3 ms·

OK maybe I'm dull here but it seems to me most of these ideas where well understood, so I don't think I would be incredibly impressed since they are mainly what

OK maybe I'm dull here but it seems to me most of these ideas where well understood, so I don't think I would be incredibly impressed since they are mainly what I understand to be the case. That they had more germs not sure about, my take on the germs part has always been the same thing you have with any invasive species in a new environment. It is mathematically easier for them to spread their germs to indigenous population . So it seems like the book is mainly a condensation of the widely understood historical narrative (although maybe my knowledge of what is understood is out of date as I have not read so much history in the last 20 years, most of my history reading having been in my teens) However, while I agree that geography is an important contributor to success in endeavors it is imho not a determinant. It seems to me that industrialism could have arisen a few places and times in the history of the world but it didn't, that it did in Britain, sure, the environment was favorable, but a lot of things led into it. So many things that it becomes in many ways a clever Connections type discussion where you connect one thing you would not think was connected to the outcome - for example does this guy talk about the Black Plagues influence on Industrialization? https://cepr.org/voxeu/columns/black-death-and-industrialisation-lessons-todays-south https://cepr.org/voxeu/columns/black-death-and-industrialisa... probably it's a pretty easy connection to make but still almost everything can be connected and when the thing comes about you say HAH all these things here together made it, the perfect soup! But there were all sorts of soups in the past that did not achieve perfection, and I don't think there is a convincing argument why that is. on edit: tldr - I don't think the Industrial revolution was destined to start in Britain in the mid 1700s because of some combination of Geographical factors. If it hadn't started there it would have started somewhere else later - probably in the U.S. Or it could have started much earlier, but many factors did not pan out in just the right way in the past when it was possible for Industrialism to start.

ohthehugemanate 3y ago
yes, that is exactly the topic discussed in the book. To what extent is this narrative, and to what extent determinism, is exactly the discussion _around_ the book. Seems like an area of interest for you which is why I recommended it. Definitely geared towards a popular audience but well-researched, engaging, and thought/discussion provoking .
chongli 3y ago
That they had more germs not sure about, my take on the germs part has always been the same thing you have with any invasive species in a new environment. It is mathematically easier for them to spread their germs to indigenous population There was one major disease Europeans brought back from the Americas: syphilis. Otherwise, the raft of diseases Europeans brought to the Americas (which devastated the indigenous populations) can be specifically traced back to animal husbandry. The intensity of Europeans’ relationship to domestic animals plus all of the wild animals living in urban areas in close proximity to humans (such as rats) is what led to Europeans being potential carriers of so many diseases. You simply get way more disease exposure from farming (cattle, pigs, goats, sheep, poultry) and living in cities (rats, mice, cats, dogs, bats, insects) than you do in small hunting or fishing villages. So the germs axis is part of Diamond’s geography argument. Proximity to domesticable animals and cereal grains leads to more exposure to disease, greater concentrations of population, and therefore devastating plagues. Those who survived the plagues had the potential to be asymptomatic carriers who would eventually bring destruction to the indigenous people of the Americas.
2OEH8eoCRo0 3y ago
> I agree that geography is an important contributor to success in endeavors it is imho not a determinant. Does anyone claim it's determinant? I thought the claim was merely that these factors make the outcome more likely.
- bryanrasmussen 3y ago
  It seemed to me that the original post I was replying to felt it was determinant, but maybe I was reading too strictly.

ohthehugemanate 3y ago

yes, that is exactly the topic discussed in the book. To what extent is this narrative, and to what extent determinism, is exactly the discussion _around_ the book. Seems like an area of interest for you which is why I recommended it. Definitely geared towards a popular audience but well-researched, engaging, and thought/discussion provoking .

chongli 3y ago

That they had more germs not sure about, my take on the germs part has always been the same thing you have with any invasive species in a new environment. It is mathematically easier for them to spread their germs to indigenous population There was one major disease Europeans brought back from the Americas: syphilis. Otherwise, the raft of diseases Europeans brought to the Americas (which devastated the indigenous populations) can be specifically traced back to animal husbandry. The intensity of Europeans’ relationship to domestic animals plus all of the wild animals living in urban areas in close proximity to humans (such as rats) is what led to Europeans being potential carriers of so many diseases. You simply get way more disease exposure from farming (cattle, pigs, goats, sheep, poultry) and living in cities (rats, mice, cats, dogs, bats, insects) than you do in small hunting or fishing villages. So the germs axis is part of Diamond’s geography argument. Proximity to domesticable animals and cereal grains leads to more exposure to disease, greater concentrations of population, and therefore devastating plagues. Those who survived the plagues had the potential to be asymptomatic carriers who would eventually bring destruction to the indigenous people of the Americas.

2OEH8eoCRo0 3y ago

> I agree that geography is an important contributor to success in endeavors it is imho not a determinant. Does anyone claim it's determinant? I thought the claim was merely that these factors make the outcome more likely.

bryanrasmussen 3y ago
It seemed to me that the original post I was replying to felt it was determinant, but maybe I was reading too strictly.