6 ms·

Adding food storage to countries where that capability doesn't exist is a huge multiplier in their agronomic efficiency. There is some excellent discussion of t

Adding food storage to countries where that capability doesn't exist is a huge multiplier in their agronomic efficiency. There is some excellent discussion of this in the book "Guns, Germs, and Steel" which discusses how these forces shaped the changes in human civilizations.

29athrowaway 6y ago
Some things that do not show up in Guns, germs and steel: - Syphilis may have a new world origin. - The most productive crop is the potato, a crop of new world origin. - The Inca farmed guinea pigs. These are a very viable farm animal. - The Mapuche did not have guns, germs or steel yet, they defeated the Spanish. - The Inca could have defeated the Spanish. They were encountered after a civil war where the nobility was purged. The Inca nobility knew how to run the empire.
- HugeAcumen 6y ago
  ... Those seem like pretty tiny nitpicks in the context of the wider argument to me. The central point of his book - that there was far more geographic luck involved in European dominance than is popularly understood - holds just fine with all those points you made. Good points though.
- ChuckMcM 6y ago
  Okay. But I'm having a hard time connecting the dots between the way in which crop storage amplifies the agronomic output of a group, and the points you raise. If you're just trying to point out that "Guns, Germs, and Steel" isn't an all inclusive guide to the rise of civilization, or that different people may have made different choices in their analysis, okay I get that too. Every book is just a single voice in the choir of a genre. Is that what you're trying to say? That you didn't like the book?
  - 29athrowaway 6y ago
    I like the book as well as the 3 part documentary with the same name. I think it presents a fair perspective of world history. I agree with the author, 99%.
    - 29athrowaway 6y ago
      To be more precise, I think the technological advantage made a difference, but the role of Guns and Steel are overrated. European logistics and communications were in my opinion more important than Guns and Steel. Also: 1) Conquest was achieved with the help of local allies, sometimes in the order of hundreds of thousands. 2) A significant part of the conquest was achieved by fighting small nations one at a time rather than a unified force.
  - jcranmer 6y ago
    The problem with Guns, Germs, and Steel is that it doesn't really comport with the evidence we've gained from archaeology and anthropology in the 20 years since it was written. Or even what was generally accepted within the field when it was written. And if you follow Jared Diamond's other books and commentary since the initial publication, he's made it quite clear that he is going to dismiss any evidence that doesn't comport with his theories rather than adjusting his theories to match evidence, especially as we come to realize that our interpretations of primary sources and physical evidence may have historically been biased and incorrect. As a historical note, anthropology originally develops in the 18th and 19th centuries as a curiosity about how the great empires (especially Britain) came to be great, and was generally intertwined with a desire to justify the rule over, enslavement of, or even extermination of lesser peoples. The notion that Western Europeans were superior to everyone else was an unquestioned axiom. It's only in the mid-20th century that this inherent racism starts to squeeze out of the field academically, but in the popular culture, it tends to still remain--and books like Guns, Germs, and Steel work against the goal of removing the racism from our humanities. As someone who is interested in Pre-Columbian Americas, I will attest that the the history is actually quite fascinating. It really does challenge all of the traditional notions of anthropology, more so than any place in the Old World. A much better book is Charles Mann's 1491, which highlights what newer research has concluded about Pre-Columbian Americas.
    - ChuckMcM 6y ago
      I've read 1491 and enjoyed it immensely. And I understand Jared's cherry picking which is not unlike that of Malcom Gladwell. That said, cherry picked or not, the conjectures they come up with (both of them), are often thought provoking and lead to additional research for me. In relation to the reference I made to the Gate's article that crop storage is a performance enhancer for agronomic cultures, is strongly supported by 1491 as well. Mann's discussion of the development of Maize as a food crop, with its ability to be stored for long periods, gave those cultures such as the Olmec greater resiliency against drought and famine. Two conditions which ravage south Saharan Africa today.
- triceratops 6y ago
