"Guns, Germs, and Steel" and Geographic Determinism

[Makalakumu]

Diamond's book doesn't deal with the effects of "Enlightenment Ideals," Phil. It addresses technological and agricultural advancements made in Eurasia far before Locke ever set pen to parchment.

To go along the lines of your argument, yes, there are good ideas and inferior ideas. Domesticating horses was a good idea. Yet there were no horses on any landmass south of the equator (and zebras can't be domesticated). It was a good idea that couldn't take root.

A good idea that couldn't take root, literally, is the domestication of various grains found in Eurasia. They tend not to grow too many other places.

The issue is one not of superiority of ideas...but the applicability of same. Had we whites lived in South America, Africa, Australia, or New Guinea...we'd be the ones currently known as the "Third World."

Our success...and our formulation of our "good ideas" is a result of an accident of geography that permitted our culture to flourish. The culture itself wasn't necessarily superior...it was simply the lucky one that ended up winning the lottery of location.


Regards,


Steve

One of the things that I liked about the book is that it debunked, once and for all, the superior race myths that were very common in the past. He did spend a lot of time talking about the replacement of one society by another. This replacement took place because of technology and resources, not because of a set of superior ideals/morals/culture. Perhaps "ideas" was to broad to begin with, but I think the point remains the same. The environment shapes a cultures success.

I can't wait to read Diamond's next book, "Collapse" I hear he takes off on some of these concepts and talks about the rise and fall of civilizations and why some civilizations choose to fail.

 

[Makalakumu]

The more you post, I must admit the more it sounds like have already accepted a conclusion and are working backwards to try to prove your point.

Rather than saying "What makes a culture successful? Is it ideas? Environment? Luck of being in the right place at the right time?...something else?", which would be an interesting conversation, you seem to be going backwards from "Environment leads to success more than any other factor...so if an idea fails in a given locale...it was the locale and not the idea to blame, now let's talk about (or more likely, let's just all agree on it) how locale determines success", which is not nearly as interesting or useful way to approach the issue.

For what it's worth, there are other nations that are also relatively free, but not nearly as rich, and not in the same enviroment, so I don't think the chain from environment->rich->free is really there like you seem to assume it is

I'm just trying an idea on for size. I'm not really sure of anything. Although, I do usually look for naturalistic explanations first...

 

[FearlessFreep]

This replacement took place because of technology and resources, not because of a set of superior ideals/morals/culture.


I did a little reading into it and one criticism to Diamond's ideas is that he doesn't really consider the place that ideas play into that replacement. An example is how "Mainfest Destiny" as an idea drove Americans to drive out the Native Americans. Sure, they had technology, but the also had desire to use it. Chinese invented gunpoweder long before it was known in the west, but they did not use the techology for conquering.

not because of a set of superior ideals/morals/culture.

Depends on what you mean by 'superior', again. Superior can simply mean "better equipped for success" or it can mean "more morally correct". Certainly 'manifest destiny" was more successful than the ideas of the people it replaced. But I definitely wouldn't call it morally superior. After all, the geography was the same Yes, the new Americans had technology, but they also had a willingness to use it, driven by ideas, some noble and some not.

Almost any civil war would ague the point that the ability to convince people of the superiority of ideas is going to win out over the geography.

The problem I think you are having in this is that you want ideas to be 'value neutral', that democracy and solicalism and communism and capitalism are all inherently morally equal. That may be true, although I have a problem seeing facsism as being morally equivalent to democracy So, if all ideas are equal, then the success of one culture over another must be something else...maybe geography. The problem with that approach is that while ideas may be *morally* nuetral or equal, they are not all *practically* equal. Morally good or not, captialism is frighteningly efficient as an economic idea, which even the communists in China are learning to use to their advantage. Religious fanaticism may come from a feeling of religious superiority that may be wrong, but it's still a powerful idea in terms of what it can practically accomplish

 

[Tgace]

Its just another branch of the liberal "nobody should be superior" mentality. There should be no "passing" or "failing" in school...sports and schoolyard games are criticized because they encourage the thought that somebody is "better" than somebody else..."when everybody is super nobody is" etc..instead of excelling kids are taught to "expect".

Here, cultures/societies arent superior due to ideas, invention or technology, just the fate of geography. The Roman roads, military innovations, language, architecture had nothing to do with their success?

Odd ideas to be espoused by martial artists. Especially in the more martial "fighting" arts.

 

[FearlessFreep]

Well, for the sake of discussion, I'm willing to grant a morally level playing field for political and economic ideas. However, I don't think that means that some ideas are not more successful than others, and by that I mean more effective at crowding out other ideas.

 

[Makalakumu]

Its just another branch of the liberal "nobody should be superior" mentality. There should be no "passing" or "failing" in school...sports and schoolyard games are criticized because they encourage the thought that somebody is "better" than somebody else..."when everybody is super nobody is" etc..instead of excelling kids are taught to "expect".

