6 ms·

Papua New Guinea is endlessly studied. Jared Diamond speculates various reasons for why the people there didn't develop into a post-hunter-gatherer civilization

by bane 11y ago

Papua New Guinea is endlessly studied. Jared Diamond speculates various reasons for why the people there didn't develop into a post-hunter-gatherer civilization (or much beyond that). While much of his work has been disputed, I think it's still an interesting question. I can't help sometimes when reading anthropological studies or videos of a pre-modern civilization that a terrible amount of time is spent on rituals and dances and other things and perhaps the key is that other, faster developing groups of people simply found a different balance between work and these non-productive activities. However, the Baining seem to represent the opposite end, doing nothing but productive work, and yet they aren't exactly the unusually advanced Atlanteans of PNG either. So I was struck by this "and exhibited little curiosity or enthusiasm" and it kind of hits me how important imagination and enthusiasm are in the process of advancing things. Toil gets stuff done, but you're just running in place. Imagination is a kind of play, and it's necessary to move you forward as well.

wodenokoto 11y ago
> Jared Diamond speculates various reasons for why the people there didn't develop into a post-hunter-gatherer civilization (or much beyond that). While much of his work has been disputed So it would be a waste of time to read Guns Germs and Steel, since it is mostly disputed? What would be a good alternative then?
- tedunangst 11y ago
  He makes some interesting observations, but stretches some of the conclusions quite a bit. Basically suffers from a lot of confirmation bias. Tends to ignore or overlook contradictory evidence.
  - soperj 11y ago
    Definitely agree with that. Especially about the domestication large fauna in North America. How can you completely ignore the buffalo?
    - facepalm 11y ago
      He answers some questions here, also about bison domestication: http://jareddiamond.org/Jared_Diamond/Guns,_Germs,_and_Steel.html http://jareddiamond.org/Jared_Diamond/Guns,_Germs,_and_Steel... (according to this link I just googled, American buffalos are actually bisons http://www.diffen.com/difference/Bison_vs_Buffalo http://www.diffen.com/difference/Bison_vs_Buffalo )
      - soperj 11y ago
        I read it, and it seems like crap. "When I ask American readers and animal handlers familiar with bison the possible reasons for bison non-domestication, they mention two factors: unpredictable dangerous disposition, such that bison ranchers remain wary of them; and ability to jump fences, such they could not be penned until modern strong high fences became available." First off, Bulls can definitely have nasty dispositions, and secondly they can definitely jump fences. I've personally seen a bull clear a 8 foot fence. thanks for providing that though!
        facepalm 11y ago
        I don't know anything about bisons. Are they domesticated these days? So you would say they would have been eligible for domestication and native Americans failed to do so for some unknown reason?
        tedunangst 11y ago
        I think you're making much the same mistake Diamond does, assuming that domestication is inevitable, and that if it doesn't happen, somebody "failed".
        facepalm 11y ago
        Well they failed by becoming subjugated by the European settlers, dying from diseases by the millions. That's what the book is about. I don't see a way to paint that in lovely colors? What about that isn't "failure"? The argument here was that Diamond's theory is wrong because the native Americans could have domesticated the bisons after all. The claim that they are too difficult to tame is dismissed as "crap". Then it seems to me why they were not being domesticated needs another explanation (if the one from Diamond is not good enough). Just random chance?
- moultano 11y ago
  I usually hear it compared to 1491, which I think is much better regarded. (I loved it. I haven't read Guns Germs and Steel.)
  - saalweachter 11y ago
    It's also really important to remember you're reading a book and not having Truth distilled into your brain. 1421 was another fun read, but the author wrote a third book saying that, while he still thinks China traveled to the New World in 1421, he now thinks the Atlanteans made an earlier journey.
- gaius 11y ago
  No it wouldn't, GG&S is the perfect intro to this genre of books. Another good one is Collapse by Joseph Tainter.
  - mrec 11y ago
    "Collapse" is also by Jared Diamond. You're thinking of "The Collapse of Complex Societies" (and yes, it is good).
- bane 11y ago
  No, I think it's still worth reading. It's just widely disputed. /r/AskHistorians has an entire section devoted to the book, so it's had an impact https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/wiki/historians_views#wiki_historians.27_views_of_jared_diamond.27s_.22guns.2C_germs.2C_and_steel.22 https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/wiki/historians_views...
  - facepalm 11y ago
    Hm, I followed the first few links on that page and I remain unconvinced. It's been a long time since I read the book, but I remember points being addressed that the comments there claim are not being addressed. And I think sometimes they missed the point completely. Anyway - best everybody make up their own mind, and remember that EVERYBODY has an agenda. Even the good people on reddit. Specifically, perhaps historians don't like it if somebody advances on their territory with a different approach (combining different disciplines). Their agenda is to push their methodology so that they get more funding for their research.
facepalm 11y ago
Do you have a citation for "much of Jared Diamond's work is disputed"? Apart from anything a proponent of evolution theory say being disputed, because creationists exist? I am only aware of controversy about the Easter Islands which he described in "Collapse". One paper claimed the extinction of trees was actually because of rats, not because of their excessive consumption by the people for building their statues. Then I think I heard the rats theory to be disproved and replaced by something else. I don't think that necessarily disproves the gist of his argument.

