19 ms·
Scientists put Jared Diamond's continental axis hypothesis to the test
- schnitzelstoat 3y agoI found the more mundane explanations in "Why Nations Fail" to be far more convincing than the geographical determinism of "Guns, Germs and Steel"
- Vinnl 3y agoThey seemed largely complementary to me? Guns, Germs and Steel was mostly about how people, culture, ideas and skills spread across the world, whereas Why Nations Fail seemed to be mostly about what happens after that, at a nation state level. To be honest I didn't understand why they felt the need to position it as a rebuttal of GG&S when reading it either.
- alephnerd 3y agoGeographic arguments are a very common tool in pop Social Sciences, for example the correlation between landlocked states and poverty or supposed American exceptionalism due to the fertile Midwest (while ignoring similar agrarian immigrant countries like Brazil and Argentina). Furthermore, the kinds of argumements that Diamond would provide weren't actually "tested" per say. Social Sciences are a "Science" (albeit flawed in some shape or form), but are dependent on validating a hypothesis in a reproducible manner as well, hence why economics has basically become applied math since the 50s (and similar changes in other fields like Sociology, Linguistics, Polticial Science, and Anthro as well) There isn't much difference between grifters like Perun or Zeihan and Jared Diamond. Also, Jared Diamond doesn't have a background in Economics or Political Science - he is an Ecologist/Environmental Scientist (and one of the best ones at that), and as such reading GGS induces Dunning-Kruger for those with a background in Comparitive Politics.
- mistrial9 3y agothis comment reads like you called Jared Diamond a "grifter" e.g. diligent con and knowing thief.. maybe you did not mean that exactly?
- alephnerd 3y agoI did mean that. No one in the academic PoliSci, Sociology, or Anthropology space views him as credible. He is a great Ecologist and Environmental Historian, but he is not someone with domain experience in Comparative Politics, Political Economy, IR, and/or other adjacent fields which people try to extrapolate GGS to.
- michaelcampbell 3y ago> other adjacent fields which people try to extrapolate GGS to I don't have a dog in the fight other than having read (most of) GG&S and found his writing style laborious, but the quoted bit above seems more like an issue with those other people that Diamond. If I say "x" and people extrapolate that to things for which it was not intended, how does that make _ME_ a grifter?
- alephnerd 3y agoThe issue is Jared Diamond explicitly argues for Environmental Determinism despite it largely being bunk. He has had multiple opportunities to clear up his arguments, but he only digs deeper and deeper into it.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- bambataa 3y agoPerrin the guy on YouTube? What’s wrong with him?
- jcranmer 3y agoJared Diamond is a pretty big proponent of environmental determinism. This can be somewhat obscured in GG&S itself, but his follow-on book Collapse is a pretty naked advertisement for environmental determinism, and he harps on a lot about it in interviews and the like. In fact, the introduction to Why Nations Fail (if memory serves correctly) includes some discussion by people who saw the book before it was published, and one of those discussions was Diamond, who complained that the book rejected environmental determinism as a major factor (to which the authors responded "the evidence just doesn't hold up, what more do you want us to say?"). A lot of the complaints about GG&S are to some degree a complaint about Diamond in general being mapped on to the least offensive of his works, and if that is the only exposure you have to Diamond, it can be seem like the complaints are coming out of left field.
- chongli 3y agoA lot of the complaints about GG&S are to some degree a complaint about Diamond in general being mapped on to the least offensive of his works, and if that is the only exposure you have to Diamond, it can be seem like the complaints are coming out of left field Which discredits the entire field. Ad hominem arguments have no place in science. Everyone knows that Newton wrote extensively on the occult but that takes nothing away from his contributions to physics and mathematics. If I could address his critics as a whole I would say: Critique the theory on its own, independent of the author. Provide an alternative theory. “It’s complicated” is not a theory.
- someuser2345 3y agoWhat's wrong with environmental determinism? Obviously our civilizations are influenced by our environment; that's why Egypt formed around the Nile delta, instead of forming a hundred miles west in the Sahara.