Here, cultures/societies arent superior due to ideas, invention or technology, just the fate of geography. The Roman roads, military innovations, language, architecture had nothing to do with their success?

Odd ideas to be espoused by martial artists. Especially in the more martial "fighting" arts.

Serious questions...do you think that you are superior to another person? Do you believe that you have superior attributes, physical, mental, or moral, that make you superior to say someone who lived in the Soviet Union or someone who lives in the Third World?

You say yes, then I can understand why you believe the things you do. If no, then I do not understand. If nothing make you superior as a member of the richest and most powerful nation of the world, what makes anyone else in this country superior? There has to be another explanation.

 

[hardheadjarhead]

Its just another branch of the liberal "nobody should be superior" mentality. There should be no "passing" or "failing" in school...sports and schoolyard games are criticized because they encourage the thought that somebody is "better" than somebody else..."when everybody is super nobody is" etc..instead of excelling kids are taught to "expect".

Here, cultures/societies arent superior due to ideas, invention or technology, just the fate of geography. The Roman roads, military innovations, language, architecture had nothing to do with their success?

Odd ideas to be espoused by martial artists. Especially in the more martial "fighting" arts.

Cultural relativism isn't the issue here. The question isn't one of whether one culture is superior to another, rather what causes led up to that ascendancy.

Clearly western culture dominates the planet now. In the 11th century that wasn't the case. The Roman lead to which you refer had largely been lost during that era. The Muslim world and China held most of the cards insofar as technology, the arts, and the sciences. With the re-introduction of the works of Aristotle by St. Jerome--who had them translated from Islamic texts--the West entered into a new age of intellectual exploration and came out of what we've come to term "The Dark Ages."

Islam, on the other hand, subsequently ended up repressing intellectual freedom (banning the works of Aristotle in many instances) and went into a cultural decline. So too did China around that time when eunuch extremists in power clamped down on international trade and the proliferation of ideas.

The West's following ascendancy was due to a spirit of kleptocracy and conquest, and not just "good ideas." A modification of a traditional verse:

"In fourteen hundred and ninety-two,
Columbus sailed the ocean blue.
In fourteen hundred and ninety-three,
He began to steal all that he could see."

Some claim that liberals espouse cultural relativism in their defense of the value and contribution of other cultures. Many of these same critics embrace moral relativism when called on the carpet for the West's destruction of those cultures. We are asked to understand that the rape and pillage of the day were standards of the time and that we ought to be less harsh in our judgements of those whose actions blight Western history. We are asked to rationalize their behavior in the name of the subsequent good that allegedly came from such depredations.

We are asked to ignore the achievements of non-white and non-Christian cultures by ignoring the Afro-Phoenician's for their first maritime exploration around Cape Horn. That honor goes to Vasco De Gama, who did it much later. We are expected to forget that African artifacts were found in the New World when Columbus arrived there. If we concede that Columbus wasn't the first to land in the Americas, we should give credit to Leif Ericson, or St. Brendan...not, for goodness sakes, anybody who lived south of Gibralter. We musn't be afro-centrist now.

And if we recognize these truths of history we are labeled "historical revisionists," as if plumbing for what actually happened is a bad thing. We ought not rock the boat of history nor disabuse ourselves of our inherent white superiority. We've got a nice illusion going here...let's not ruin it.


Regards,


Steve

 

[Makalakumu]

Don't discount Central and South America. By geographic accident, they have something the rest of the world wants very badly, and will pay for: OIL. This could make Venezuela, Argentina, Ecuador, Mexico, and Columbia very important in the near future. If you read the newspapers closely, you can see this happening already. If countries like Venezuela manage to hold onto their sovereignty in the face of foreign interference, they will become the new successful cultures.

These countries will become powerful no matter what kind of governmental ideals they espouse...all by the accident of geography.

 

[FearlessFreep]

One would argue that if it were not for socio-political unrest in these countries that they would be powerful already.

Geography gives potentional, ideals fulfill it...or not

 

[sgtmac_46]

Well, there certainly are a lot of assumptions in this post. However, I am bewildered by the writers lack of acknowledgement of environmental factors as part of objective reality. Perhaps this term describes only the realm ideas...which would truly be ironic.

I think a good modern case study of Diamond's work would be the question, "Did the US "win" the Cold War because of our superior culture, or did it "win" because of specific environmental factors?"

The answer is "Yes".

What you fail to grasp, upnorthyosa, is that this line of argument actually goes nowhere as it's really a "chicken or the egg" argument. The reality is, that superior environmental factors created a circumstance where superior ideas were able to develop. Diamond's work is nothing but the extension of the nature/nurture argument to the civilization level, and in the end, it really doesn't say nearly as much as some would like it to. It merely saws that environmental factors allowed certain civilizations to rise and advance further than others. It certainly does NOT prove that NO civilization is superior to another.

