4 ms·

Guns, Germs, and Steel is a really good book. Two hospital MD's independently stopped me at gym to say "that's one of the best books I've ever read." And the de

Guns, Germs, and Steel is a really good book. Two hospital MD's independently stopped me at gym to say "that's one of the best books I've ever read." And the department chair where I worked exclaimed similarly. Another hypothesis I would posit about the evolution of world powers is that WWII Axis members later reached population maximums and declines before Allied powers, and that that somehow shaped their political and situational values to align them together. It's not obvious until you see population graphs of Japan, Italy and other Axis countries are nearly all in population decline unless other unqiue factors like immigration bolster their numbers.

skrebbel 8y ago
Can't find it back, but I've seen it heavily criticized here on HN for, iirc, sloppy statistics and jumping to conclusions. EDIT: found it! https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17536958#17539380 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17536958#17539380
- Jwarder 8y ago
  A lot of those criticisms seem like a not seeing the forest for the trees argument. Yes, not every Spanish mission was successful, but those that lasted are important. Yes, not all diseases come from domestic animals, but those that do can be an important difference with diseases between the natives and colonizers. Diamond is making some _very_ broad claims to describe the general trend of human history. With a topic so broad there are always going to be exceptions. I'm always disappointed that the criticisms focus on the details exceptions rather than dealing with the broader ideas.
  - artimaeis 8y ago
    > Diamond is making some _very_ broad claims to describe the general trend of human history. This is precisely why so many have a problem with it. Diamond waxes on about these grand history ideas and they're not backed by facts. He's generalizing highly complex topics and losing all accuracy in doing so. Diamond's GG&S effectively minimizes the agency of entire groups of people by providing a false interpretation of history.
liftbigweights 8y ago
> Guns, Germs, and Steel is a really good book. It really isn't. It's more mass market fiction than anything to sell books and take your money than a serious book on history. Nobody in academia takes it seriously. > Another hypothesis I would posit about the evolution of world powers is that WWII Axis members later reached population maximums and declines before Allied powers, and that that somehow shaped their political and situational values to align them together. No. What aligned axis powers together was the existence of dominant empires like the US and Britain. Had nothing to do with population. When most of the world is controlled by the US and Britain and you are a small power wanting to create an empire of your own, it makes sense to join forces against much larger and stronger powers. > It's not obvious until you see population graphs of Japan, Italy and other Axis countries are nearly all in population decline unless other unqiue factors like immigration bolster their numbers. The same applies to the US, Britain, China, Soviet Union ( they were ultimately allies ), etc. The only thing keeping the US population growing is immigration and high immigrant birth rates. The native-born US birth rate has been below replacement since the 1970s.
- jackallis 8y ago
  what books you recommed we read in place of the book in question?
  - artimaeis 8y ago
    It depends heavily on what you're interested in. I'd probably categorize GG&S as general history, so here's an excellent curated list: https://old.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/wiki/books/general https://old.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/wiki/books/general I strongly recommend both _How Humans Evolved_ and _Why the West Rules, for Now_.
- picsao 8y ago
  >Nobody in academia takes it seriously. Well ever since the soft sciences in academia became thoroughly involved ideology that statement has the value of a trillion Weimar talers. If they have real valid critique you would have cited a dozen papers rebuffing central claims of diamond. And Europe centric it for a phase of history where that continent disrupted half the planet seems fitting. It's like complaining about Roman centriciy doing classic medditeranean history. Get over the facts beeing that in any competition produces a atleast temporary winner.
village-idiot 8y ago
Never mention that to an anthropologist, they hate that book because it’s largely incorrect.
- ItsMe000001 8y ago
  I've read the book and every criticism of it that I came across, much of it here on HN. Because I could not care less who is right, I have no emotional beef on either side, I'm just a mildly interested bystander (nothing in my life is affected by any of it). However, every criticism I read felt... thin. It felt like many reddit comment replies - you post something that you happen to actually know a lot about, but any human communication requires the other side to work with you. Human information exchange is not like computer data exchange, not even close. Lots of ambiguity, lots and lots of unmentioned context, lots of other stuff I could not even name. Those reddit replies I mentioned, it's things like - always hard to come up with a concrete example - I think I'll just point to Dilbert: - http://dilbert.com/strip/2018-07-08 http://dilbert.com/strip/2018-07-08 (quite a bit of the criticism was like that, I could not match them to the book that I had read at all) - http://dilbert.com/strip/2015-06-07 http://dilbert.com/strip/2015-06-07 Also, as another commenter pointed out, the criticism focuses on the tree and misses the forest. I have yet to see something that lets me conclude anything even close to your statement. Also, many - MANY - or, actually, all models are wrong. That's not just some stupid meme. Every single model is "wrong". When you go through learning chemistry, for example, at every new step you learn "oh and by the way what we taught you two years ago is completely wrong". Question is, is it useful? What is the alternative believe that you work with if that book was never written? Note the target audience - just like a Ph.D. chemist will find the models learned in high school useless so will actual anthropologists probably find a book targeted at the masses useless. The question is, what ideas in the heads of the people did the book replace, and what is the alternative? If it's so easy, someone just write a better book and we'll gladly read it and forget about Guns, Germs and Steel. I have and ever had any doubts that it's all a lot more complicated and different than described in one popular book. It's the same everywhere: the closer you look, the more insane the theories of/for those who don't look closely seem to be.
  - village-idiot 8y ago

skrebbel 8y ago

Can't find it back, but I've seen it heavily criticized here on HN for, iirc, sloppy statistics and jumping to conclusions. EDIT: found it! https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17536958#17539380 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17536958#17539380

