Guns, Germs, Steel & the Boob Tube
July 11, 2005 8:42 AM   Subscribe

"Guns, Germs & Steel" premieres tonight on PBS. Based on the Pulitzer Prize-winning book by Jared Diamond, and hosted by the same. The mini-series consists of three, one-hour episodes tackling many of the same issues in the book.
posted by jefgodesky (55 comments total)
 
Neat theory. The description of how the colonization of Africa geographically spread is interesting in light of how the the USA was settled, and his explanation of how the colonists were able to 'use' areas unsuitable for colonization explains some current issues in some ways I had not thought of before.
posted by buzzman at 9:13 AM on July 11, 2005


The TV mini-series should rock! I hear the part where the cute blond realtor gets voted off the island for spreading Black Death when she trades glass beads to get iron for making weapons is really poignant. And the "Fever-Blanket Babylon" dance number sounds brilliant.

Sigh. I'm just bitter that I won't get to see it, not snarking.
posted by freebird at 9:27 AM on July 11, 2005


Cool, thanks for the heads-up.
posted by carter at 9:30 AM on July 11, 2005


I just bought the book, but haven't read it yet. Should I watch these right away, or wait until I finish the book? I am PVR'ing them anyway...
posted by jikel_morten at 9:34 AM on July 11, 2005


Also, what carter said.
posted by jikel_morten at 9:34 AM on July 11, 2005


Thank you very much for the heads up. Go Go Magic TiVo!
posted by cavalier at 9:46 AM on July 11, 2005


Oooh - neat-o. Will the miniseries be as racist and full of holes as the book? I can't wait.
posted by jmgorman at 9:58 AM on July 11, 2005


jmgorman - you gonna expand on that? im genuinely curious.
posted by fillsthepews at 10:05 AM on July 11, 2005


Not living in the U.S., I'm not going to get a chance to see this tonight. However, a friend from work lent the book to me about 3 months ago and it's been on my 'to read' pile ever since.

Is it worth the effort or is it a steaming bucket of yak kak with a stick in it?
posted by PurpleJack at 10:07 AM on July 11, 2005


PurpleJack - Is it worth the effort or is it a steaming bucket of yak kak with a stick in it?

I think that it's worth a read, some interesting thoughts about crop/suitable draft animals and their important role in shaping pre-industrial culture.
posted by PurplePorpoise at 10:17 AM on July 11, 2005


jmgorman, I'd be interested to hear you expand on that as well.

Like freebird, I'm bitter that I can't see it. :(
posted by dabitch at 10:23 AM on July 11, 2005


Oooh - neat-o. Will the miniseries be as racist and full of holes as the book? I can't wait.
posted by jmgorman at 12:58 PM EST on July 11 [!]


I'm surprised to hear you say this, because, although I've literally only read the first page, Diamond says something like "If you're expecting a racist treatise, you won't find one here". Also, I thought the whole premise was that geography and resources played a paramount role in forming societies, not race/intelligence. But again, I haven't even read the book. Ha s anyone here read it and care to expound?
posted by jikel_morten at 10:40 AM on July 11, 2005


jmgorman,
Did we read the same book? My copy covered a lot of material explaining how the successes and faliures of civilizations were dependent on a myriad of reasons -- geography being key -- exclusive of race.

Please, do tell.
posted by pmbuko at 10:51 AM on July 11, 2005


I'm in the "let's hear more from jmgorman" camp as well. I found nothing racist in the book; currently on my 3rd read.
posted by hurkle at 11:32 AM on July 11, 2005


I did find the book prejudiced against anyone without an elephantine attention span, but other than that I don't recall a single postulation that could have been considered racist.
posted by spicynuts at 11:36 AM on July 11, 2005


For those in the Bay area, Jared Diamond will be speaking this Friday (July 15) at the Long Now Seminar on Long Term Thinking. Admission is free, but you'd be very wise to show up early because there will almost certainly be a large crowd. More info here http://www.longnow.org/.
posted by kk at 11:39 AM on July 11, 2005


Its racist to point out how civilizations failed you know...
posted by TetrisKid at 12:31 PM on July 11, 2005


The whole conception of the book is anti-racist. It's one long counterargument to the statement: European cultures are doing so well because of their relative racial superiority.
posted by fleacircus at 12:44 PM on July 11, 2005


I think jmgorman was referring to the anti-european racism espoused by Diamond, which would probably better be described as Romanticist or pro-Noble Savage. Diamond tries to show how all humans are essentially the same, except for geographic factors (environmental).

Ill plagarize directly from the conclusion of an Amazon review entitled "Ovverated Thesis Ignores Human Variables":

Perhaps the overriding problem with "Guns, Germs and Steel" is its political correctness. Human variables such as culture, religion and environmental perspectives have played decisive roles in the development of the world's civilisations. This remains the case today, no matter how politically incorrect it might be to say so. Certainly, geography has played a role in the development of world history, but not to the extent asserted by Diamond. By ignoring the human variables, Diamond has greatly distorted the history of human progress.