A civilization that worships the moon is still qualitatively inferior to a civlization that GOES to the Moon, it doesn't matter WHAT environmental factors allowed those civilizations to advance. It's akin to saying that Humans aren't really anymore advanced than other apes, because we just happened to have received enviornmental factors that gave us an advantage. It's irrelavent when discussing the end product and it's quality.

Further, the whole argument seems a veiled attempt to prove that "race" has nothing to do with the success of a civlization. I thought we pretty much already agreed on that. Culture is what is important, not race, and Western culture is superior in most respects to any other to have developed. HOW it developed that superior culture, most likely because of unique environmental factors COUPLED with unique ideas, has nothing to directly to do with the discussion of the quality of that culture.

 

[hardheadjarhead]

The United States USED TO produce a lot of products the rest of the world wanted, which was part of what made us wealthy and successful. Not anymore. Now, we import. We produce very little that the world wants, which is threatening to make our "empire" irrelevant. We can only bully our way around the world for so long.

Don't discount Central and South America. By geographic accident, they have something the rest of the world wants very badly, and will pay for: OIL. This could make Venezuela, Argentina, Ecuador, Mexico, and Columbia very important in the near future. If you read the newspapers closely, you can see this happening already. If countries like Venezuela manage to hold onto their sovereignty in the face of foreign interference, they will become the new successful cultures.

Currently South American researchers are publishing an ever increasing number of scientific and technological research papers. India has twelve of the finest tech schools in the world and is exporting talented and trained people to the U.S., Singapore, and elsewhere.

Commodities are cheap. When Aberdeen, Scotland (once the "Granite Capital of the World") needed their public buildings resurfaced, they didn't go to the quarries outside of town. They imported the granite from China. It was cheaper that way.

The wealth that the U.S. has accumulated has been because of such commodities. Our manufacturing industry is dying and moving elsewhere. If we don't modify our educational institutions to reflect our new service economy, we will decline.

What then of those good western ideas?


Regards,


Steve

 

[sgtmac_46]

Currently South American researchers are publishing an ever increasing number of scientific and technological research papers. India has twelve of the finest tech schools in the world and is exporting talented and trained people to the U.S., Singapore, and elsewhere.

Commodities are cheap. When Aberdeen, Scotland (once the "Granite Capital of the World") needed their public buildings resurfaced, they didn't go to the quarries outside of town. They imported the granite from China. It was cheaper that way.

The wealth that the U.S. has accumulated has been because of such commodities. Our manufacturing industry is dying and moving elsewhere. If we don't modify our educational institutions to reflect our new service economy, we will decline.

What then of those good western ideas?


Regards,


Steve

You mean those good western ideas being adopted by those nations that you just named? You tell me. It seems as though the ideas are working fine. The problem is that many in the western world are trying to move AWAY from the very ideas that made them prosperous in the first place.

It isn't just china's natural resources that are making them prosperous now, but the fact that they are embracing capitalism in a more fundamental way that many in the western world are doing themselves, much less increasingly socialized western europe.

 

[Makalakumu]

What you fail to grasp, upnorthyosa, is that this line of argument actually goes nowhere as it's really a "chicken or the egg" argument.

I don't see it that way. Here is why. The Earth is our egg. Our species hatched from it. No one laid that egg. Our environment shaped everything about us through evolution. Group selection and sexual selection added some trappings to the package that natural selection chipped out of the block.

It merely saws that environmental factors allowed certain civilizations to rise and advance further than others. It certainly does NOT prove that NO civilization is superior to another.

No, it does not prove that one civilization is superior to another. It merely provides a more plausible explanation and I believe it puts a more logical limit on the powers of ideas. I think that Diamond's work cuts through decades of cold war propaganda and it points a finger at the real source of power in this world...resources, geography, and environment.

A civilization that worships the moon is still qualitatively inferior to a civlization that GOES to the Moon, it doesn't matter WHAT environmental factors allowed those civilizations to advance.

Not necessarily. A civilization is unable to go to the moon if it does not have the environmental riches to do so. The US, for five decades starting in the 1920s, had a wealth of black gold that has never been seen in the world since. Our oil wealth far surpassed the wealth of the Saudis today. This source of cheap and abundant energy did far more to put men on the moon then any namby pamby ideas.

The bottom line is that the Soviets never made it to the moon because they were too poor. Wealth is a proxy for energy. It is not created by an idea.

It's akin to saying that Humans aren't really anymore advanced than other apes, because we just happened to have received enviornmental factors that gave us an advantage. It's irrelavent when discussing the end product and it's quality.

