans as European diseases were on Native/Tropical populations. But Europeans were already immune to a wide variety of diseases through their conquests and trade.
So the disease theory has merit, I consider it fact.
That said, European Civilization was vastly superior to all others, which fostered technological advance and social development, making the Europeans invincible to any and all other civilizations, including China.
>You can tell when a fact is a fact when it takes an entire academic career to refute that fact.
Europe is a better civilization, so they beat everyone else.
>Must write book stating it was germs and luck which led to European dominance.
Jared Diamond has stated he will not live in a non-First-World country. US, Canada, Western Europe are the only places he will live.
That said, he is fascinating and his love of the Papua New Guineans is pretty cool. They are clever people.

I don't understand your post. It can't be propaganda because it's true. Athenians (which I know isn't Magna Graecia) did have a really great navy, needing ship tributes doesn't change that fact. They almost became a hegemon, but Greek cities states were notorious for power politics and temporary alliances. Their navy (and control of trade) was a massive source of power.

How do the modern navies have anything to do with this? The Roman navy existed only as long they needed it to, but we live in a different time now where the ocean is not the controlling theater of war.

We're not machines, we're animals.

...

He's right though.

All humans are 99.5% genetically similar and that 0.5% is LARGELY due to geographic conditions.

>ITP we see an user who thinks there is a difference between machines and animals
>he hasn't seen it
>a moment of silence please

>LARGELY due to geographic conditions

And it should be called what it is, evolution.

wtf I want a pet zebra now

Yeah I think so

No you don't. As retarded as you think a horse is, a zebra is even more retarded.
t. Lived in Africa before and have seen some really retarded shit.

Mules are the best of the horsey family.

This is why people make fun of civic nationalism.

Pretty much.

If you make society with one type of people for that type of people, there's a chance a new type of people will fuck it up if they aren't capable of running it due to not evolving into such.

Mexico has no reason not to be shit, and if it was Euro, it'd be great.

I did enjoy my time when I had one. Headstrong and so fucking stupid, but she was sweet when she wanted to be.

wolves are genetically closer to dogs than Europeans to sub-Saharan Africans.

>Africa didn't have the resources
>Europe stole all of Africas resources

Which is it?

well, I guess horses have been domesticated for millennia (genetic pressure to make them easy to interact with/ smarter/faster/ etc) while zebras are just wild fauna

> white devils and their damn trait of building civilizations out of nothing every time

this might be one of the most pathetic attempts at logic i've ever seen, but what can i expect here

>It's because of geography.

Jared had made up his mind before he wrote the book.

It's nothing more than popular liberal science.

Yeah! Damn those white and yellow men for wanting to get places faster and carry shit farther!

"Australia is the world's leading producer of rutile, zircon, bauxite, iron ore and ilmenite, the second largest producer of alumina, gold, lithium, manganese ore, lead and zinc, the third largest producer of uranium, and the fourth largest of silver, nickel and black coal."

Damn those white men for discovering them and building those industries!

Good points in the beginning but the conquest posts were stupid. Successful Spanish conquests were the exception, not the rule. For every Cortez with a successful expedition, there was at least 2-3 disasters like the one under Narvaez. Spanish technology was great but it wasn't enough to stop a swarm of fierce warriors without good tactics, good strategy, and skilled diplomacy to recruit native auxiliaries. Also, epidemics played a huge role starting in early 1500. By the time Pizarro reached the Incas, European epidemics had already wreaked havoc on the vast empire, killing a powerful King Huanya Capac and plunging the empire into civil war. The way the poster tries to play both like they never happened is stupid.

Don't forget South Africa. Literally empty when the Whites showed up and they turned it into a nuclear power.
Rhodesia turned into the breadbasket of Africa.
Hell, the natives in America did jack shit with the land and after we showed up, well...

The argument is that they have resources but not easily accessible ones, in that you first need an iron pick forged from ore found near the surface in order to dig deeper. I'm not saying whether its true or not but it makes sense on paper.

>Jared
yeah, I'm not reading that.

Iron ore used to literally grow out of the ground in the pilbara yet the Abos never dared to make tools out of it, they never evolved past stone tools

Most of Australia is uninhabited, proving Diamonds' thesis. The tiny strips of Australia that are cultivated look nothing like Africa.

>All humans are 50% genetically similar to bananas

His argument for the reason Africans never domesticated zebras is literally: "Some animals are naturally easier to domesticate, and some are naturally wild."
But of course, OTHER animals such as humans are all the same!

That part about domestic animals makes sense to me, a lot of the other claims are dubious though.

That's transfer of knowledge well after civilization's advancement out of the fertile crescent.

