"Guns, Germs, and Steel" and Geographic Determinism

[sgtmac_46]

I would be very interested in seeing this evidence. Is race more of a factor in the rise of societies then is conventionally thought? Is there really a superior race? The author implies these questions...

Again with this strawman. The point he was making was simply that Diamond's ulterior motive of attempting to prove his preconceived notion may be weighing heavily on his objectivity. You need to read what is actually written, not read in to it more than is there or create your opponents arguments for them. The point he was making was simply this: if the data were to contradict Diamond's conclusions, would he be objective enough not to simply be so dogmatic as to ignore the data for the benefit of his preconceived notions. Put simply, at what point does a political agenda equal bad science?

 

[Makalakumu]

I can sum your basic misunderstanding up far more simply and with far less obfuscation than you are attempting. You (and apparently Diamond) are mixing up the concept of race (a mostly irrelavent concept) with culture. They are not one and the same, and it is this categorical error that accounts for much of the great flaw in your argument. You (through Diamond) attempt to make two simultaneous arguments.

No, the argument has been the same from the beginning. Societies rise and fall not because of their ideology, but because of the environment.

1) That race is irrelavent in determining whether a society succeeds. That environment plays a greater role than racial differences. That argument is not in any way earth shattering and is irrelavent in the way an argument that the world is round is irrelavent.

One would argue whether or not racial differences exist...

2) That culture and cultural values, likewise, are irrelavent to whether societies succeed or fail. It is the first point that Diamond's book (and your argument) has been spending it's time trying to prove. You have not given one argument to prove the second point, nor are you capable of doing so as your whole argument is based on the hope that the reader will not notice the fact that the two, culture and race, are not the same thing.

Here you are attempting to shift the focus of the argument from the main focus. This argument isn't about race. It never was. It was about societies and about the reasons they rise and fall. So far, every point you've brought up regarding the real argument has been refuted...its no wonder you want to switch topics...

What Diamond does is a clever trick (one you are trying to do). It makes two points, and spends a lot of time and energy proving only one, the easiest one. Then, at the end, he points to the bulk weight of his argument and declares both points proven, finally and conclusively. You can keep spewing that line all day, but it still doesn't prove the second point because culture and race are not the same thing. Your argument is based on the concept that both are indifferentiable, and that is a poor and obvious strawman.

Of course it is a strawman, but it is of your creation. You created a strawman, called it a strawman, and then claimed that I made the strawman. Thank you, Hannity. Here is the truth of the argument and I have read this thread four times (and I'm about to read it a fifth), the argument has always been about the environmental factors that cause a society to rise to dominance. The argument has been about showing how these factors determined the outcomes we see today. The argument has always been that ideology has far less impact then traditionally thought. Every single point you've brought up regarding this argument has been refuted. Now you are forced to resort to cheap logical parlor tricks...

I have illustrated time and time again that cultural ideas are able to alter environmental factors. In fact, ideas, by their very nature, are judged as successful or not on their ability to adapt the environment to suit a given need. Everything from the fire to crop rotation to neuro-surgery to nano-technology illustrate how the ingenuity of human beings is able to alter environmental restrictions.

And I have illustrated time and time again that technology is created by the environment and limited by the environment, but you have chosen to ignore these points and their implications. Technology isn't the ultimate solution. Sometimes complexity is a hinderance. The bottom line is that ideology does not create technology and none of the miracles of technology are possible without a wealth in resources. This is geographically determined. Thus Diamond's points are supported again.

By your argument, your are suggesting that if you get an illness you will not see a doctor. The idea of medicine is a creation of human creative, not some random environmental phenomenon existing seperate from human ideas. Medicine adapts the environment to serve human interests. If human ideas don't have any effect on the environment,and everything is just an accident, then a doctor won't do you any good, the environment will decide whether you live or do. So, do you visit doctors when you are ill?.

When I say the power of ideology is limited and diminished, I am not saying that it is powerless. There is a very real sphere of influence that these things can influence. When it comes to large scale phenomenon like societies, though, the environmental factors win out, hands down. The environment dominates over the power of ideology.

1. You speak as if you actually believe in the power of ideology, good or bad. I thought the point was that ideology has no real impact. I guess that's not the REAL point is it?

2. I think we are getting closer to the source of your REAL position on this topic. A little bit of manipulating "science" for a political agenda. It's really the sophistry of it all that offends me. As if we are idiotic enough to buy in to it hook, line and sinker the shell game that is being played here, and i'm the idiot for pointing out that the hypothesis doesn't add up to what you and northkyosa (and Diamond) claim.

3. Here's a little hint: When you start out with your conclusions, and then only seek facts that support that conclusion, it IS NOT SCIENCE.

4. As for the power of ideas to alter reality, if you didn't believe in the power of ideas, you wouldn't be giving your warning about the "American Dream", nor would North be spending so much time trying to preach this line. No objective truth but that which serves the cause? Pretty much what I thought.

1. You assume a lot because that is all you have left in this argument. YOU have been injecting political bias into this debate from the beginning. You have attempted to make this debate into something that it is not. YOU have tried really hard to protect your ideology from the implications of this argument. I could care less which ideology dominates as long as one realizes that it wasn't the ideology that made the difference, it was the environment. There isn't much else beyond that, that one can do.