From a biologic point of view, we are not really more "advanced" then apes. We are just differently adapted. Throughout history, there have been species that have arisen and gain control for a time...they all eventually passed on into the big darkness of extinction. All of this depended on the environment. All of it. Ideas are an adaptation, nothing more.

Thus any real comparison of the case study outlined above is not really possible. The Soviets started out with far less then we did and were destined to lose the competition because of it.

Further, the whole argument seems a veiled attempt to prove that "race" has nothing to do with the success of a civlization. I thought we pretty much already agreed on that. Culture is what is important, not race, and Western culture is superior in most respects to any other to have developed. HOW it developed that superior culture, most likely because of unique environmental factors COUPLED with unique ideas, has nothing to directly to do with the discussion of the quality of that culture.

How our dominance developed is relevant to the discussion. Our "superiority" is measured by that dominance. Look at small capitalistic countries that have no where near the environmental gifts that we have. They are some of the poorest places on the planet. So much for ideas...

 

[Makalakumu]

The problem is that many in the western world are trying to move AWAY from the very ideas that made them prosperous in the first place.

Actually, the problem is that our vast environmental wealth party is coming to an end. Our consumer materialistic culture threw our wealth into garbage dumps across the country. Now, we are forced to use our remaining wealth to steal the resources from others. This won't go on forever because war is expensive...and then nothing will save us. Not even capitalism.

It isn't just china's natural resources that are making them prosperous now, but the fact that they are embracing capitalism in a more fundamental way that many in the western world are doing themselves, much less increasingly socialized western europe.

Yes, it is the natural resources. China has worked for decades to dominate the markets and get its hands in the bag first. Thus, there wealth increases.

 

[sgtmac_46]

Actually, the problem is that our vast environmental wealth party is coming to an end. Our consumer materialistic culture threw our wealth into garbage dumps across the country. Now, we are forced to use our remaining wealth to steal the resources from others. This won't go on forever because war is expensive...and then nothing will save us. Not even capitalism. .

It's funny that the rising stars of the modern economy are imitating our successful philosophies. Ironic, no?

Yes, it is the natural resources. China has worked for decades to dominate the markets and get its hands in the bag first. Thus, there wealth increases.

China has only been successful since they ditched their Maoists hardline economic policies and embraced the most successful aspects of free market capitalism. Thank you for playing, though.

I don't see it that way. Here is why. The Earth is our egg. Our species hatched from it. No one laid that egg. Our environment shaped everything about us through evolution. Group selection and sexual selection added some trappings to the package that natural selection chipped out of the block.

Funny you should mention natural selection. You mean that process whereby superior systems of adaptation replace inferior systems? Oh yeah, you're making a compelling argument for your side of this alright. lol.

No, it does not prove that one civilization is superior to another. It merely provides a more plausible explanation and I believe it puts a more logical limit on the powers of ideas. I think that Diamond's work cuts through decades of cold war propaganda and it points a finger at the real source of power in this world...resources, geography, and environment.

You mean it merely supports a preconceived notion that you have? It might do you well to understand the difference between the two. Resource, geography and environment PRODUCED superior cultures. Diamond does nothing to prove this wrong, he merely plays a complex shell game. I am sorry to be the one to burst your bubble.

Not necessarily. A civilization is unable to go to the moon if it does not have the environmental riches to do so. The US, for five decades starting in the 1920s, had a wealth of black gold that has never been seen in the world since. Our oil wealth far surpassed the wealth of the Saudis today. This source of cheap and abundant energy did far more to put men on the moon then any namby pamby ideas.

Nor is it able to evolve to a more advanced civilization. What we are talking about are stages of development. It's the same as saying that a Neuro-Surgeon isn't superior to a lab rat, because the Neuro-Surgeon had all kinds of advantages in evolution and environment over the lab rat. That doesn't change what the fact that what ultimately became the Neuro-Surgeon isn't superior to lab rat. One has nothing to do with the other. Of course with all their wealth, I don't see the Saudis going to moon, or even evolving out of a tribal society. Could it be that there is far more to it than simply resources...perhaps a good idea? lol. I'm sure you'll have some bizarre, obtuse explaination for THAT failure as well.

The bottom line is that the Soviets never made it to the moon because they were too poor. Wealth is a proxy for energy. It is not created by an idea.

They weren't too poor, they merely embraced a system that squandered their wealth. Ideas create wealth, not raw materials. The native americans had the raw materials of the US for thousands of years before we arrived, and they weren't able to turn it in to what we did in a mere few hundred years. Could it be that they didn't have the ideas and knowledge to utilize those raw materials? Africa has infinite raw materials, yet it was not harnessed until Europeans arrived and "exploited it". Don't deceive yourself, the very complaints you usually level in this forum REFUTES your hypothesis.

From a biologic point of view, we are not really more "advanced" then apes. We are just differently adapted. Throughout history, there have been species that have arisen and gain control for a time...they all eventually passed on into the big darkness of extinction. All of this depended on the environment. All of it. Ideas are an adaptation, nothing more.