>Papua New Guinean
>Pretty clever
Dude, you know they eat each other right? Actual cannibalism has and is a common practise for 1000s of years, the females breast feed the life stock ffs.
New Guineans are sub humans, worse than Australian aboriginals.

Africa has access to all of that and their countries are all shit, except Rhodesia and South Africa when they were white ruled.

Yeah, so what? That .5% makes all the difference!

kerdasi amaq

I didn't say they were advanced. I said they had clever solutions to their unique problems, because they do.

Ha, most transported convicts were poms.

The point of no domesticatable animals is fair, however europeans brought horses and cows and other animals here hundreds of years ago. Why has no african society domesticated and bred them yet?

>It's because of geography.
Hahaha, yeah, "geography."

Sub Saharan Africans never developed a written language. What that has to do with geography Diamond won't say.

>It's because of geography.
Wrong. It's because of HBD - which will, of course, be influenced to an extent over the longterm by geography.

But White European civilization has managed to succeed in every single type of climate and geography.

Black Africans on the other hand never even managed to found a civilization in their own backyard let alone anywhere else.

>The point of no domesticatable animals is fair
No, it's absolutely retarded.

Are wolves "domesticable" animals? No - but if you selectively breed them enough for desired traits you get a domesticable dog.

Africans have always been surrounded by an enormous variety of animals which could have been domesticated. The fact that they didn't have the wit or longterm view to domesticate any of them is a reflection on them rather than on some inherent quality of the animals.

I recommend you give this a read:

livinganthropologically.com/archaeology/guns-germs-and-steel-jared-diamond/

>The key question is whether Jared Diamond’s work is broadly correct about human history or a distortion of that history. I argue that although Diamond makes interesting points, his work from Guns Germs and Steel to Collapse is a distorting disservice to the real historical record. Diamond claims that the differential success of the world’s nations is due to the accidents of agriculture, except when societies “choose to fail.” This claim does not withstand scrutiny. I claim Diamond’s ideas should not be promoted or taught.

Wolf analogy ain't great. That's only true for one specific breed of wolf, no others have any ties to dogs.

>It's because of geography.
No. Jared Diamond is a nigger-loving apologist

>europeans brought horses and cows and other animals here hundreds of years ago
There are indigenous cows in Africa. And euros also tamed zebras to account for the lack of horses. So no.

The funny thing is that European crops and livestock were extremely maladapted for the Australian climate, so the early settlers had to entirely new subspecies of crops and livestock to avoid starving.
Ironically though, Australia has a large number of native crops and animals that can easily be domesticated and bred, but the settlers were too sophisticated and specialized in their agriculture to be able to spend time doing that and by the time they could, they had already adapted their stock and crops and there was no need to use native ones.

On the other hand aboriginals had 40,000 years to adapt our crops and domesticate emus and kangaroos, but they chose to be hunter gathers and incidental farmers instead and just starve during our numerous droughts.

There are domesticatable dogs in africa though. Look up canus africanus. It used to hunt with southern african hunter gatherers

This jew created a meme book to provide an alternate explanation when low IQ is why civilizations don't advance

(((Jared Diamond)))

our hatred of blacks fuels our creativity. australia is beautiful, our standard of living here is insane. when i used to go overseas to the USA and work with americans, my employers told me to NEVER disclose how much money i made because it would sow discontent in the american camp. obviously this isnt true across the board. serious though, burgers, australia is the greatest country in the world. not great in our might, or our military or our economy, but great in our hatred of blacks. we are the greatest country in the world by a long shot, in that sense. we really dont trust them at all. although in the big cities we speak in hushed tones regarding blacks, because we also seem to have the cuck gene. but australians will readily say what they think, even in the cities regarding the brownskins. kek, when Australians worry about us getting blacked i always laugh, because theres no way we will get blacked. maybe chinked, probably not, but who cares. getting chinked isnt so bad and our white ferals (bogans/rednecks) breed the most of anyone. muslims cant even compete with our trailer park birth rates. brown cunts.

not an argument.

You were deployed, yeah? I was given the same briefing...

...

thats what happened, though. the convicts had to build their own prisons from scratch even from the start. what are you saying? that its because of british administration that they did well? then lets extrapolate... the sun never sets on the british empire, remember? so why is it that some did better than others?

...

poor burgers. i was such a dumb cunt i even considered enlisting in their USMC, until i saw what their pay was like...

Absolutely retarded premises. He states that an average child from equatorial guinea is "obviously smarter" than a burger child of the same age, and expect us to believe this statement with no empirical data to back it up. Now I know burgers are not particularly bright but that statement is so ridiculous that I shoud have stopped there.