- borissk 3y agoEven if the layout of the land didn't give an advantage to Eurasia + Mediterranean Africa, the sheer size did. It had a lot more arable land, more space for nomadic tribes (capable of fast travel and spread of culture and technology), more resources, more people. Brief study of geography and climate would make it obvious that areas like Mediterranean, Middle East, India and China will become centers of civilization. All these were connected by land and sea routes, that made it possible to exchange knowledge (and germs). Americas, Sub-Saharan Africa and Australia didn't stand a chance.
- 082349872349872 3y agoThe Americas and Australia lacked horses until their (re-)introduction by europeans, whie sub-saharan Africa resisted repeated attempts to introduce horses. We can guess the effect that might have on exchanges by considering: unmounted but encumbered people travel at about 25km/day; spanish missions in California were about 50km apart; Pony Express riders with relay remounts could cover 120km/day.
- wavefunction 3y agoYou make it sound like sub-Saharan Africans were offered an unparalleled opportunity with horses and rejected them out of some sort of pique. A quick search indicates that endemic diseases in the region made the husbanding of horses completely impractical until they could be bred over centuries to be resistant to the diseases transmitted as easily as say... a bite from an insect. The Pony Express lasted all of 18 months and was apparently financially unsustainable.
- votepaunchy 3y agoYou make it sound like the Pony Express simply went bankrupt when the primary cause for its closure was the completion of the transcontinental telegraph.
- tomjakubowski 3y agoIn 1491 people in mountainous South America had domesticated alpacas and llamas, which are better suited than horses for steep, alpine slopes. The horse was quickly abandoned by Spaniards in such terrain.
- staminade 3y agoTo be fair to Diamond, his arguments in GG&S are bit broader in scope than just the the continental axis hypothesis. The disparity in domesticable animals between Eurasia and other continents always seemed more persuasive than the axial argument. Although it is true that he leans too far into determinism and discounts cultural and economical factors.
- RecycledEle 3y agoThe domestication if animals has far more to do with the humans domesticating them than the animals.
- lolinder 3y agoYou're going to need to elaborate on what exactly you mean if you make an incendiary claim like that. Jared Diamond's argument is that for an animal to be domesticated it needs to have a very specific collection of traits—tameability and ability to breed in captivity being two important ones—and that there weren't any sufficiently good candidates for domestication in the Americas, Africa, or Australia (besides the llama in South America, which they did domesticate). With which part of this argument do you disagree? What candidates would you propose for domestication in non-Eurasian continents?
- polski-g 3y agoThe only thing it needs is breedability in captivity. You can selectively breed for "tameability" over time.
- ducttapecrown 3y agoThat's not always true.
- andrewflnr 3y agoTechnically, perhaps, but maybe it takes more time than a low-tech society can afford. That's close enough to untameable for practical purposes.
- Vinnl 3y agoI really liked Guns, Germs & Steel. Not necessarily because I was immediately convinced that it explained everything and that was the end of it (I don't have the relevant expertise to be the judge of that), but just because it showed me a way of looking at the world at a way larger scale than I had previously done, and was very engaging while at it. It makes sense that such theories like the continental axis hypothesis may turn out to play some role, but not be a single cause-and-effect. Earth is a pretty complex system, after all.
- lock-the-spock 3y agoYou might enjoy this as well, similar big picture and fascinating, but a bit more scientific and focused on the human element. > The Weirdest People in the World: How the West Became Psychologically Peculiar and Particularly Prosperous
- Vinnl 3y agoThank you, I've added it to my reading list!
- epivosism 3y ago100% agree w/this recommendation. The title is pretentious and put me off, so I missed out for a few years, but the contents are amazing. He has another related book, The Secrets of our Success, which is good. I'm happy that despite everything, at least a few people are doing cross-domain research and trying to put together and test ideas for how humanity came to be.
