5 ms·

I have read the book: it explicitly and thoroughly debunks the idea that race was a factor in the development of modern societies. It provides a myriad of geogr

• deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
• lopmotr 6y ago
  How does it show that race differences weren't a factor? Not how does it show that other factors existed, but how does it exclude race?
  • nl 6y ago
    It shows that other explanations are sufficient and make much more sense. But it's a historical explanation, not a double blind experiment. Nothing will ever disprove "scientific racism" to people who are racist unfortunately.
    • stormdennis 6y ago
      That's not a rigorous answer which is possibly why you felt the need to play the racism card at the end.
      • nl 6y ago
        There's no way to make a rigorous (to the "prove" level) argument from history on racism (or most social issues) because it relies on counter-factuals. Counter-factuals are inherently untestable.
        • stormdennis 6y ago
          Thanks for getting back to me. I don't know that the assertions of cause and effect made in that book can be asserted any more confidently than racist ones. Nature doesn't care about our feelings.
          • nl 6y ago
            Have you actually read the book? There's nothing about feelings in it, and some of the arguments can be stated as irrefutable facts: There are more species of animals that can be domesticated in the Eurasian landmass than in Africa, the Americas or Australia. 14 out of the 14 large domesticated species are from Eurasia (including North Africa), with the only exception being the Illama/Alpaca. There isn't a single species of large animal in Sub-Saharan Africa or North America that has been domesticated, even in modern times. There are more plants suitable for cultivation in Eurasia, and the ones that are turned out to be more useful. Rice, barley, wheat and flax are all Eurasian crops. The only major non-Eurasian crops are Maize and Bananas. The East-West orientation of Eurasia proved a major advantage here, because crops domesticated at one latitude could thrive right across the continent, while in Africa and the Americas crops could be successfully locally but were unable to move North/South because of different climates. In Australia there were zero indigenous candidate crops except the macadamia nut, which is slow growing and hard to grow reliably. Finally, germs: The larger populations and large trade volume in Eurasia meant Europeans were immune to diseases that killed large numbers of native Americans when they arrived. It seems likely the only disease to go the other way was syphilis - which is a lot less contagious and kills a lot slower than smallpox and measles.
            • lopmotr 6y ago
              Nothing in there even suggests that race wasn't a factor. The very fact that you listed multiple factors admits that multiple factors may have combined to cause it. It could just as well have included race too.
    • lopmotr 6y ago
      Then Leifcarrotson's claim that it "it explicitly and thoroughly debunks the idea that race was a factor" is false. Just because something agrees with your prejudice doesn't make it a good argument. It just means it feels satisfying to believe it.
• stormdennis 6y ago
  As Wikipedia puts it, the academic reaction to the book was "mixed".
• deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
• luckylion 6y ago
  > I have read the book: it explicitly and thoroughly debunks the idea that race was a factor in the development of modern societies. It provides a myriad of geographical and climate-based explanations why the course of history would result societies in the northern hemisphere set the direction of clocks for the globe. Given that ethnic differences develop alongside migrations into new territories, you'd expect them to be formed by those geographical and climate-based explanations. It's a chicken and egg problem, but it doesn't really help if you're dealing with people who believe in racial superiority, they'll just say "yeah, so we became a super great race because we settled in Whatever Region and they didn't because they didn't". I believe race is blown way out of proportion by believers, but I found Guns, Germs and Steel to be very hand-wavy and starting from the end, working backwards to tell a story that leads where the author wants it to lead.
• LateRuin 6y ago
  Imagine thinking Guns Germs and Steel is “scientific”