Yes, and the success of an idea to adapt is the measure of superior or inferior. Again, thank you for playing the semantics game, but it's clear by any measure that humans are superior to all other animals on the planet. The idea to the contrary is merely a maladaptive trait of it's own and serves not intrinsic purpose.

Thus any real comparison of the case study outlined above is not really possible. The Soviets started out with far less then we did and were destined to lose the competition because of it.

In truth they started out with far MORE and far EARLIER. Again, how do you explain native americans possessing the raw materials that you say made us prosperous, for thousands of years before we arrived? Superior ideas and concepts. We knew how to use them, they did not. The raw materials themselves are USELESS without the knowledge (ideas) to use them effectively. Thus proving the value of ideas over material. Again, this is nothing more than an extension of marxist ideology, the idea that material wealth is predominant over ideas, and you keep losing it.

How our dominance developed is relevant to the discussion. Our "superiority" is measured by that dominance. Look at small capitalistic countries that have no where near the environmental gifts that we have. They are some of the poorest places on the planet. So much for ideas...

Actually, compared to their socialist contemporaries, they are far wealthier. The poorest nations on the planet embrace communist ideas or, worse yet, tribalistic ideas. Tribalism is why many nations WITH useful raw materials are unable to exploit them and create wealth. Wealth is subjective and the ability to create it revolves around 1) Creativity itself and 2) The resources to exploit. Again, this is nothing but the same, old, marxist arguments remarketed as "Science". Of course, dialectical materialism has always claimed "Scientific" status, so this shouldn't be a shock. Again, it's merely a shell game. Your argument doesn't even come CLOSE to proving what you think it proves. In short, it merely says that advanced cultures, that developed advanced ideas, got a head start from advantages. No kidding. I thought that much was already accepted. Natural advantages create cultures that create advanced ideas, which contribute to even greater cultures. It's like saying that the aforementioned Neuro-Surgeon isn't really intelligent at all, he just had natural advantages...one has nothing to do with another, it's a false argument.

 

[Makalakumu]

It's funny that the rising stars of the modern economy are imitating our successful philosophies. Ironic, no?

As far as just getting their hands in the bag and deciding to consume...

China has only been successful since they ditched their Maoists hardline economic policies and embraced the most successful aspects of free market capitalism. Thank you for playing, though.

Funny you should mention natural selection. You mean that process whereby superior systems of adaptation replace inferior systems? Oh yeah, you're making a compelling argument for your side of this alright. lol.

China is still quite socialist. Perhaps there is something more to their success?

You mean it merely supports a preconceived notion that you have? It might do you well to understand the difference between the two. Resource, geography and environment PRODUCED superior cultures. Diamond does nothing to prove this wrong, he merely plays a complex shell game. I am sorry to be the one to burst your bubble.

You aren't bursting any bubbles. You aren't even making argument against Diamond. What you are doing is saying that since something cannot be proven, then its not true. That isn't how science works.

Nor is it able to evolve to a more advanced civilization. What we are talking about are stages of development. It's the same as saying that a Neuro-Surgeon isn't superior to a lab rat, because the Neuro-Surgeon had all kinds of advantages in evolution and environment over the lab rat. That doesn't change what the fact that what ultimately became the Neuro-Surgeon isn't superior to lab rat. One has nothing to do with the other.

As far as evolution goes, the lab rat evolved to fill a certain niche. The neuro surgeon evolved to fill a certain niche. They cannot interchange. They cannot live each other's lives. The environment shaped who they are.

Of course with all their wealth, I don't see the Saudis going to moon, or even evolving out of a tribal society. Could it be that there is far more to it than simply resources...perhaps a good idea? lol. I'm sure you'll have some bizarre, obtuse explaination for THAT failure as well.

No, it's actually quite simple. For all of their wealth, the saudies really don't have that much else. Now is there oil wealth so grand that it even comes close to matching the resource wealth of the United States. They won't go to the moon because they are too poor.

They weren't too poor, they merely embraced a system that squandered their wealth. Ideas create wealth, not raw materials. The native americans had the raw materials of the US for thousands of years before we arrived, and they weren't able to turn it in to what we did in a mere few hundred years. Could it be that they didn't have the ideas and knowledge to utilize those raw materials? Africa has infinite raw materials, yet it was not harnessed until Europeans arrived and "exploited it". Don't deceive yourself, the very complaints you usually level in this forum REFUTES your hypothesis.

Well, now you have hit the crux of Diamonds arguments and you really have done nothing to show that geographic determinism isn't a primary causal factor. The environment aided the spread of technology allowing some civilizations to develop faster. Their cultures weren't superior. They just got lucky.