Jwarder 8y ago
A lot of those criticisms seem like a not seeing the forest for the trees argument. Yes, not every Spanish mission was successful, but those that lasted are important. Yes, not all diseases come from domestic animals, but those that do can be an important difference with diseases between the natives and colonizers. Diamond is making some _very_ broad claims to describe the general trend of human history. With a topic so broad there are always going to be exceptions. I'm always disappointed that the criticisms focus on the details exceptions rather than dealing with the broader ideas.
- artimaeis 8y ago
  > Diamond is making some _very_ broad claims to describe the general trend of human history. This is precisely why so many have a problem with it. Diamond waxes on about these grand history ideas and they're not backed by facts. He's generalizing highly complex topics and losing all accuracy in doing so. Diamond's GG&S effectively minimizes the agency of entire groups of people by providing a false interpretation of history.

liftbigweights 8y ago

> Guns, Germs, and Steel is a really good book. It really isn't. It's more mass market fiction than anything to sell books and take your money than a serious book on history. Nobody in academia takes it seriously. > Another hypothesis I would posit about the evolution of world powers is that WWII Axis members later reached population maximums and declines before Allied powers, and that that somehow shaped their political and situational values to align them together. No. What aligned axis powers together was the existence of dominant empires like the US and Britain. Had nothing to do with population. When most of the world is controlled by the US and Britain and you are a small power wanting to create an empire of your own, it makes sense to join forces against much larger and stronger powers. > It's not obvious until you see population graphs of Japan, Italy and other Axis countries are nearly all in population decline unless other unqiue factors like immigration bolster their numbers. The same applies to the US, Britain, China, Soviet Union ( they were ultimately allies ), etc. The only thing keeping the US population growing is immigration and high immigrant birth rates. The native-born US birth rate has been below replacement since the 1970s.

jackallis 8y ago
what books you recommed we read in place of the book in question?
- artimaeis 8y ago
  It depends heavily on what you're interested in. I'd probably categorize GG&S as general history, so here's an excellent curated list: https://old.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/wiki/books/general https://old.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/wiki/books/general I strongly recommend both _How Humans Evolved_ and _Why the West Rules, for Now_.
picsao 8y ago
>Nobody in academia takes it seriously. Well ever since the soft sciences in academia became thoroughly involved ideology that statement has the value of a trillion Weimar talers. If they have real valid critique you would have cited a dozen papers rebuffing central claims of diamond. And Europe centric it for a phase of history where that continent disrupted half the planet seems fitting. It's like complaining about Roman centriciy doing classic medditeranean history. Get over the facts beeing that in any competition produces a atleast temporary winner.

village-idiot 8y ago

Never mention that to an anthropologist, they hate that book because it’s largely incorrect.

ItsMe000001 8y ago
I've read the book and every criticism of it that I came across, much of it here on HN. Because I could not care less who is right, I have no emotional beef on either side, I'm just a mildly interested bystander (nothing in my life is affected by any of it). However, every criticism I read felt... thin. It felt like many reddit comment replies - you post something that you happen to actually know a lot about, but any human communication requires the other side to work with you. Human information exchange is not like computer data exchange, not even close. Lots of ambiguity, lots and lots of unmentioned context, lots of other stuff I could not even name. Those reddit replies I mentioned, it's things like - always hard to come up with a concrete example - I think I'll just point to Dilbert: - http://dilbert.com/strip/2018-07-08 http://dilbert.com/strip/2018-07-08 (quite a bit of the criticism was like that, I could not match them to the book that I had read at all) - http://dilbert.com/strip/2015-06-07 http://dilbert.com/strip/2015-06-07 Also, as another commenter pointed out, the criticism focuses on the tree and misses the forest. I have yet to see something that lets me conclude anything even close to your statement. Also, many - MANY - or, actually, all models are wrong. That's not just some stupid meme. Every single model is "wrong". When you go through learning chemistry, for example, at every new step you learn "oh and by the way what we taught you two years ago is completely wrong". Question is, is it useful? What is the alternative believe that you work with if that book was never written? Note the target audience - just like a Ph.D. chemist will find the models learned in high school useless so will actual anthropologists probably find a book targeted at the masses useless. The question is, what ideas in the heads of the people did the book replace, and what is the alternative? If it's so easy, someone just write a better book and we'll gladly read it and forget about Guns, Germs and Steel. I have and ever had any doubts that it's all a lot more complicated and different than described in one popular book. It's the same everywhere: the closer you look, the more insane the theories of/for those who don't look closely seem to be.
- village-idiot 8y ago