  > Syphilis may have a new world origin. Smallpox, measles, bubonic plague, whooping cough are all way scarier than syphilis. > The most productive crop is the potato, The thesis of Guns, Germs, and Steel was Europe's east-west orientation allowed varieties domesticated in one place to easily grow in another. If different varieties of potatoes grow differently at different latitudes (I don't know, I'm not an expert), then it doesn't really matter how productive a crop the potato is. You may also be basing this on more modern potato varieties. > The Inca farmed guinea pigs. Guinea pigs are pretty small. The Inca didn't have horses, only llamas. Horses were militarily very important. Look at how much trouble the Plains Indians gave the US government, relative to their numbers. They only acquired horses after Europeans came to the New World and adapted their culture and ways around them very rapidly. > The Mapuche did not have guns, germs or steel yet, they defeated the Spanish. After initially being defeated, acquiring guns, steel, and horses from the Spanish and then rebelling against them.[1] 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arauco_War#Campaigns_of_Caupolic%C3%A1n_and_Garc%C3%ADa_Hurtado_de_Mendoza https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arauco_War#Campaigns_of_Caupol...
  - 29athrowaway 6y ago
    > If different varieties of potatoes grow differently at different latitudes (I don't know, I'm not an expert), then it doesn't really matter how productive a crop the potato is. The introduction of the potato reshaped Europe and boosted European population by 25%. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xROmDsULcLE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xROmDsULcLE > The Inca didn't have horses, only llamas. Horses were militarily very important. The horse is a valuable animal given a favorable terrain. But with elevations such as the Andes, a horse is not as useful. And wheels are a similar story. Horses were useless in the Battle of Ollantaytambo, where the Inca used terraces to their advantage, but proved very useful in the defense of Lima (a coastal city) against the forces of general Quizquiz. > After initially being defeated, acquiring guns, steel, and horses from the Spanish and then rebelling against them.[1] The Mapuche did not "acquire" guns or steel. They could not manufacture them, but they became aware of them and developed techniques against them. They knew harquebuses were not waterproof, and if they would prefer to engage during rainy weather. They knew that trying to pierce through steel was ineffective, so they prefered to stun. They also became aware of the usage of cattle and they frequently raided cattle and set structures on fire.
- throwaway894345 6y ago
  I’m pretty sure ggs mentioned the new world origin of syphilis and guinea pig agriculture. Specifically regarding syphilis, Diamond’s argument was that the transmission of germs was largely asymmetrical due to the much more extensive experience of old world civilizations with respect to animal husbandry. Diamond didn’t claim that there were no new world diseases.
AlotOfReading 6y ago
I'm a bit loathe to mention this, but it should be pointed out that GG&S has a really bad reputation among many academics as fatally flawed analysis [1,2,3,4,5,6]. It makes all sorts of methodological, factual, and theoretical errors that undermine the entire argument. But rather than make anyone go through the rather verbose things I linked, a simple example demonstrates the point: The core of Diamond's argument is that geographical factors determined the course of world affairs between approx. 1600-1900. Not the hundreds of millennia before, nor at any point in the future, only those 300 years. That's a weird argument to make about factors that have essentially always existed and presumably always applied. Even if we accept everything uncritically, the result is a pretty terrible "grand theory" that can only justify things post-hoc. [1] https://www.livinganthropologically.com/eric-wolf-europe-people-without-history/ https://www.livinganthropologically.com/eric-wolf-europe-peo... [2] https://louisproyect.org/2009/04/24/jim-blaut-on-jared-diamond/ https://louisproyect.org/2009/04/24/jim-blaut-on-jared-diamo... [3] https://www.jstor.org/stable/3054276 https://www.jstor.org/stable/3054276 [4] https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2005/08/03/guns-germs-and-steel-reconsidered https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2005/08/03/guns-germs-an... [5] https://www.reddit.com/r/badhistory/comments/2vf565/myths_of_conquest_part_nine_the_terminal_narrative/ https://www.reddit.com/r/badhistory/comments/2vf565/myths_of... <--- Despite being reddit, it's actually credible and a good introduction to Restall's 7 myths [6] https://doi.org/10.1080/10455752.2013.846490 https://doi.org/10.1080/10455752.2013.846490 <--- Despite being a published article, this infamous paper's commentary is on the same informal level as most of these.
- coeneedell 6y ago
  Just to jump on this: Guns Germs and Steel seems like it's not an isolated incident for Jared Diamond's less-than-ethical process. https://www.thestar.com/entertainment/2009/04/22/new_guinea_tribesmen_sue_author_jared_diamond.html https://www.thestar.com/entertainment/2009/04/22/new_guinea_...