2. Of course it doesn't add up to what you claim. You've claimed alot of things that are not even close to what is actually being claimed. THAT is a strawman. When it comes right down to it, all of the major points that I've made in this argument, you have AGREED with them in some way, shape, or form (usually by claiming that these things were pre-understood or some such adolescent logical game). The bottom line is that the original conclusion, the one I actually have been arguing, adds up. If you would bother to reread this thread, read the book, and have the guts to challenge your own beliefs, you might see this.

3. You are wrong. Science can be inductive and deductive. There are models that work both ways. If you had any training in this matter, then you'd realize that the ability to differentiate real knowledge exists both inductively and deductively. In fact, the shift in perspectives is often quite helpful in understanding nature.

4. The myths have been shattered. It will take some time for many to realize this. Our ideology did not determine our societies success. The environment did. This argument is all but settled. Who wants to ask what this means for our lives...

 

[Makalakumu]

I guess at this point you are backing away from the defending your argument linking race and culture together, and are merely attempting to engage in an ad hominem attack where you simply try to link the argument of those who disagree with you with creationists arguing against evolution. By proxy, you are claiming that your unproven hypothesis is a supported theory. Nice try.

If one would actually bother to read what was written and then study a few other sources, then one would find that my original point is true. I see you are attempting to use the race and culture debate strawman again. This is becoming a joke and you are only making yourself look foolish. The debate is about societies and the reason they rise to dominance. The issue of race is a sideline issue.

The contradiction is only in your mind. Claiming that the two disciplines have two distinct methods of interpreting information is in no way contradictory. This is by no means the same as declaring that god created the world in 7 days and the argument on your part that it is, is simply more sophistry so as to not have to deal with the actual argument. If anything, your dogmatic defense of your theory sounds more like that of religious fanaticism than anything you've cited above.

Well, actually, claiming that our ideology is responsible for our societies success is very much like claming God created the Universe in seven days. Both are equally unsupportable. And both are aredently defended by those whose world views cannot stand in the face of such truths.

 

[Makalakumu]

Again with this strawman. The point he was making was simply that Diamond's ulterior motive of attempting to prove his preconceived notion may be weighing heavily on his objectivity. You need to read what is actually written, not read in to it more than is there or create your opponents arguments for them. The point he was making was simply this: if the data were to contradict Diamond's conclusions, would he be objective enough not to simply be so dogmatic as to ignore the data for the benefit of his preconceived notions. Put simply, at what point does a political agenda equal bad science?

I noticed that the writer of said article presented no data whatsoever concerning the insinuated claim that race might have mattered in the rise of certain societies. I would like to see this data. I suspect there is a reason as to why it wasn't cited...

 

[FearlessFreep]

I said my piece and got out early because I knew the conversation would spiral in circles and go nowhere (which it has).

Just a quick observation and then I'm out again.

The implication to this is it doesn't really matter if your are liberal or conservative. In the end it won't matter anyway, and neither can claim to be 'right'. Republican, Democrat, Nazi, Fascist, Communist, Klan, Libertarian...doesn't really matter. Be what you want to be and if anyone objects, just say 'ideas don't matter, just environment'

 

[Makalakumu]

I said my piece and got out early because I knew the conversation would spiral in circles and go nowhere (which it has).

Just a quick observation and then I'm out again.

The implication to this is it doesn't really matter if your are liberal or conservative. In the end it won't matter anyway, and neither can claim to be 'right'. Republican, Democrat, Nazi, Fascist, Communist, Klan, Libertarian...doesn't really matter. Be what you want to be and if anyone objects, just say 'ideas don't matter, just environment'

Ideology matters in how we decide to run our personal lives...how we decide to be happy. It doesn't determine much about the success of our society though...

 

[Makalakumu]

On Race and Culture

It was recently opined upthread that Mr. Diamond shows that the concept of a superior race is untrue by pointing out all of the environmental factors that contributed to a race's success. It was further opined that Diamond did not show that these same factors applied to culture.

I disagree.

Diamond opens his book with Yali's Question...which, in essence asks why did one group of people end up with so much "cargo" and another did not. The question implies race, but that implication is shallow, as Diamond points out. Thus, Diamond skips the issue of race and focuses on culture.

Here is why. Look at the following series of arguments...

1. The white race dominates the world not because of its inherit superiority, but because of environmental factors.

2. The white culture dominates the world not because of its inherit superiority, but because of environmental factors.

3. Western culture dominates the world not because of its inherit superiority, but because of environmental factors.
As one moves down the list, one finds that each subsequent argument explains more and more data. For example, parts of the first argument are true, but it is too vague. There are lots of instances that fall into the catagory but are not explained by the argument. As soon as we add the cultural component though, one begins to explain more data...and when race is removed altogether, the largest pool of data is explained.

Thus, race is really just a sideline issue. It wasn't the point. The point was culture and showing that the concept of a superior culture leading to superior societies was fallacious. When the environment determines a societies success, then the particular culture of that society is relegated to a more natural humanistic position. A position that is best fit by the available evidence.

 

[sgtmac_46]

On Race and Culture

It was recently opined upthread that Mr. Diamond shows that the concept of a superior race is untrue by pointing out all of the environmental factors that contributed to a race's success. It was further opined that Diamond did not show that these same factors applied to culture.

I disagree.

Diamond opens his book with Yali's Question...which, in essence asks why did one group of people end up with so much "cargo" and another did not. The question implies race, but that implication is shallow, as Diamond points out. Thus, Diamond skips the issue of race and focuses on culture.