by bane 11y ago

wodenokoto 11y ago

> Jared Diamond speculates various reasons for why the people there didn't develop into a post-hunter-gatherer civilization (or much beyond that). While much of his work has been disputed So it would be a waste of time to read Guns Germs and Steel, since it is mostly disputed? What would be a good alternative then?

tedunangst 11y ago
He makes some interesting observations, but stretches some of the conclusions quite a bit. Basically suffers from a lot of confirmation bias. Tends to ignore or overlook contradictory evidence.
- soperj 11y ago
  Definitely agree with that. Especially about the domestication large fauna in North America. How can you completely ignore the buffalo?
  - facepalm 11y ago
    He answers some questions here, also about bison domestication: http://jareddiamond.org/Jared_Diamond/Guns,_Germs,_and_Steel.html http://jareddiamond.org/Jared_Diamond/Guns,_Germs,_and_Steel... (according to this link I just googled, American buffalos are actually bisons http://www.diffen.com/difference/Bison_vs_Buffalo http://www.diffen.com/difference/Bison_vs_Buffalo )
    - soperj 11y ago
      I read it, and it seems like crap. "When I ask American readers and animal handlers familiar with bison the possible reasons for bison non-domestication, they mention two factors: unpredictable dangerous disposition, such that bison ranchers remain wary of them; and ability to jump fences, such they could not be penned until modern strong high fences became available." First off, Bulls can definitely have nasty dispositions, and secondly they can definitely jump fences. I've personally seen a bull clear a 8 foot fence. thanks for providing that though!
      - facepalm 11y ago
        I don't know anything about bisons. Are they domesticated these days? So you would say they would have been eligible for domestication and native Americans failed to do so for some unknown reason?
        tedunangst 11y ago
        I think you're making much the same mistake Diamond does, assuming that domestication is inevitable, and that if it doesn't happen, somebody "failed".
        facepalm 11y ago
        Well they failed by becoming subjugated by the European settlers, dying from diseases by the millions. That's what the book is about. I don't see a way to paint that in lovely colors? What about that isn't "failure"? The argument here was that Diamond's theory is wrong because the native Americans could have domesticated the bisons after all. The claim that they are too difficult to tame is dismissed as "crap". Then it seems to me why they were not being domesticated needs another explanation (if the one from Diamond is not good enough). Just random chance?
moultano 11y ago
I usually hear it compared to 1491, which I think is much better regarded. (I loved it. I haven't read Guns Germs and Steel.)
- saalweachter 11y ago
  It's also really important to remember you're reading a book and not having Truth distilled into your brain. 1421 was another fun read, but the author wrote a third book saying that, while he still thinks China traveled to the New World in 1421, he now thinks the Atlanteans made an earlier journey.
gaius 11y ago
No it wouldn't, GG&S is the perfect intro to this genre of books. Another good one is Collapse by Joseph Tainter.
- mrec 11y ago
  "Collapse" is also by Jared Diamond. You're thinking of "The Collapse of Complex Societies" (and yes, it is good).
bane 11y ago
No, I think it's still worth reading. It's just widely disputed. /r/AskHistorians has an entire section devoted to the book, so it's had an impact https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/wiki/historians_views#wiki_historians.27_views_of_jared_diamond.27s_.22guns.2C_germs.2C_and_steel.22 https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/wiki/historians_views...
- facepalm 11y ago
  Hm, I followed the first few links on that page and I remain unconvinced. It's been a long time since I read the book, but I remember points being addressed that the comments there claim are not being addressed. And I think sometimes they missed the point completely. Anyway - best everybody make up their own mind, and remember that EVERYBODY has an agenda. Even the good people on reddit. Specifically, perhaps historians don't like it if somebody advances on their territory with a different approach (combining different disciplines). Their agenda is to push their methodology so that they get more funding for their research.

facepalm 11y ago

Do you have a citation for "much of Jared Diamond's work is disputed"? Apart from anything a proponent of evolution theory say being disputed, because creationists exist? I am only aware of controversy about the Easter Islands which he described in "Collapse". One paper claimed the extinction of trees was actually because of rats, not because of their excessive consumption by the people for building their statues. Then I think I heard the rats theory to be disproved and replaced by something else. I don't think that necessarily disproves the gist of his argument.