- WalterBright 3y ago"The Triumph of the West" by Roberts has a similar thesis. https://www.amazon.com/triumph-West-J-M-Roberts/dp/0760708509 https://www.amazon.com/triumph-West-J-M-Roberts/dp/076070850... It's been a long time since I read it, but as I recall the theses were that individual rights and freedoms coupled with things like the scientific method is what resulted in triumph.
- 3y ago
- KevinMS 3y agoMy hypothesis is better (and its probably pretty common): easy living (temp, soil, etc) and navigable waterways (lots of ports) made the difference. When conditions are comfortable for civilization, there's plenty of time to think about things, and with lots of ports its easy to spread those ideas. This is probably why places like Egypt, Greece, Italy, Minoa, etc, get the gold medal for early civilizations.
- truculent 3y ago> Scholars generally acknowledge six cradles of civilization. Mesopotamia, Ancient Egypt, Indus valley, and Ancient China are believed to be the earliest in the Old World,[1][2] while the Caral-Supe civilization of coastal Peru and the Olmec civilization of Mexico are believed to be the earliest in the New World. Temperate climates, maybe, but ports?
- eszed 3y agoIf you expand the theory to encompass riverine ports that would cover five of the six. I don't know enough about Olmec / Mexican geography / development to speak to that.
- KevinMS 3y agoports are like the internet of the olden days. Don't forget to include the Nile River, which was navigable both ways, and used extensively, and which conveniently connected to the med sea.
- mistrial9 3y agothis map misses large scale organized predation and murder that were rampant in many places.
- paganel 3y ago> The findings suggest that factors such as the movement of peoples These are heavily influenced by geography. > direct and indirect cultural exchanges This are heavily influenced by physical proximity, which, of course, is heavily influenced by geography. Of course that geography is not destiny, at the end it of it all nothing is, but it plays a very big part. And the historical truth is that Karakorum (located towards the Eastern end of the Eurasian landmass) had a lot more closer connections to places like Budapest and Kiev (located towards the Western end of the Eurasian landmass) compared to the connection between, let's say, Cairo and Johannesburg. As such, saying that "Jared Diamond is wrong" without looking at concrete historical facts from our past does not help anyone, no matter if the people doing it like to brandish themselves as "scientists".
- andrewflnr 3y ago> As such, saying that "Jared Diamond is wrong" without looking at concrete historical facts from our past does not help anyone, no matter if the people doing it like to brandish themselves as "scientists". Good thing the article didn't really say that, then? They explicitly agreed with some of his proposed mechanisms.
- paganel 3y agoThese are direct quotes from the article: > However, the researchers discovered that these environmental barriers do not consistently favor Eurasia over other continents. This finding directly challenges Diamond’s assertion that Eurasia’s geographic orientation provided a unique advantage in the spread of agricultural and other critical innovations. > Instead, the study indicates that the facilitation of cultural spread by geographical and ecological conditions is a global phenomenon, with no clear bias towards Eurasia. which to me says that indeed the authors of the article intended to say that Diamond was "wrong", at least that's how I interpret the part with "challenges Diamond’s assertion".
- andrewflnr 3y agoSo are these: > In line with Diamond’s hypothesis, the researchers found that environmental barriers do indeed impact the likelihood of cultural traits being shared between societies. > “Our analyses support the hypothesis that yes, environment likely influences how cultural innovations spread, just like Diamond intuited..." > “Our study offers one quantitative realization of Diamond’s arguments and not a definitive answer,” Meaning, not a definitive no, either. > “Our findings point out that geography, like genetics and ecology, matters, but it is not destiny.” It's complicated. I hope this doesn't surprise anyone.
- saalweachter 3y agoSo apropos of this pop history author, my "oh shit, being compelling and interesting doesn't mean it's correct" anecdote comes courtesy of another book that was popular around the same time as Guns, Germs and Steel, 1421: The Year China Discovered The New World. I read it, found it all very plausible and interesting. I read Gavin Menzies next book, 1434, found it equally interesting and compelling. Then I read his third book, The Lost Empire of Atlantis, and found it just as plausible as his first book. Except the prior plausibility in my head of a Minoan civilization maintaining global trade was way, way lower, and so I didn't just accept it as uncritically as I had the first two books, and that made me realize how unskeptically I had been reading the first two books, and other books in the genre. It was a more enjoyable life lesson than most, all things considered.
