Thoughts on this book? Don't send me to /lit/, I'm interested in opinions of polack audience

Thoughts on this book? Don't send me to /lit/, I'm interested in opinions of polack audience.

...

Nice read, except the super cucky way he denounced European supremacy from colder seasonal climate (saying pretty much the theory is "bullocks" cus it implies Euros are more rugged than those in warmer climates) and how he totally left out Europeans are 4% neanderthal which surely benefits them physically and mentally.

He's basically trying to explain race without sounding like a racist but this sort of accidentally subliminally prepares someone for the race red-pill.

>not knowing the difference between domestication and training

OP, ignore this idiot

I thought the book was great. An interesting read to be sure. He wrote it to prove races are equal, but the truth is everything in the book can be true and this still doesn't prove races are equal. It was a really fascinating read from an anthropological perspective.

Niggers are still scum though. Don't worry.

Did we read the same book? I am not sure how DNA fits in this if he just addressed the cultural side


It is a good book, started conversation on why certain groups are more successful than others and paved the way to politely say Africans are lazy

I think he wanted to denounce racism by describing whites as lucky and genocidal and in no way superior in mental capacities to negroes. A lot of argumentation for this conclusion appeared to me pretty shaky.

Mostly dindu apologist nonsense making huge logical leaps to justify obvious genetic failings of races.

Diamond's anti science agenda is exposed in this book.

It sucks

>a jew trying to poo on the achievements of whites over other races

Wrong about almost everything. Tries to say that the only reason white and asian societies advanced faster is all down to 'luck'.

There is a pasta that goes around which debunks basically every major point. If you stick around long enough someone will probably post it.

Some good points and good ideas.
His argument that "Blacks and Aztecs aren't dumb, they just live in a poorly shaped continent" would have had more weight if he'd managed to explain how come Whitey conquered the world despite the fact that Kebabs and Chongs and Poos were on Eurasia too. By his logic everyone on Eurasia should have been at the same tech level. But they weren't.

It's pretty shallow since it implies that the only reason for different people, different cultures and different levels of development, is just the environment.
It's basically geographic determinism

This. He essentially dismisses European accomplishments as luck.

user this book is highly problematic. I would prefer if you didn't post it, thanks

The book has been pretty much discredited.

If you want to know why some races are better off, I would suggest "The Bourgeois Virtues: Ethics for an Age of Commerce"

...

>This fucking book

enjoy this redpill user

It basically boils down to "Eurasia is long and other continents are tall, lol, lucky white people."

That's what I mean, he tried to explain away genetic superiority by keeping it environmental, yet at the same time one of the BIGGEST environmental factors that made Europeans hairier, taller, more creative (on average) is the natural selection that occurred due to the colder, seasonal, ENVIRONMENT.

He addressed it and denounced it because it pretty much confirmed European genetic supremacy while he was trying to talk about >>environment

I was halfway through the book and now I don't feel like finishing it.
thanks

(((jared diamond)))

Nonsense. You just have to look at a map to see that the East-West theory doesn't stack up (Africa is just as wide as Europe and Asia, when you consider that mountain ranges are also barriers to movement of technology)

He also spends what feels like a billion pages waffling about tribes in Papua New Guinea, which is interminably dull.

His worst book to be honest, read "collapse", it's way more interesting.

>Australoid
What the fuck?
Do Abbos really have noses that big?

It's basically anti-history. It suggests that one could have looked at the world 20,000 years ago and guessed the basics of the modern geopolitics just from physical geography and range of animal species. What humans actually did for themselves was irrelevant or out of their control and the interactions between humans was merely playing out a story written in the natural geography of the planet.

It obviously fucking bullshit and not surprising that it was written by a (((fucking STEM neckbeard))).

>Do Abbos really have noses that big?
Yes

Yup

They're tanned jews dropped on their face at birth

...

>doesn't understand that one follows the other

Dmitri Belyaev calls you a fucking retard and shows that viable lineages for domestication can occur in as little as 5 generations.

Does anyone have that MEGA link with all the Sup Forums books on it?

>le europeans are inferior to everyone
>le race doesn't exist except for jews they are superior to you goyim
>le nothing to domesticate even though the dutch arrived in africa and immediately went about domesticating the common eland
>le crops and region determine the success of a people but has no affect on the genetic makeup of these people
>le hunter gatherer papua new guineans are intellectually superior to europoors in the agrarian/industrialised environment in which they have evolved in for thousands/hundreds of years
>le disregard that there are many diffirent forms of intelligence and in spite of that every arbitrary metric for intelligence iq test/spatial/reaction time infers the contrary
>le post on reddit, yahoo answers, and quora everytime a european is proud of his culture

And then dropped on their heads a few hundred times.