Here is why. Look at the following series of arguments...

1. The white race dominates the world not because of its inherit superiority, but because of environmental factors.

2. The white culture dominates the world not because of its inherit superiority, but because of environmental factors.

3. Western culture dominates the world not because of its inherit superiority, but because of environmental factors.
As one moves down the list, one finds that each subsequent argument explains more and more data. For example, parts of the first argument are true, but it is too vague. There are lots of instances that fall into the catagory but are not explained by the argument. As soon as we add the cultural component though, one begins to explain more data...and when race is removed altogether, the largest pool of data is explained.

Thus, race is really just a sideline issue. It wasn't the point. The point was culture and showing that the concept of a superior culture leading to superior societies was fallacious. When the environment determines a societies success, then the particular culture of that society is relegated to a more natural humanistic position. A position that is best fit by the available evidence.

But since all the effort is used up toward proving the easier assertion (i.e. that race is irrelavent) i guess you and Diamond didn't have enough space yet to deal effectively with culture, so you just decided to erase "race" and replace it with the word "culture" and declare yourself victorious? lol. All the evidence has proven is that western culture has been better adapted by the environment to compete, that's why it has been successful. The issue of environmental causes is irrelavent, as it is already accepted that environment impacts the outcome of an organism. It's really taking a commonly accepted theory and attempted to apply it where it does not apply. One has nothing to do with the other, and your attempt to regurgitate, over and over again, that environmental conditions are the source, therefore all cultures are equal, is asinine. But if first you don't succeed, keep repeating yourself I guess.

 

[Tgace]

I always love it when one side claims victory for themselves. And how they are right on everything. I always note which side claims it first....seems to be a pattern.

 

[Tgace]

So environment is all powerful, however humans living in that environment for eons remain biologically unchanged?

 

[sgtmac_46]

No, the argument has been the same from the beginning. Societies rise and fall not because of their ideology, but because of the environment.

No, the argument has been that societies rise and fall by the ability of their ideology to adapt the society to it's environment. As socieities have ZERO physical characteristiscs, they are SOLELY ideology. So your claim is that the success of a phenomenon that is solely ideology, has nothing to do with ideology, is asinine. That is why cultures succeed or fail, based on their success or failure to adapt the people to the environment or the environment to the people.

One would argue whether or not racial differences exist...

One would be engaging in a red herring discussion.

Here you are attempting to shift the focus of the argument from the main focus. This argument isn't about race. It never was. It was about societies and about the reasons they rise and fall. So far, every point you've brought up regarding the real argument has been refuted...its no wonder you want to switch topics...

Your argument (because of Diamonds) has always been about taking an argument about racial differences, and cut and pasting it to deal with culture. You have not refuted ANY argument, merely regurgitated the same old tired points, which were wrong from the beginning. You declarations to the contrary do not an argument make.

Of course it is a strawman, but it is of your creation. You created a strawman, called it a strawman, and then claimed that I made the strawman. Thank you, Hannity. Here is the truth of the argument and I have read this thread four times (and I'm about to read it a fifth), the argument has always been about the environmental factors that cause a society to rise to dominance. The argument has been about showing how these factors determined the outcomes we see today. The argument has always been that ideology has far less impact then traditionally thought. Every single point you've brought up regarding this argument has been refuted. Now you are forced to resort to cheap logical parlor tricks...

The argument has been that culture and the characteristics therein have absolutely nothing to do with the success or failure of a culture. It's asinine and has no basis in reality. All culture is, is adaptive characteristics of a group of people. It's much like saying the adaptive traits of a particular animal have no bearing on it's success or failure. It's much like saying the adaptive quality of a polar bear has nothing to do with it's success in dealing with cold climates. It's an argument based on a categorical error.

And I have illustrated time and time again that technology is created by the environment and limited by the environment, but you have chosen to ignore these points and their implications. Technology isn't the ultimate solution. Sometimes complexity is a hinderance. The bottom line is that ideology does not create technology and none of the miracles of technology are possible without a wealth in resources. This is geographically determined. Thus Diamond's points are supported again.

Technology is created by societies in an attempt to adapt to their environment. You have chosen to ignore this very important distinction in your humanistic attempt to alter reality. Your argument that technology is geographically determined has nothing to do with how well adapted a culture has become. It does not make all cultures equal, as some have better adapted themselves to their environment than others, and that is what determines success. It is also why your argument does not attack cultural differences as successfully as racial ones. Again, a categorical error of an argument.

When I say the power of ideology is limited and diminished, I am not saying that it is powerless. There is a very real sphere of influence that these things can influence. When it comes to large scale phenomenon like societies, though, the environmental factors win out, hands down. The environment dominates over the power of ideology.

Wow, your original assertion was that ideology has ZERO effect, now you seem to be backpedalling and attempting to qualify yourself. I guess no one is hopeless. You still are clinging to the basic misunderstanding. The reality is that the adaptive traits of culture and their interaction with the environment determine success or failure. They are not the same thing, but interacting phenomenon. That must be the core of your failure, but you believe that culture and environment are the same thing. They are interacting phenomenon. Discussing which is more important, or claiming one is unimportant, is about the same as claiming that environment is far more important than genes in determing biological success, it's built on a basic misunderstanding of the interactive process...there can be no interaction with one missing.