- arethuza 3y agoWhen I was about 10 or so I read the Erich von Däniken book Chariots of the Gods and was absolutely fascinated - eventually (and I don't know how) I came to understand that just because something is written in what seems to be a non-fiction book doesn't mean it's remotely true. Nearly 40 years on I can still remember my rage on realising this.
- alephnerd 3y agoHaha I fell into the same trap around 15-25 years ago!(but tbf, elementary school me was going through cryptozoology phase) von Daniken really knew how to write in academic prose, which only sold it further.
- zwayhowder 3y agoI keep a dozen books by von Daniken and his contemporaries on my bookcase to this day. Not because I believe them, but to remind me that I once did. I like to blame the X-Files, but the 90s was a funny time and I don't even remember buying all these books, but I sure believed them for a while.
- HPsquared 3y agoSee also Graham Hancock.
- u32480932048 3y agoDespite having his book, I anticipated this story being about how some aspect of a jewelry store's marketing is hogwash, and there was in fact no discernible difference between their specially-sourced diamonds and any old diamonds dug up from control sites around the globe.
- _whiteCaps_ 3y agoIf you're looking for an alternative view, check out "The Dawn of Everything" by Graeber and Wengrow.
- epivosism 3y agoI loved Debt for the ideas, but I abandoned this since it seemed to be pushing their politics so hard. I've read Zinn, GGS, later pop science anthropology books, 1491, 1493, as well as kept up with john hawks, razib, etc as far as paleogenetics; I wanted to like this book but a lot of it didn't add up - the theory was so complicated and specific. There also didn't seem to be much room left for the evolution of larger scale social structures... yet to me the way things went in history seems obvious. Most of the actors and roles in early human history have cultures shaped by their survival imperatives - and the variety of belief systems we know about match the needs of that culture. Anyway, I would love to hear a good defense or explanation of the book, to make sure I haven't missed anything! I abandoned it possibly 1/3 in, and then read reviews, which mostly confirmed what I had been thinking, so I never went back.
- mckn1ght 3y agoI’m almost done with it and I’ll say that I hated the first part, found many of the specific examples interesting throughout the middle, and although there are some interesting insights later, it’s an utter failure from a narrative standpoint as a whole. It really would have benefited from a much stronger editor, if there even was one at all.
- boringuser2 3y ago[flagged]
- gotoeleven 3y agoThis stuff seems to me to most likely be an attempt to avoid the fate of people like Charles Murray. If people can find anything to call one of the dreaded -ists or -isms in your book then the signal goes out to all the good thinking NPCs that this book is ismist and everything in it can be ignored. So if you want people to engage with your arguments, you've got to lard your book up this kind of stuff as a prophylactic.
- boringuser2 3y agoThe thing is, I don't even think you need a Murray-esque argument to make a good case here. It's pretty clear that smarter doesn't necessarily perfectly correlate to civilizational ascendance. All you need to do is make an argument that doesn't literally hinge on the hereditarian hypothesis being incorrect, i.e. an incredibly fragile idea. They just can't help themselves. Also, the infamous "Murray gambit" of being obsequiously philosemitic to the point of raising eyebrows (which just offended all parties) would definitely have a different tenor coming from Jared Diamond.
- not2b 3y agoHe was pointing out that in the civilized West, you survived or not based on your immunity to diseases common in crowded places, and your intelligence had little to do with it, where if you lived in a hunter-gatherer society, a whole lot of knowledge was required to keep you alive. So if intelligence is selected for it would play a much larger role in New Guinea. He was also describing his personal experience with New Guineans, where he spent a lot of time. But I didn't take that part as a rigorous argument, more like a statement that you could make Murray's argument in reverse (that living in a "being stupid gets you killed" place might produce more brains than living in a "having a weak immune system gets you killed" place), and he didn't attempt to build on that point.