Yes, and the success of an idea to adapt is the measure of superior or inferior. Again, thank you for playing the semantics game, but it's clear by any measure that humans are superior to all other animals on the planet. The idea to the contrary is merely a maladaptive trait of it's own and serves not intrinsic purpose.

Actually, its not at all clear. We evolved to fill a niche. Other animals evolved to fill a niche. We cannot interchange an expect to be as successful as other evolved organisms. BTW - by the criteria that you are using to measure success, bacteria are far superior to humans.

In truth they started out with far MORE and far EARLIER. Again, how do you explain native americans possessing the raw materials that you say made us prosperous, for thousands of years before we arrived? Superior ideas and concepts. We knew how to use them, they did not. The raw materials themselves are USELESS without the knowledge (ideas) to use them effectively. Thus proving the value of ideas over material. Again, this is nothing more than an extension of marxist ideology, the idea that material wealth is predominant over ideas, and you keep losing it.

This is the crux of the argument for geographic determinism and Diamond provides a wealth of evidence to show that it occurs. The environment aids the spread of ideas. The environment allows a civilization to succeed or fail. The environment determines far more then some flash in the pan, namby pamby idea. Look, people believe in capitalism like a religion (odd isn't it that Marx predicted this). You really want to think that it is superior, but the evidence doesn't support this. In fact, when one points to these environmental factors, it becomes impossible to distinguish between the success of the idea and the advantages provided by the environment. And when this stuff is controlled in the scientific sense, ideas lose. This is something that Diamond and others show with evidence.

Actually, compared to their socialist contemporaries, they are far wealthier. The poorest nations on the planet embrace communist ideas or, worse yet, tribalistic ideas. Tribalism is why many nations WITH useful raw materials are unable to exploit them and create wealth.

Nope. Tribal societies, once they obtain the technology to exploit resources, become quite wealthy. Saudi Arabia, for instance, is still a tribal society. But is there any question that they are not wealthy? Maybe not wealthy enough to go the moon, but wealthy. There wealth was determined by the environment.

Wealth is subjective and the ability to create it revolves around 1) Creativity itself and 2) The resources to exploit.

I agree with you here, but I think that you fail to realize that this is hardwired into all humans regardless of culture. This defines our niche. No culture suddenly holds an advantage for these things. We all have the same genes.

Again, this is nothing but the same, old, marxist arguments remarketed as "Science". Of course, dialectical materialism has always claimed "Scientific" status, so this shouldn't be a shock. Again, it's merely a shell game. Your argument doesn't even come CLOSE to proving what you think it proves. In short, it merely says that advanced cultures, that developed advanced ideas, got a head start from advantages. No kidding. I thought that much was already accepted. Natural advantages create cultures that create advanced ideas, which contribute to even greater cultures. It's like saying that the aforementioned Neuro-Surgeon isn't really intelligent at all, he just had natural advantages...one has nothing to do with another, it's a false argument.

How can you differentiate between the advantages of the environment and the success of the idea? You can't. And that is why geographic determinism wins out. Of course, nothing is ever proven, but the wealth of evidence shows this to be true, in my opinion.

 

[sgtmac_46]

As far as just getting their hands in the bag and deciding to consume...

Or as far as their economic policies are patterned after other successful economies.

China is still quite socialist. Perhaps there is something more to their success?

You obviously haven't visited china lately. Their economic policies have become more capitalisitic than many western nations. China has embraced capitalism in a way that few would have believed possible. On personal freedom China still retains the feel of a totalitarian state, but on economic issues, China is embracing free trade in a way never thought possible. You might want to actually do a bit of research on the extent to which China has gone economically toward capitalism, it's definitely a refutement of communist economic policies.

You aren't bursting any bubbles. You aren't even making argument against Diamond. What you are doing is saying that since something cannot be proven, then its not true. That isn't how science works.

Science requires proof THAT a hypothesis IS true, not proof it ISN'T. It is not my role to disprove your hypothesis, I think you may have a fundamental misunderstanding of science, as it is apparent that your only concern with the issue is to further a political mindset, disregarding as you do any evidence that doesn't fit your conclusions.

As far as evolution goes, the lab rat evolved to fill a certain niche. The neuro surgeon evolved to fill a certain niche. They cannot interchange. They cannot live each other's lives. The environment shaped who they are.

Yes, and who they are is a superior form of life (the Neuro-surgeon) and an inferior one (the lab rat). The statement that evolution created them is of no consequence to the discussion of qualitative difference. It's like discussing the works of a particular artist, one may be of far superior quality, the fact that they were both painted by the same artist does NOT make them equal.

No, it's actually quite simple. For all of their wealth, the saudies really don't have that much else. Now is there oil wealth so grand that it even comes close to matching the resource wealth of the United States. They won't go to the moon because they are too poor.