1. You assume a lot because that is all you have left in this argument. YOU have been injecting political bias into this debate from the beginning. You have attempted to make this debate into something that it is not. YOU have tried really hard to protect your ideology from the implications of this argument. I could care less which ideology dominates as long as one realizes that it wasn't the ideology that made the difference, it was the environment. There isn't much else beyond that, that one can do.

It is not me that is injecting political bias, it is your humanistic philosophies that is directing your "scientific" research. Again, agenda based science is bad science. The only ideology I have is that all life is competition between competing phenomenon. I didn't base my world view on a preconceived notion, I base my world view on my observations of how phenomenon appears to operate. Again, it is the interaction of culture and it's ability to adapt that decides it's success or failure in the environment. The environment is a playing field, it's limits and opportunites are the variables, the culture plays within that field and it's adaptive nature decides it's success or failure.

2. Of course it doesn't add up to what you claim. You've claimed alot of things that are not even close to what is actually being claimed. THAT is a strawman. When it comes right down to it, all of the major points that I've made in this argument, you have AGREED with them in some way, shape, or form (usually by claiming that these things were pre-understood or some such adolescent logical game). The bottom line is that the original conclusion, the one I actually have been arguing, adds up. If you would bother to reread this thread, read the book, and have the guts to challenge your own beliefs, you might see this.

I'm not even sure you understand what my argument is. I certainly am sure you can't summarize my argument, so you refer to it in vague terms. The idea that the environment impacts the outcome of the interaction is, again, nothing of any great and earth shattering nature. What you have a difficulty understanding is the role the environment plays. You believe that the environment IS the entire phenomenon. Environment is merely a word describing the playing field. It is the interaction of adaptive traits WITH the environment that determines success or failure. You seem to be entirely blind, either deliberately or inadvertantly, to this aspect of reality. Also, i've already read Diamond's book, two years ago, and it's in my personal library. Again, his argument is not as earth shattering as he and you assume it is, and his arguments that race is not a deciding factor, DO NOT directly apply to culture.

3. You are wrong. Science can be inductive and deductive. There are models that work both ways. If you had any training in this matter, then you'd realize that the ability to differentiate real knowledge exists both inductively and deductively. In fact, the shift in perspectives is often quite helpful in understanding nature.

The scientific method creates the foundation of science. In addition, science is a cultural adaptive phenonmenon (one of those things you claim are irrelavent), it's an ideology developed whereby objective reality is attempted to be deciphered through logical enquiry.

4. The myths have been shattered. It will take some time for many to realize this. Our ideology did not determine our societies success. The environment did. This argument is all but settled. Who wants to ask what this means for our lives...

It means you have merely imposed your humanistic philosophy as science, that is what it means. Again, nothing as earth shattering as your claim. It does show, however, how easy it is to allow personal beliefs to become dogma and allow it's carrier to ignore and invent evidence to support that ideology. Take the idea that environment and culture are the same thing. It basic misunderstanding ignores the reality that success or failure is determined by the adaptive ability of culture's interaction with the environment. It's much like saying that a polar bears hollow hairs and black skin have nothing to do with whether a polar bear freezes to death, it's all environment. Again, a categorical error, and simply arguing that the polar adapted to it's environment by adapting those physical characteristics does not make your argument. That is nowhere NEAR the same thing as saying it's all environment. It's actually the interaction of the biological entity with environment, and it's ability to adapt TO environment, that determines it's success. Any other interpretation is apparently built on bizarre philosophical wishful thinking.

 

[Flatlander]

I'll preface this by stating that I haven't read the book; I have, however, followed the thread quite closely.

Here's how I'm reading this:

1. Societies are necessarily limited by the environment in which they exist.
2. Ideology is the vehicle through which societies relate and adapt to their environment.
3. Ideology is able to give societies some measure* of control over their environment.

For me, a few questions are raised at this point:

a) If ideology does not afford a society absolute and complete control over the environment, does this grant environment primacy with respect to limiting growth, dominance, success, or what have you?

b) What, then, causes a society's fall - ideology or environment?

c) How are we defining society for this discussion - tribe, nation, humankind in general? I believe this to be an important distinction for the purpose of this discussion.

Thoughts?

*What measure of control is reasonable to assume here? It seems to me that it would be unreasonable to assert that we, or any other society, has established complete and absolute control over the environment. Were we able to do so, then I would have to agree on the potential primacy of ideology. However, it seems that until we are able to assert complete control, the environment remains the limiting factor, thus affording it primacy in determining the ongoing success or failure of a society.

 

[Makalakumu]

But since all the effort is used up toward proving the easier assertion...

You missed the point. The race assertion is not the best assertion. The race argument does not explain all of the evidence. However, culture, does. You've presented nothing in this post that counters the argument I made above. In fact, you simply declared it wasn't true and then expected someone to believe it.

All the evidence has proven is that western culture has been better adapted by the environment to compete, that's why it has been successful.

What evidence have you presented to back up this claim? Zero.

 

[Makalakumu]

I always love it when one side claims victory for themselves. And how they are right on everything. I always note which side claims it first....seems to be a pattern.

I'd like to see some data on that...

 

[sgtmac_46]

You missed the point. The race assertion is not the best assertion. The race argument does not explain all of the evidence. However, culture, does. You've presented nothing in this post that counters the argument I made above. In fact, you simply declared it wasn't true and then expected someone to believe it.


What evidence have you presented to back up this claim? Zero.