For a rebuttal of Diamond's thesis that we are all the same except for environmental factors, I would highly reccomend MIT neuroscience professor Steven Pinker's book, The Blank Slate, where he utterly destroys the idea that all humans are the same and influenced solely by environmental conditions. The reality is, unsurprisingly, a constant struggle between genetics, environmental factors, and chance.
posted by sophist at 12:55 PM on July 11, 2005


Personally, I thought Guns, Germs, and Steel was great: both illuminating and highly readable. A crude summary of the argument: civilization as we know it (dense populations, cities, states, advances in metalworking, literacy, etc.) depends on agriculture, as opposed to hunting and gathering; agriculture depends on availability of domesticable plants and animals, which are rare; domestic animals also bring contagious diseases and therefore disease resistance; it's much easier for agriculture to spread east and west rather than north or south; this is why Eurasian civilizations (larger variety of flora and fauna to start with, east-west axis) were able to expand so rapidly, compared to the Americas or Africa (north-south axis).

I'd also recommend Diamond's The Third Chimpanzee.

A short lecture by Diamond summarizing his argument.

Some discussion of Diamond's argument by economic historians Joel Mokyr and Brad DeLong.

Historian William McNeill (Plagues and People) liked it, for the most part. An exchange between McNeill and Diamond, from the New York Review of Books.

Anthropologist Clifford Geertz didn't like the book, but I don't know why.
posted by russilwvong at 12:56 PM on July 11, 2005 [1 favorite]


oh yeah, and "culture".
posted by sophist at 12:57 PM on July 11, 2005


I'm in the "let's hear more from jmgorman" camp as well.

Here's hoping you guys have a big tent. I read the book a while back, but I'm stumped as to the racist angle. I guess one could be offended by the Calvinist suggestion of pre-destination, but Diamond is talking about trends at a macro level. He doesn't mean you can't be all that you want to be just because your continent points Northy-Southy.
posted by yerfatma at 1:18 PM on July 11, 2005


sophist: While I can understand your opinion, I don't think you're allowing Diamond's theories to play out all the way. If you assume that human societies already had substantial genetic and cultural differences dating all the way back to the dim beginnings of our species then you are of course correct. If, as is generally accepted to be the case, you instead assume that the human species started out without these trappings (or at least the higher-level manifestations of them) then Diamond's theories make perfect sense. That is, despite Diamond's statements to the contrary, Guns, Germs and Steel advances the concept of environmental determinism. Taken all the way back to the origins of humanity, this theory can account for all differences between historical human societies if you allow it.

I would assert that you are incorrect when you say Diamond ignores cultural and societal differences. He certainly does not say that these factors do not play a role in the differences between human societies. Instead, he claims that environmental factors led to the development of a cultural, societal or religious ethos that resulted in a more "advanced" group of humans. His data regarding the distribution of domesticatable plants and animals across the major continents is at best compelling and at worst intriguing. I'm not sure how one could disagree with that.

As for the "noble savage" comment, Diamond specifically says that he doesn't believe that sort of thing, although I can't remember if he says it in GG&S or Collapse, so it may still be a fair accusation to level at the former. He does, however, assert that the idea of the hunter-gatherer lifestyle as "nasty, brutish and short" is far from accurate.

Also interesting to note is Diamond's later discussion of the Theory of Optimum Fragmentation. It's only mentioned in an afterword in one of the later book editions, I don't recall which one, but it covers the book's single greatest failing: the distinction between China and Europe. I won't spoil it for those who haven't read it, but it's a succinct theory that just "seems to make sense" when you read it, sort of a "no duh" moment.
posted by Lokim at 1:29 PM on July 11, 2005


This has nothing to do with the content of the book (I've read about a third so far and am enjoying it very much), but I think it's kinda weird that they are showing the first part of the series tonight and then the DVD of the entire thing goes on sale tomorrow. I would think they would wait until all three parts have been aired to sell the DVD.
posted by handshake at 1:42 PM on July 11, 2005


The book had very, very interesting content, and very bad editing, as far as I remember. It just came off as pedantic in places. Despite this, I read the whole thing because it was just so interesting anyway.
I wonder how he'll be as a series host.
posted by blacklite at 1:56 PM on July 11, 2005


Sorry, the rain cut my internet (I didn't mean to troll the thread). My main claim to racism in the text (despite his numerous claims that the text isn't racist-which, to me, means he realised that he was treading a thin line) is that he functionally naturalizes differences between communities. This is the same stuff that racism is built upon. When one can make an argument that one group is naturally less able/adaptable it is only a very short stumble into justified racism.

I think wikipedia also has some of the other criticisms.