29athrowaway 6y ago

Some things that do not show up in Guns, germs and steel: - Syphilis may have a new world origin. - The most productive crop is the potato, a crop of new world origin. - The Inca farmed guinea pigs. These are a very viable farm animal. - The Mapuche did not have guns, germs or steel yet, they defeated the Spanish. - The Inca could have defeated the Spanish. They were encountered after a civil war where the nobility was purged. The Inca nobility knew how to run the empire.

HugeAcumen 6y ago
... Those seem like pretty tiny nitpicks in the context of the wider argument to me. The central point of his book - that there was far more geographic luck involved in European dominance than is popularly understood - holds just fine with all those points you made. Good points though.
ChuckMcM 6y ago
Okay. But I'm having a hard time connecting the dots between the way in which crop storage amplifies the agronomic output of a group, and the points you raise. If you're just trying to point out that "Guns, Germs, and Steel" isn't an all inclusive guide to the rise of civilization, or that different people may have made different choices in their analysis, okay I get that too. Every book is just a single voice in the choir of a genre. Is that what you're trying to say? That you didn't like the book?
- 29athrowaway 6y ago
  I like the book as well as the 3 part documentary with the same name. I think it presents a fair perspective of world history. I agree with the author, 99%.
  - 29athrowaway 6y ago
    To be more precise, I think the technological advantage made a difference, but the role of Guns and Steel are overrated. European logistics and communications were in my opinion more important than Guns and Steel. Also: 1) Conquest was achieved with the help of local allies, sometimes in the order of hundreds of thousands. 2) A significant part of the conquest was achieved by fighting small nations one at a time rather than a unified force.
- jcranmer 6y ago
  The problem with Guns, Germs, and Steel is that it doesn't really comport with the evidence we've gained from archaeology and anthropology in the 20 years since it was written. Or even what was generally accepted within the field when it was written. And if you follow Jared Diamond's other books and commentary since the initial publication, he's made it quite clear that he is going to dismiss any evidence that doesn't comport with his theories rather than adjusting his theories to match evidence, especially as we come to realize that our interpretations of primary sources and physical evidence may have historically been biased and incorrect. As a historical note, anthropology originally develops in the 18th and 19th centuries as a curiosity about how the great empires (especially Britain) came to be great, and was generally intertwined with a desire to justify the rule over, enslavement of, or even extermination of lesser peoples. The notion that Western Europeans were superior to everyone else was an unquestioned axiom. It's only in the mid-20th century that this inherent racism starts to squeeze out of the field academically, but in the popular culture, it tends to still remain--and books like Guns, Germs, and Steel work against the goal of removing the racism from our humanities. As someone who is interested in Pre-Columbian Americas, I will attest that the the history is actually quite fascinating. It really does challenge all of the traditional notions of anthropology, more so than any place in the Old World. A much better book is Charles Mann's 1491, which highlights what newer research has concluded about Pre-Columbian Americas.
  - ChuckMcM 6y ago
    I've read 1491 and enjoyed it immensely. And I understand Jared's cherry picking which is not unlike that of Malcom Gladwell. That said, cherry picked or not, the conjectures they come up with (both of them), are often thought provoking and lead to additional research for me. In relation to the reference I made to the Gate's article that crop storage is a performance enhancer for agronomic cultures, is strongly supported by 1491 as well. Mann's discussion of the development of Maize as a food crop, with its ability to be stored for long periods, gave those cultures such as the Olmec greater resiliency against drought and famine. Two conditions which ravage south Saharan Africa today.
triceratops 6y ago
> Syphilis may have a new world origin. Smallpox, measles, bubonic plague, whooping cough are all way scarier than syphilis. > The most productive crop is the potato, The thesis of Guns, Germs, and Steel was Europe's east-west orientation allowed varieties domesticated in one place to easily grow in another. If different varieties of potatoes grow differently at different latitudes (I don't know, I'm not an expert), then it doesn't really matter how productive a crop the potato is. You may also be basing this on more modern potato varieties. > The Inca farmed guinea pigs. Guinea pigs are pretty small. The Inca didn't have horses, only llamas. Horses were militarily very important. Look at how much trouble the Plains Indians gave the US government, relative to their numbers. They only acquired horses after Europeans came to the New World and adapted their culture and ways around them very rapidly. > The Mapuche did not have guns, germs or steel yet, they defeated the Spanish. After initially being defeated, acquiring guns, steel, and horses from the Spanish and then rebelling against them.[1] 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arauco_War#Campaigns_of_Caupolic%C3%A1n_and_Garc%C3%ADa_Hurtado_de_Mendoza https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arauco_War#Campaigns_of_Caupol...
- 29athrowaway 6y ago
  > If different varieties of potatoes grow differently at different latitudes (I don't know, I'm not an expert), then it doesn't really matter how productive a crop the potato is. The introduction of the potato reshaped Europe and boosted European population by 25%. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xROmDsULcLE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xROmDsULcLE > The Inca didn't have horses, only llamas. Horses were militarily very important. The horse is a valuable animal given a favorable terrain. But with elevations such as the Andes, a horse is not as useful. And wheels are a similar story. Horses were useless in the Battle of Ollantaytambo, where the Inca used terraces to their advantage, but proved very useful in the defense of Lima (a coastal city) against the forces of general Quizquiz. > After initially being defeated, acquiring guns, steel, and horses from the Spanish and then rebelling against them.[1] The Mapuche did not "acquire" guns or steel. They could not manufacture them, but they became aware of them and developed techniques against them. They knew harquebuses were not waterproof, and if they would prefer to engage during rainy weather. They knew that trying to pierce through steel was ineffective, so they prefered to stun. They also became aware of the usage of cattle and they frequently raided cattle and set structures on fire.
throwaway894345 6y ago
I’m pretty sure ggs mentioned the new world origin of syphilis and guinea pig agriculture. Specifically regarding syphilis, Diamond’s argument was that the transmission of germs was largely asymmetrical due to the much more extensive experience of old world civilizations with respect to animal husbandry. Diamond didn’t claim that there were no new world diseases.