Here's the evidence I have. You've asserted that mere environment accounts for the success or failure of society. I propose that this idea is based on the most absurd rationalization i've seen in a while. How do you explain, if environment is the sole decisive agent, how, when western culture began entering America, they were able to do, in a few generations, what the native culture could not in thousands of years. The idea that it is "environment" is absurd at that point, as they were, in reality, living in the same environment as the native americans, so the argument that the resources were different is absurd. They used the same material resources the native culture had access to. The only difference, period, is that they brought a different culture, which brought their collective knowledge, learning, and other adaptive traits that allowed them to exploit and adapt themselves and their environment to the same environment the natives were unable to adapt to. They changed environments but maintained the same successful cultural characteristics that allowed them to adapt and adapt to the new environment.

If you wish to dispute this, then tell me what physical environmental material that those Europeans living in America had access to that the natives did not have access to. Guns? Can be made using entirely American materials, likewise swords, and any other creation we wish to make. The physical environmental materials is exactly the same. The only difference is (even using Diamonds argument) that Europe had access to cultural influences beyond the native cultures stagnant stone age society.

Where your argument fails (and, by proxy, Diamond's) is this very concept. Even in Diamond's own words, western culture's success was as a resulted of the flowering of influences from a multitude of cultures. Western culture sat at a crossroads where it was able to adapt the ideas that worked from other cultures, everything from mathmatics to gun powder. This, however, far from being an argument against the power of culture, is a powerful argument FOR culture, because, far from having access to physical resources that gave them an advantage, western culture had access to cultural resources. In fact, I inadvertantly made reference to this aspect of Diamond's arguments. You might want to try and refute this before continuing your assertion that culture is irrelavent.

 

[sgtmac_46]

I'll preface this by stating that I haven't read the book; I have, however, followed the thread quite closely.

Here's how I'm reading this:

1. Societies are necessarily limited by the environment in which they exist.
2. Ideology is the vehicle through which societies relate and adapt to their environment.
3. Ideology is able to give societies some measure* of control over their environment.

For me, a few questions are raised at this point:

a) If ideology does not afford a society absolute and complete control over the environment, does this grant environment primacy with respect to limiting growth, dominance, success, or what have you?

b) What, then, causes a society's fall - ideology or environment?

c) How are we defining society for this discussion - tribe, nation, humankind in general? I believe this to be an important distinction for the purpose of this discussion.

Thoughts?

*What measure of control is reasonable to assume here? It seems to me that it would be unreasonable to assert that we, or any other society, has established complete and absolute control over the environment. Were we able to do so, then I would have to agree on the potential primacy of ideology. However, it seems that until we are able to assert complete control, the environment remains the limiting factor, thus affording it primacy in determining the ongoing success or failure of a society.

All very good questions. I'll give you my take.

"a) If ideology does not afford a society absolute and complete control over the environment, does this grant environment primacy with respect to limiting growth, dominance, success, or what have you?"

No, what occurs is that ideology is merely an adaptive trait, or in societies case, large collection of traits. What determines socieities success or failure is these adaptive traits ability to allow society to gain an advantage in the environment, either A) by adapting the environment to fit society or B) by adapting society to fit the environment. Again, the problem is that the other side in this argument is apparently blind to this fact.

"b) What, then, causes a society's fall - ideology or environment?" As we've already discussed, ideology is adaptation, much as claws, fur, ears, etc, are physical adaptations of animals trying to adapt to environment conditions. To say that ideology or environment cause a societies success or failure is to misunderstand the discussion. It is the interaction of adaptation with the environment that results in success or failure. If the adaptation is able to give the organism or the society an advantage, it will likely succeed, if not, it will likely be a maladaptive trait. That is why it is absurd to claim that society, and by proxy, adaption is irrelavent, only environment is important.

"c) How are we defining society for this discussion - tribe, nation, humankind in general? I believe this to be an important distinction for the purpose of this discussion." It is defined as any group that acts as a carrier for ideas and ideology. In order for ideology to be a social phenomenon it must be shared by a group of people. As such, since people are constantly changing and evolving, so, too, is society and societal institutions and ideas. If these shared ideas give the group an advantage, it will probably be adopted and imitated by others, if not, it will likely have the result that other adaptive traits have...extinction for the carrier.

 

[Makalakumu]

I'm going to edit out the invective in this post. Watch what happens to the amount of verbage...

That is why cultures succeed or fail, based on their success or failure to adapt the people to the environment or the environment to the people.

When one "culture" starts with geographic and environmental factors lined up in its favor, it is impossible to determine how much of an effect the ideology had in that culture's success. It's like running a race with two vehicles and one of the vehicles only has a quater tank of gas. When the disadvantaged vehicle loses, does the other claim it was because of the superior engineering of the car?

One would be engaging in a red herring discussion.

You missed the point.

Your argument (because of Diamonds) has always been about taking an argument about racial differences, and cut and pasting it to deal with culture.

Lets reexamine the two arguments in question...

1. Societies rise and fall not because they are comprised of a superior race, but because of environmental factors.
2. Societies rise or fall not because they are beholden of a superior culture, but because of environmental factors.

If one uses the first argument as a thesis, one is left with innumerable examples where culture jumped racial lines. Thus one is left to believe that the best argument to make if one is talking about societies, is not one about race. It is one about culture. No race ever rose or fell, it was always the culture. The fact that Diamond refutes the old race issues is a sideline issue. In fact, if race were the central focus of this book, the overall argument would be weaker not stronger.