- 3y ago
- CSMastermind 3y agoIt's weird to see the people in this thread stating the generally accepted scientific viewpoints downvoted while those praising Diamond are upvoted. Diamond is a skilled and persuasive writer, who's had success as a pop science writer but the theories he pushes to put it lightly are largely not accepted within academic communities. Some, like the stories of ecocide featured in Collapse, have been completely and thoroughly debunked. That book is about as academically rigorous as The Lorax and fills the niche: a modern ecological morality tale for a modern Western audience.
- JackFr 3y agoThe problem is to non-academics, it’s all a bunch of Just-So stories and Whig histories, so it’s difficult to judge and the more compelling writer is gonna win.
- Sakos 3y agoThe problem is that it seems like the scientific community has largely failed at communicating their findings to the wider public. Where are the books like Diamond's that tell people what modern science has found about the same topics? Pop Sci is extremely popular, but scientists refuse to write them, so you get books by people like Diamond that hit the mainstream and then you get subreddits like r/askhistory getting mad about it. You can't get mad when your entire field has failed at educating the public.
- rcxdude 3y agoThe problem is that "the academic view" is a messy web of ideas and findings, with a lot of uncertainty and inconsistencies. That's a hell of a lot harder to sell and engage people with than a simple and elegant idea that's eloquently explained, even if said idea is almost certainly wrong.
- Sakos 3y agoI think people can easily be engaged by complex, messy topics. You just need a scientist who's a decent writer to try. Scientists, academics as a whole aren't trying.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- ggm 3y agoNo love for Gruber?
- eggdaft 3y agoDiamond’s ideas seemed pretty intuitive to me. The idea that geography is the primary shaper of civilisations seems _very_ likely to be true in general. I’ve read other books on the impact of geography on military defence and how that shapes geopolitics, for example. Having worked in academia for many years, when I see academics attack a book such as GGS my instinct is to question their motives. Academics can be very egotistical and territorial. A priori, it is very difficult to imagine a situation where academics would say to any book like Diamond’s “oh yes this is a really great point and we need to learn from this guy” and very very likely to say “this guy doesn’t know anything about (less important factors that I know a lot about)! What an idiot! He even gets the date of this event wrong, proving I am clever and he is wrong.” So when I hear about academics attacking something that seems to be fairly obviously correct at least at a very general level, my instinct is not “oh, yes, this guy must be completely wrong” but rather “this guy is probably mostly right but of course there will be a lot of other factors and it will be very easy to pick apart his book if you so wish, especially if your ego relies on you finding fault with him.” I’m not so easily dissuaded that GGS isn’t mostly right that geography and in particular agricultural factors are the broad strokes of history, rather than the less permanent and smaller scale “Gaussian noise” of cultural events that intuitively are likely to mostly even out over time.
- ak_111 3y ago"Academics can be very ...territorial" Ironic statement given the context.
- FranzFerdiNaN 3y agoAh yes, the ''this feels right to me, a layman who knows nothing about it, so clearly he is right and people attacking him just are out for a cheap hit'' defense. A classic.
- eggdaft 3y agoNo, just I have a lot of experience of academia so I’m wary of motives.
- sethammons 3y ago> the transmission of cultural traits among 1,094 traditional societies So people had already been living in a given zone. When Europeans first arrived in America, had the locals not already been there and learned the ways of that land and shared, famously the first Thanksgiving in US education, the new arrivals would have perished.
- fedeb95 3y ago"Eurasia’s geographic layout inherently facilitated a quicker spread of critical innovations compared to other regions of the world, such as the Americas and Africa." sadly, "critical" and "innovation" are semantically characterized as both important and good because who made those critical innovations dominated with weapons other trivial and unoriginal populations. Edit: I havent't read the book but such hypothesis are quite sterile considering how populations move (and used to move) around the globe. We are taught a pretty static idea of ancient civilizations, while they probably move more than us.
- rancour 3y agoWhat an abhorrent shitpost.