AlotOfReading 6y ago

I'm a bit loathe to mention this, but it should be pointed out that GG&S has a really bad reputation among many academics as fatally flawed analysis [1,2,3,4,5,6]. It makes all sorts of methodological, factual, and theoretical errors that undermine the entire argument. But rather than make anyone go through the rather verbose things I linked, a simple example demonstrates the point: The core of Diamond's argument is that geographical factors determined the course of world affairs between approx. 1600-1900. Not the hundreds of millennia before, nor at any point in the future, only those 300 years. That's a weird argument to make about factors that have essentially always existed and presumably always applied. Even if we accept everything uncritically, the result is a pretty terrible "grand theory" that can only justify things post-hoc. [1] https://www.livinganthropologically.com/eric-wolf-europe-people-without-history/ https://www.livinganthropologically.com/eric-wolf-europe-peo... [2] https://louisproyect.org/2009/04/24/jim-blaut-on-jared-diamond/ https://louisproyect.org/2009/04/24/jim-blaut-on-jared-diamo... [3] https://www.jstor.org/stable/3054276 https://www.jstor.org/stable/3054276 [4] https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2005/08/03/guns-germs-and-steel-reconsidered https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2005/08/03/guns-germs-an... [5] https://www.reddit.com/r/badhistory/comments/2vf565/myths_of_conquest_part_nine_the_terminal_narrative/ https://www.reddit.com/r/badhistory/comments/2vf565/myths_of... <--- Despite being reddit, it's actually credible and a good introduction to Restall's 7 myths [6] https://doi.org/10.1080/10455752.2013.846490 https://doi.org/10.1080/10455752.2013.846490 <--- Despite being a published article, this infamous paper's commentary is on the same informal level as most of these.

coeneedell 6y ago
Just to jump on this: Guns Germs and Steel seems like it's not an isolated incident for Jared Diamond's less-than-ethical process. https://www.thestar.com/entertainment/2009/04/22/new_guinea_tribesmen_sue_author_jared_diamond.html https://www.thestar.com/entertainment/2009/04/22/new_guinea_...