That argument would gloss over cultural differences between races and it would run into large problems where cultures and races intermix. Thus, your protrayal of Diamonds argument as an argument about race extrapolated over culture is a misunderstanding of the thesis.

1. The argument has been that culture and the characteristics therein have absolutely nothing to do with the success or failure of a culture.

2. All culture is, is adaptive characteristics of a group of people. It's much like saying the adaptive traits of a particular animal have no bearing on it's success or failure.

1. The influence of culture on a societies success or failure. Geography and resources present hurdles that culture cannot overcome. Geography and resources also present opportunities that culture cannot create. Thus, there is absolutely no way that one can make the distinction as to whether or not Western Culture is superior. Our culture started with so many advantages that, as Tgace said above, even Europeans couldn't mess it up.

2. You are talking about group selection...which is different then natural selection. Group selection posits a mechanism for evolutionary change among groups of organisms. Group selection is heavily dependent on geography and resources. Many times, maladaptive ideas pass on into populations simply because the "winners" had more energy...

1. Technology is created by societies in an attempt to adapt to their environment. Your argument that technology is geographically determined has nothing to do with how well adapted a culture has become.

2. It does not make all cultures equal, as some have better adapted themselves to their environment than others, and that is what determines success.

1. Technology requires energy to implement. If a culture lacks energy in the form of resources, then it would be unable to implement that technology. That is one way technology is geographically determined and it has everything to do with how well adapted a culture has become.

2. The adaptation of a culture is heavily dependent upon the environment that the culture in which the culture is located. Culture develops anywhere humans are present and not all places on this planet were created equal. Thus, all cultures cannot be equal. This determination was not due to some inherit failing of the culture, it was action of group selection in a superior environment.

The reality is that the adaptive traits of culture and their interaction with the environment determine success or failure. They are not the same thing, but interacting phenomenon. That must be the core of your failure, but you believe that culture and environment are the same thing. They are interacting phenomenon. Discussing which is more important, or claiming one is unimportant, is about the same as claiming that environment is far more important than genes in determing biological success, it's built on a basic misunderstanding of the interactive process...there can be no interaction with one missing.

Whenever groups compete, the way they order themselves socially has proven to have very little effect on the outcome of the competition. Therefore, what determined the winner? Most often, it was who had more resources to start with. Cultures do not evolve via natural selection. That mechanism deals with individuals. Group selection is the mechanism in question, and it is far more complicated and heavily environmentally dependent. Innovation happens in all groups, yet some groups have been gifted with more resources to implement these innovations.

The environment is a playing field, it's limits and opportunites are the variables, the culture plays within that field and it's adaptive nature decides it's success or failure.

You are assuming that the "playing field" is equal. It is not. Thus, not all cultures will be equal. A culture that plays in a field that is rich in environmental and geographic resources will win in a competition with a culture that has not been gifted. The ideology of the culture has very little determinable impact when these factors are taken into account.

The idea that the environment impacts the outcome of the interaction is, again, nothing of any great and earth shattering nature. What you have a difficulty understanding is the role the environment plays. You believe that the environment IS the entire phenomenon. Environment is merely a word describing the playing field. It is the interaction of adaptive traits WITH the environment that determines success or failure.

When groups are involved, the environment is a primary factor in the determination of its success or failure. Adaptations in groups are not governed natural selection and are not soley determined by the actions of genes. An individual interacting in the environment evolves under different rules then a group. Selection pressure on the individual level is negative. A girrafes neck got longer because those who did not possess that trait died. In groups, selection pressure is positive. Groups that possess more energy are able to pass on their traits more readily. This pressure is independent of the actual substance of the trait in question.

Any other interpretation is apparently built on bizarre philosophical wishful thinking.

I'm afraid not.

 

[Makalakumu]

Here's the evidence I have. You've asserted that mere environment accounts for the success or failure of society. I propose that this idea is based on the most absurd rationalization i've seen in a while. How do you explain, if environment is the sole decisive agent, how, when western culture began entering America, they were able to do, in a few generations, what the native culture could not in thousands of years.

1. The Europeans brought with them germs that killed over 90% of the people of the Americas. These germs developed because of the domestication of animals and the European dominance of the Americas would most assuredly have been more difficult with these germs. This was, by far, the largest factor.

2. The East/West axis made it easier to transport ideas and goods because environmental differences were more similar. The Europeans benifitted from a trade in technology that was not available in the Americas. The sheer number of cultures that lay along the east/west axis of Eurasia was staggering and all of these cultures innovated.

Western culture was privy to both physical and geographic resources and it was these resources that allowed it to succeed. If one looks at the actual ideologies that the cultures possessed, one will see that they had very little bearing on the outcome.

The idea that it is "environment" is absurd at that point, as they were, in reality, living in the same environment as the native americans, so the argument that the resources were different is absurd. They used the same material resources the native culture had access to. The only difference, period, is that they brought a different culture, which brought their collective knowledge, learning, and other adaptive traits that allowed them to exploit and adapt themselves and their environment to the same environment the natives were unable to adapt to. They changed environments but maintained the same successful cultural characteristics that allowed them to adapt and adapt to the new environment.

The physical resources are only one peice. The other peice is the geographic resources. If one group of people lives within easy access of another group, then exchanges of ideas happen more readily. Any culture would benefit from this exchange. Europeans lived in close proximity to other cultures along an East/West continental axis this gave them the advantage of being able to accumulate technologic resources as a rate faster then native americans. Thus, the environment was a greater determinate of the Europeans success.