They are not poor at all, their wealth, per capita, is as great as any nation on the planet. If domestic natural resources alone are the only reason nations rise to dominance, you might, then, explain how Great Britain (that land of LARGE AMOUNTS of natural resources, lol) or Japan rose to world power levels. I doubt you'll succeed in making that argument based on pure, raw materials alone.

Well, now you have hit the crux of Diamonds arguments and you really have done nothing to show that geographic determinism isn't a primary causal factor. The environment aided the spread of technology allowing some civilizations to develop faster. Their cultures weren't superior. They just got lucky.

You're making a ficitious argument. You want to create a strawman where, at the beginning, some cultures were naturally superior. The fact is that, irregardless of the cause, some cultures DID advance to superior levels. Why they did so is irrelavent, as they did end up becoming superior and developing superior ideas. As I said, your summation of Diamond's work and how it applies is merely a shell game. Superior technology is superior technology, superior ideas are superior ideas. The aforementioned scientist was aided by being born genetically better off than the lab rat, that doesn't prove that his ideas and innovations aren't of more quality than anything that lab rat will produce. Your whole hypothesis is based on a false argument.

Actually, its not at all clear. We evolved to fill a niche. Other animals evolved to fill a niche. We cannot interchange an expect to be as successful as other evolved organisms. BTW - by the criteria that you are using to measure success, bacteria are far superior to humans.

Now that is funny, what criteria is that? Your whole argument is predicated on a false idea, and that idea is that there is no objective measure of superior or inferior. Further, I suspect that you even know this argument is false, that you are merely making it because you believe it will aid you in damaging a system you disagree with. The ultimate goal seems to be to convince people that there is nothing superior about the current system, so there is no reason NOT to change it. Of course the idea that no idea or system is superior doesn't apply to any system you believe should replace the current one, does it. When science is guided by political ideology, I question it as pseudo-science.


This is the crux of the argument for geographic determinism and Diamond provides a wealth of evidence to show that it occurs. The environment aids the spread of ideas. The environment allows a civilization to succeed or fail. The environment determines far more then some flash in the pan, namby pamby idea. Look, people believe in capitalism like a religion (odd isn't it that Marx predicted this). You really want to think that it is superior, but the evidence doesn't support this. In fact, when one points to these environmental factors, it becomes impossible to distinguish between the success of the idea and the advantages provided by the environment. And when this stuff is controlled in the scientific sense, ideas lose. This is something that Diamond and others show with evidence. [/QUOTE]

Nope. Tribal societies, once they obtain the technology to exploit resources, become quite wealthy. Saudi Arabia, for instance, is still a tribal society. But is there any question that they are not wealthy? Maybe not wealthy enough to go the moon, but wealthy. There wealth was determined by the environment. [/QUOTE]

I agree with you here, but I think that you fail to realize that this is hardwired into all humans regardless of culture. This defines our niche. No culture suddenly holds an advantage for these things. We all have the same genes. [/QUOTE]

How can you differentiate between the advantages of the environment and the success of the idea? You can't. And that is why geographic determinism wins out. Of course, nothing is ever proven, but the wealth of evidence shows this to be true, in my opinion. [/QUOTE]

 

[sgtmac_46]

This is the crux of the argument for geographic determinism and Diamond provides a wealth of evidence to show that it occurs. The environment aids the spread of ideas. The environment allows a civilization to succeed or fail. The environment determines far more then some flash in the pan, namby pamby idea. Look, people believe in capitalism like a religion (odd isn't it that Marx predicted this). You really want to think that it is superior, but the evidence doesn't support this. In fact, when one points to these environmental factors, it becomes impossible to distinguish between the success of the idea and the advantages provided by the environment. And when this stuff is controlled in the scientific sense, ideas lose. This is something that Diamond and others show with evidence.

Now you're becoming more honest in your motives. The discussion of Marx and capitalism shows the true motive for wanting to foster this idea....specifically, to try and prove that capitalism is in no way superior so that you can replace it with......another idea. The very fact that you are trying to do this PROVES that you really don't believe this idea of geographic determinism. If you DID believe it, you would believe that no idea YOU had would in any way make anything better, everything is just an accident. You might want to keep in mind that it was western culture that created the very science that you are using to try and prove that western culture has no greater or lesser value than any other. Further, Diamond might be forced to acknowledge that it is western scientific empirical thinking that he has made a corner stone of his life, thereby proving that he views it as of superior value than other ideals. Science WAS created by western culture, and as it is used to manipulate our entire reality to our will, it PROVES the value of ideas over environment. Checkmate.

Nope. Tribal societies, once they obtain the technology to exploit resources, become quite wealthy. Saudi Arabia, for instance, is still a tribal society. But is there any question that they are not wealthy? Maybe not wealthy enough to go the moon, but wealthy. There wealth was determined by the environment.

