Thoughts on Gun, Germs, and Steel?

Does Jared Diamond get it right?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_10,000_Year_Explosion
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

...

Someone give me a basic gestalt

He got pretty near the truth by recognizing the impact geography has on empires and civilization. The key he didn't find however was
>evolution
There is different selection pressure in a continuosly changing environment with four seasons, compared with an all-summer African environment. You can't be stupid and survive a winter in pre-civilizational winter conditions. You have to work together.

It was Diamonds attempt to explain the facts why Africans suck with a politically correct idea, but when the truth is politically incorrect, he was doomed to fail.

>white geographic privilege

Kike writes a whole book trying to make convenient excuses for niggers failing to have even square one of civilization. Fails miserably, but Libertards loved him for years because they're delusional goyim incapable of accepting that people aren't all born equal.

Barking up the wrong tree. Nobody on this website reads books, except in /lit/.

...

The basic theory is that the reason white people won history is because Europe has a bunch of unique geographic features as well as flora and fauna, and that each area of the planet is very different. Because of this, civilisation was never going to arise in, say, the jungles of Africa. Or the Sahel. Or the Savanna. Only the deserts of the middle east, Europe, China, and America, which are all very similar, could ever have given complex civilisation a chance.

Oh, also these large difference between regions did not cause any substantial divergent evolution, except the most superficial and inconsequential. And, not kidding about this, tribal people in Papua New Guinea are probably the most intelligent people on the planet.

/thread
its a babbys first year university tier book

what else can you recommend then faggot

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_10,000_Year_Explosion

IDK you tell me. Do you think if Indians had black powder and steel like they did for almost a century after European arrival that they would produce America?

You tell me.

Doesn't tell the whole story. He doesn't talk about the role of natural selection in all of this. But it's understandable, he's Jewish and Jews have historically been hostile to such things post-WWII on the grounds that they view applying Darwinian logic to humans leads inevitably to the Holocaust.

they give this read in highschool in the states

Holy fuck

It's pure geographic determinism. Basically everything in history is dictated only by environmental cause.
Some points are ok, but overall it's very restrictive in its views

It explains why the British were able to colonize China and India, but doesn't explain why Africa is still a complete shithole.

Let's assume that he is right, what does it matter? Even if niggers are violent savages because of their environment, they'd still be violent savages.

Basically this. He describes in great detail how different the environments different populations lived in yet pretends this had no selective effect. This was plausible back when we thought evolution took extremely long, now that we know how much faster it actually happens its ridiculous

>applying Darwinian logic to humans leads inevitably to the Holocaust

read the Culture of Critique, this is explained in great detail

Geographic privilege is a thing, there are many factors besides IQ which determine the rate a civilization might advance.
~HOWEVER~
A high IQ people, hindered by geographic location or luck or whatever other factor, will quickly catch up given the chance to learn.
>I.E Germanic tribes or Japan
A low IQ people wont.
>niggers, boongs

One man vs Another man

If A can beat B physically how is B equal to A? Can Equality be defined from physical perspective? That Man's theory of survival of the fittest relies a lot on physical strength and can it be overlooked?

If A man beats another man in mathematics an general intelligence, how is the latter man equal to the former from analytical perspective?

What we do - shapes the society. And our actions are continuous clashes of inequal actions that makes and breaks the society everyday. Then where does the concept of equality stand here?

How do we justify that a man who puts more physical and mental strength on earth vis-a-vi society has to be share equally with lesser contributor ?

In fact, this natural law of in equality is why society has millionairs and poors as polar opposites.

Yet we continue to seek equality to comfort the opportunists -

Is Equality a big masquerade? A facade ?

kike shit

debunked ages ago

>Geographic privilege is a thing,
This presumption has inherently fallacious underpinnings.
An area ripe with easily collectable abundant resources could discourage development of problem solving necessary for a people to advance.
An area with little resources could encourage the development of problem solving and higher thinking as a vital survival mechanism.

We cannot say one way or the other what happened in the past. Evolution has no goal, there is no grand plan, its just survival. The potential impact of geographic location is entirely speculative, as is all of evolutionary theory.
It could be that simplistic tribal people who still fuck like rabbits while existing near starvation are the more adept organism by nature's own standards.

At its core this is why Diamond's book is so weak. There is no hard hitting concrete evidence, it is merely an attempt to try and make cucky white readers feel good by giving them convenient excuses for black failures so they don't have to admit to themselves that races aren't equal.

That's also true, desu I was thinking back to the debate between Sargon Cuckad and Jared Tahaylor when Sargon tried to use the old "Vikings were niggers" meme.