If you wish to dispute this, then tell me what physical environmental material that those Europeans living in America had access to that the natives did not have access to. Guns? Can be made using entirely American materials, likewise swords, and any other creation we wish to make. The physical environmental materials is exactly the same. The only difference is (even using Diamonds argument) that Europe had access to cultural influences beyond the native cultures stagnant stone age society.

The amount of physical resources did not decide this contest. It was the geographic resources as was pointed out above. Access to technology is determined by the a gift of environment in the form of geography. This is still geographic determinism. Western cultures rose to prominance because of these gifts, not because the inherit superiority of its abstract ideals.

BTW - Native American culture wasn't as stagnant or stone age as you think. In mesoamerica the structures they built rival structures built in eurasia. Also, in the beginning, Europeans did not bring gold and silver back, they brought food. The native americans were geniuses when it came to food production. They domesticated a number of species that far out stripped what was domesticated in Europe (they relied on stuffs domesticated in the fertile crescent thousands of years ago). When native american species of domesticated food stuffs were spread across the world, a population explosion occurred. It has been argued convincingly that native american food stuffs were the primary factor that allowed societies to industrialize.

Where your argument fails (and, by proxy, Diamond's) is this very concept. Even in Diamond's own words, western culture's success was as a resulted of the flowering of influences from a multitude of cultures. Western culture sat at a crossroads where it was able to adapt the ideas that worked from other cultures, everything from mathmatics to gun powder. This, however, far from being an argument against the power of culture, is a powerful argument FOR culture, because, far from having access to physical resources that gave them an advantage, western culture had access to cultural resources. In fact, I inadvertantly made reference to this aspect of Diamond's arguments. You might want to try and refute this before continuing your assertion that culture is irrelavent.

All of this is still geographic determinism. The fact that western culture sat at a crossroads was a gift. The technologic gains were another "resource" that Europeans tapped into...and most of these technologies were not even developed by Europeans! Material ideas, like the domestication of horses are valuable. This was pointed out far earier in this thread by Hardheadjarhead. However, they are not the sole product of a group that happens to use them. They are a product of geography and they depend on physical resources for development. Western Culture had the benefit of both and thus rose to prominance because of that...not because of the inherit superiority of its cultural abstracts. I believe I made this distinction far upthread...

 

[Tgace]

So if you buy this "theory" what does this all mean?

Im sure there is some social engineering soon to be voluntered based on this "ground breaking", "earth shattering" revalation......or is it just hand wringing apologetics with no solution from a "white guy"?

 

[sgtmac_46]

I'm going to edit out the invective in this post. Watch what happens to the amount of verbage...

When one "culture" starts with geographic and environmental factors lined up in its favor, it is impossible to determine how much of an effect the ideology had in that culture's success. It's like running a race with two vehicles and one of the vehicles only has a quater tank of gas. When the disadvantaged vehicle loses, does the other claim it was because of the superior engineering of the car?

It is certainly possible to note which environment has the best adaptation to the environment. I notice you buy-pass the inconvenient point that Western Culture living in the Americas was living in the same environment as the natives living in america, with access to the exact same resources. The only diffence between the two groups is the advantage given by access to a wider range of cultural influences in Europe. This, far from proving your, actually destroys it. Using your analogy, lets illuminate the real process. If two cars use the exact same gasoline from the exact same location, but one car uses it to generate more horse power, more efficiently, with greater mileage and fewer breakdowns, we are forced to conclude that that car has a superior design. The fact that the car came from a different plant has nothing to do with that conclusion. Your theory concludes that because the car with the superior design came from a better factor with better engineers, that it has received an advantage from "the environment" and is, therefore, not really a superior design, merely "different". That is based on poor reasoning and is not supported by the facts. The reason your analogy fails is because western cultural influences that migrated to the Americas weren't operating on more gas, they were operating on a better design. After they arrived they utilized the same environmental physical material that was available to the natives.

You missed the point.

One of us has missed the point. I think the majority of others following this post are quickly determining who that is.

Lets reexamine the two arguments in question...

1. Societies rise and fall not because they are comprised of a superior race, but because of environmental factors.

Actually, this is another error. Societies rise and fall not because they are comprised of a superior race, but because their ability to develope adaptive traits that allow them to interact advantageously with their environment. The environmental factors are the factors with which the society must contend. It's much like saying "An animal is successful or not because of environmental factors". It's really a non-sensical statement. In order to make sense it must say "An animal is successful or not based on it's ability to adapt behaviors that allow it to interact advantageously with the environment."

2. Societies rise or fall not because they are beholden of a superior culture, but because of environmental factors.

Again, societies rise and fall based on their cultural traits and those traits ability to give them an adaptive advantage within the environment. Again, saying it "is because of environmental factors" is really a non-sensical statement.

If one uses the first argument as a thesis, one is left with innumerable examples where culture jumped racial lines. Thus one is left to believe that the best argument to make if one is talking about societies, is not one about race. It is one about culture. No race ever rose or fell, it was always the culture. The fact that Diamond refutes the old race issues is a sideline issue. In fact, if race were the central focus of this book, the overall argument would be weaker not stronger.