The rest of this discussion is merely footnotes to a lost game on your part, but i'll continue. This part of your post amuses me the most, first you claim the Saudi's are poor, now you assert they are WEALTHY? lol. At least be consistent in the ame posts.

I agree with you here, but I think that you fail to realize that this is hardwired into all humans regardless of culture. This defines our niche. No culture suddenly holds an advantage for these things. We all have the same genes.

We all have similar genes, funny how some are able to exploit their environment far better than others though, isn't it?

How can you differentiate between the advantages of the environment and the success of the idea? You can't. And that is why geographic determinism wins out. Of course, nothing is ever proven, but the wealth of evidence shows this to be true, in my opinion.

Simple, we look at any place where a culture has a disadvantage in resources, but an advantageous idea. Take Great Britain or Japan as examples of being short on resources. Then you compare them with any culture that has an abundance of natural resourcs, say native american culture (who lived on the land you claim is solely responsible for the United States' dominance for thousands of years before Europeans arrived). The Native Americans didn't have the ideas that were required to exploit their natural resources, despite having possession of them for THOUSANDS of years (remember all that oil). If merely possessing natural resources was enough, Native American culture would be one of the most advanced on the planet.

 

[elder999]

Then you compare them with any culture that has an abundance of natural resourcs, say native american culture (who lived on the land you claim is solely responsible for the United States' dominance for thousands of years before Europeans arrived). The Native Americans didn't have the ideas that were required to exploit their natural resources, despite having possession of them for THOUSANDS of years (remember all that oil). If merely possessing natural resources was enough, Native American culture would be one of the most advanced on the planet.

Kind of misses the point though: who's to say that their's wasn't one of the most advanced on the planet? Certainly not you-our current culture is doomed to failure because of our dependency on the very resource you bring up, as are the Saudis.

To many, the oil beneath the sands of the Middle East is a kind of godsend for them. My take on it is that it’s illusionary wealth in the same way that the mining of gold and silver in the New World by the Spanish ultimately proved to be more bane than boon for them, and the way stealing technology became economic suicide for the Soviets during the Cold War.

What the Arabs have achieved is tantamount to what a student cheating in high school achieves. Both “easy wealth” and cheating provide an instant reward, but neither provide a foundation. And like cheating in high school, once you get locked into easy wealth, you discover you need more and more of it just to keep going.

So, here’s my thesis: the oil the Arabs are selling isn’t a blessing at all; it’s a curse.

From the 16th to the early 19th centuries, the Spanish sent shipload after shipload of mineral wealth back to their country from the New World. But instead of using it for capital investment, the gold, silver, and gems soon left Spain to be spent in other countries to buy the goods those countries produced. In the meantime, those “resource-poor” countries like England, France, and Germany, who hadn’t found gold mines in their colonies or at home, had to depend on developing technology, building factories, and creating trade routes to build wealth. Gradually, Spain, while keeping the facade of being rich, became a country without an economic base, trying to keep up with its resource-poor neighbors who had built industrial bases that sustain them to this day.

Something similar happened with the Soviet Union during the Cold War. They stole technology from the West, rather than develop their own, but in the long run their thievery benefited the West, not the Soviet Union. Like the cheating highschooler, the Soviets discovered that the more complicated technology became, the less capable they were of doing original work because they hadn’t built a foundation. The result was that, although they did make huge strides in a few fields, such as metallurgy and mathematics, they fell way behind in numerous others. What comes to mind is computers. Rather than getting in a race with the United States, as the Japanese did, to develop the tools of the Information Age, the Soviets were content to sit back and just take what they could steal.

The difference in the two economies, the Japanese and the present day Russians, is testament to the rewards of making sacrifices in costly R&D and hard work versus the fleeting rewards of theft. So, technologically and economically, the Soviets/Russians fell further and further behind. Today the Japanese are an economic world power while the Russians are an economic basket case.


It should be noted that the Soviet refusal to understand what it takes to be a major economic power goes back years before the Cold War. As an example, when Henry Ford went to the Soviet Union as a guest of Stalin in the 1930s, Stalin reputedly asked him how the Soviets could build a trucking industry, something required for a modern industrial country. Ford said, “Build cars.” If you create a nation of drivers, trucks and a trucking industry would naturally follow. Ford didn’t believe you could build a trucking industry in a country where the populace rode in mule carts. And he was right. The automobile would have created the foundation for what Stalin wanted. But he couldn’t see it, so the cars weren’t built, trucks never became much of a factor, and the Soviet Union suffered.


There are even earlier examples in prehistory of how “easy wealth” destroys. In prehistoric times, wealth did not go to those societies that hunted and gathered best, it went to those which domesticated cattle and planted gardens.


Now it’s the Arabs who will never really get anywhere until they realize that wealth doesn’t come easy—or, in their case—from a hole in the ground. It comes from hard work, working smart, and original research and development.

 

[elder999]

double post-sorry!