I had a 100 level university course than actually claimed this. The prof seriously concluded that reason is evil because it will inevitably lead to "great tragedy"

Truth doesn't matter if it means hurting jews.

>A Jew admits that logical observations of groups and their behavior would lead, logically, to the Jews being destroyed
Really makes you think, doesn't it?

You guys just totally blew over one of his biggest points. White Europe inherited its technological advantages from hundreds of years of appropriation from other cultures. Meaning, nothing superior about whites, just collectors of others technology.

Best part is it was a theology course. He didn't even try to use Logos as an argument and separate logos from raw rationality, he just said if something is true but it would lead to war or some shit pretend the truth doesn't exist.

I have the book because I read it for a (((college class))).
I was writing (((Diamond))) with echoes before I knew he was actually Jewish. Every. single. time.

"White Europe" was an enormous stretch spanning numerous totally separate civilizations.
No single Chinese Dynasty was built up on its own merits alone either.

The africans in empire of dust can't even maintain knowledge of shit like railways they inherited. Never 4get the broken pump in tanzania.

bump

>There are still people who repost this absolute nonsense.

>1
Eurasia is far from inhospitable. It's the territory of the Persian Empire, which had at its height the largest population (as a percentage of the global population) of any empire in human history, and was conquered by Alexander the Great in a decade. It's also the geographical area of the Silk Route, the single most famous trade route in history.

>3
If you actually google those crops, you see they come in two categories:
1. Crops later imported by European powers
2. Crops that grew in West Africa or the Horn of Africa (coincidentally the two parts of Africa that did have settled civilizations)

>5
Genghis and Attila are noteworthy because they're exceptions. They also both relied heavily on engineers from settled civilizations (Chinese and Romans respectively). Or did you think they just "horse archer'd" castles and fortresses?

>6
Denying the impact of European diseases on the Americas is just stupid.

>Picture
Look up the difference between taming and domesticating, a subject Diamond actually treats in his book.

I don't know enough about 2, 4, 7 and 8 to debunk that, but if half of the arguments in that copypasta are pure nonsense that's enough reason to stop posting it. But doublechecking facts is anathema to Sup Forums.

This too. The dichotomy between genetics and environment is a false one, as the latter causes the former through natural selection.

Go back to lefty/pol/

>Title book Guns, Germs, and Steel
>Writes one of the most boring books ever

...

Greeks and Romans were white, everyone else inherited from them not the other way around nigger

>inb4 muh mudslim golden age :DDD

I'm not making an argument, i'm telling you to go back to the shithole you crawled out of we would all be more productive if you did. Stop wasting your time with dumb Sup Forums tards.

>reading
lel, you think I can be bothered with that?

He has a solid argument to some degree. A lot of historians seem to have problems with him, and Im not qualified to comment on that.
He makes it axiomatic that all populations have exactly the same potential for civilization(except the PNGs who he bizarrely says are smarter than us), and he offers absolutely no evidence for this

We were talking about a book, that you didn't read. Not about your lack of brain cells 12 yr old.

go back to leftypol

Oh look it's this thread again

OK, let's play.

Go back to the 13th century luddite.

>Some points are ok, but overall it's very restrictive in its views

And he has a weird hard-on for New Guinea. For some reason, he thinks New Guinea is Best Guinea, and keeps using it as an example of how great a on-European culture can be.

Pic is from New Guinea.

>Look up the difference between taming and domesticating, a subject Diamond actually treats in his book.

WHich is a good argument against zebra posters, but does not stand up toi examples of North American and African animals that have been domesticated -- in some case, since Diamond wrote his book, so he gets a pass on not knowing about them, but they still disprove his point.

gladly ;)

I think that his work does a good job at revealing that the result of many of these IQ tests of Africans run through the course of the 20th century were systemic by no means and that a proportion of the tendencies of IQ distribution being lesser than that of whites is due to culture. These people don't grow up starting school at 4 learning the names of all the geometrical shapes of the toys they grow up playing with that I believe stimulates western children's ability to abstract thought. There aren't even words to describe certain shapes in some tongues which doesn't show an inability to abstract in my opinion as much as it shows that they just haven't been introduced to the idea or had reason to in the first place. My hunch is that there are some cognitive disparities at the root of races but that these differences are less than what is reported by proponents of the idea of white supremacy and that the vast majority of people among all races fall under a space of similar cognitive ability and that the tails ends of our cognitions are where the majority of the differences are found.

Aren't almost all bison mixed with cattle ever since they were almost hunted to extinction