If that were the case, then Diamond would not have spent so much time arguing against racial primacy. The fact that Diamond refutes old race issues is his only real point. His successful begins and ends with that point alone. That is why his (and your) overall argument IS weaker and not stronger. Don't blame me for this fundamental flaw in your argument. Diamond inadvertantly showed this flaw when he pointed out that native american societies didn't have access to varied cultures that carried new ideas to them like Europeans. It is these new and varied ideas that gave the advantage to European culture, and it is that fact that destroys your original thesis.

That argument would gloss over cultural differences between races and it would run into large problems where cultures and races intermix. Thus, your protrayal of Diamonds argument as an argument about race extrapolated over culture is a misunderstanding of the thesis.

No, it is clear understanding of what he managed to prove. The rest he just seemed to hope we would ignore the fact that he didn't prove. Is your whole argument in this paragraph that this could not possibly be Diamond's argument because it would present large problems? Again, don't blame me for a flawed argument on Diamond's part.

1. The influence of culture on a societies success or failure. Geography and resources present hurdles that culture cannot overcome. Geography and resources also present opportunities that culture cannot create. Thus, there is absolutely no way that one can make the distinction as to whether or not Western Culture is superior. Our culture started with so many advantages that, as Tgace said above, even Europeans couldn't mess it up.

The fact that our culture developed concepts that apply in a variety of environments absolutely destroys your argument. You claim that the environment will decide success or failure. How do you explain the success of the United States. European cultural influences with an American environment, the same environment you claim results in a lack of success. The only advantage the United States had was European cultural influences, the environment was the exact same possessed for thousands of years by the native population. You have no answer for this, and I doubt you'll even try.

2. You are talking about group selection...which is different then natural selection. Group selection posits a mechanism for evolutionary change among groups of organisms. Group selection is heavily dependent on geography and resources. Many times, maladaptive ideas pass on into populations simply because the "winners" had more energy...

And ultimately maladaptive ideas result in failure for the group. That is the very definition of maladaptive...it is not adaptive. Again, you don't attempt to refute my argument, you attempt to bypass it. Moreover, I never mentioned the term "natural selection" I mentioned adaptation, a phenomenon you seem to have no desire to discuss.

1. Technology requires energy to implement. If a culture lacks energy in the form of resources, then it would be unable to implement that technology. That is how technology is geographically determined and it has everything to do with how well adapted a culture has become.

But native american culture was not lacking in resources, they were lacking a cultural foundation that gave them the adaptive ability to utilize those resources. We are operating a successful society utilizing the exact same resources originally controlled by the native cultures. They didn't magically appear when Europeans arrived, they were always here. Culture and Civilization provide an ideological foundation required to utilize resources. It wasn't lack of resources, but a lack of cultural influences, that resulted in the stagnant society of the America's prior to the arrival of Europeans. As i've already shown conclusively, it was Europeans positioning in close proximity to varied cultures that determined it's success, not it's natural resources. You've yet to even come close to assailing that fact.

2. The adaptation of a culture is heavily dependent upon the environment that the culture in which the culture is located. Culture develops anywhere humans are present and not all places on this planet were created equal. Thus, all cultures cannot be equal. This determination was not due to some inherit failing of the culture, it was action of group selection in a superior environment.

This really says nothing. Adaptive cultural traits allow societies to operate or not in varied environments and compete with varied groups. Again, to claim that "environment" determines success or failure is to completely misunderstand the reality of the situation. environment is the playing field, not the player.

Whenever groups compete, the way they order themselves socially has proven to have very little effect on the outcome of the competition. Therefore, what determined the winner? Most often, it was who had more resources to start with. Cultures do not evolve via natural selection. That mechanism deals with individuals. Group selection is the mechanism in question, and it is far more complicated and heavily environmentally dependent. Innovation happens in all groups, yet some groups have been gifted with more resources to implement these innovations.

Again, you have completely gone off the page. China had access to far more resources than the Japanese during WWII. In fact, it was to gain resources that Japan went to war to begin with. Japan was able, militarily, to dominate China militarily. It was not access to far more resources that allowed this, as anyone with an understanding of history knows China had far more resources and a far greater population, it was Japans cultural characteristics that allowed them to gain military advantage.

You are assuming that the "playing field" is equal. It is not. Thus, not all cultures will be equal. A culture that plays in a field that is rich in environmental and geographic resources will win in a competition with a culture that has not been gifted. The ideology of the culture has very little determinable impact when these factors are taken into account.

Ah, now we get the core of the matter. Equal playing fields have nothing to do with this discussion. Much like your car analogy earlier, it makes no difference to whether or not a car design is superior that the superior car design was developed by superior car designers with superior resources. The end product is an imporant aspect of the phenomenon.

When groups are involved, the environment is a primary factor in the determination of its success or failure. Adaptations in groups are not governed natural selection and are not soley determined by the actions of genes. An individual interacting in the environment evolves under different rules then a group. Selection pressure on the individual level is negative. A girrafes neck got longer because those who did not possess that trait died. In groups, selection pressure is positive. Groups that possess more energy are able to pass on their traits more readily. This pressure independent of the actual substance of the trait in question.

It's interesting that you are now trying to distance yourself from natural selection. It is clear to me that you see your argument is fundamentally flawed unless you are able to attack the concept of adaptive traits. It is also clear that your argument to defend this distancing is completely contrived. You have no foundation with which to discuss "negative" or "positive" pressure. Moreover, it is also clear you have no understanding of the phenomenon or "group selection" nor what effect it has on cultural success.