[Here's hoping this gets posted.]
posted by jmgorman at 2:01 PM on July 11, 2005


When one can make an argument that one group is naturally less able/adaptable

But that's ... like ... exactly the opposite of what he's arguing!
posted by lbergstr at 2:12 PM on July 11, 2005


I suspect they are shipping the DVD sooner than later in order to drive DVD sales, since that's where they make money, not from advertising. I know I just bought a copy so I can play it during those long Thanksgiving and Christmas family gatherings, and its a form of support to PBS instead of getting it through other means.
posted by stbalbach at 2:53 PM on July 11, 2005


Just as an FYI, the wikipedia entry jmgorman referenced is under "Guns, Germs, and Steel". I got a bit confused.

Thanks for your response. I'll check it out; there seems to be a bunch to read.
posted by fillsthepews at 2:57 PM on July 11, 2005


Steven Pinker's The Blank Slate is a better book. Better written and much more thought provoking.
posted by tkchrist at 3:01 PM on July 11, 2005


. Human variables such as culture, religion and environmental perspectives have played decisive roles in the development of the world's civilisations. This remains the case today, no matter how politically incorrect it might be to say so. Certainly, geography has played a role in the development of world history, but not to the extent asserted by Diamond. By ignoring the human variables, Diamond has greatly distorted the history of human progress.

Jared Diamond isn't the be-all end-all authority on geography and development by a stretch; he's a popularizer.

but he's also no environmental determinist; his latest book, 'Collapse,' discusses this very subject, in the same amount of boringly explicit detail hung upon a five-to-six point framework as 'G,G,+S' discusses the geographical/ecological causes of the differential development of societies. Why can't people accept that there are multiple factors or causes involved in how we got to where we are today?

p.s. your backlash to pc hysteria is a fucking joke
posted by eustatic at 3:07 PM on July 11, 2005


I think jmgorman was referring to the anti-european racism espoused by Diamond, which would probably better be described as Romanticist or pro-Noble Savage.

FWIW, Diamond was on NPR this afternoon plugging the PBS series and he explicitly defined his view as the mean between two extremes, one racist (Indo-European culture thrived because of inherent genetic superiority) and the other romantic (peacenik eco-natives didn't stand a chance against the monstrous Europeans, etc.).

Whether you think he's being honest is a different question, I suppose, but to be fair he did suggest that the romantic "lens" is just as distorting as the racist one, and he took great pains to distance himself from both.
posted by joe lisboa at 4:01 PM on July 11, 2005


>When one can make an argument that one group is naturally less able/adaptable

>But that's ... like ... exactly the opposite of what he's arguing!

When he succumbs to environmental determinism he naturalises differences (people in one place are naturally going to have less ability to do something than people in other places). Given that he clearly privileges some groups over others for ostensibly natural reasons (he sure likes his own literate, european community), it isn't a far step to presume that one group is *better* than an other.

His argument on NPR is disingenuous as well because not all rascism is about genetic difference. There is no genetic difference -- race is a social construct. People have lots of reasons for engaging in racist ideologies, and justifications for the differences in race. In this book he naturalises ideas of differnce which, in my opinion, is damn close to racism. Just because he says his work isn't racist doesn't mean that it is not.

I guess that I should also add that I, personally, reject environmental determinism - or any other determinism for that matter - as it is far too shallow a concept to encompass and describe the human condition throughout time. Therefore, he lost me by the end of the introduction and I was a bit critical through the rest.
posted by jmgorman at 6:14 PM on July 11, 2005


I also heard that NPR segment and noted his comment distancing himself from exactly what I had accused him of. Point taken. I think that in conversation he would probably be quite interesting, and I am actually looking forward to watching the show as well.
posted by sophist at 6:17 PM on July 11, 2005


JMGorman: His argument on NPR is disingenuous as well because not all rascism is about genetic difference. There is no genetic difference -- race is a social construct.

Race is by no means a social contruct, although many of our conceptions and stereotypes of race are influenced by our society and culture. You are making a very bad case for yourself when you say that acknowledging differences between race (or gender) leads to deeming one better than the other. You have ignored the much more sensible position, defensible from both solid biological and moral positions: while people do differ genetically, that does not condone discrimination. Different, but possessing the same intrinsic rights and deserving of equal opportunity. By denying differences among races or between genders you are painting yourself into a very silly corner.
posted by sophist at 6:27 PM on July 11, 2005


Can't we just set up a multi-player Civ III game between the big guns (cough) in this area and settle this dispute once and for all? Diamond can't be racist: I hear he always plays as the Zulus.

Off to watch the program.
posted by joe lisboa at 6:43 PM on July 11, 2005


jmgorman writes "people in one place are naturally going to have less ability to do something than people in other places"

Isn't this just a simple fact? People in regions where horses are not present are naturally going to have less ability to domesticate horses than people in regions where horses are present. People in regions isolated on all sides by deserts are naturally going to have less ability to trade with other groups than people in regions with access to easily navigable water and overland trade routes. People in regions with a very dry climate are going to have less ability to grow water-intensive crops such as rice than people in climates with annual flood cycles.

If there's "racism" at play here, it's the simple realities of climatological and geographic differences that are racist, not the observer who notes these differences. And it's silly to say that geography is racist.

Given that he clearly privileges some groups over others for ostensibly natural reasons

I think it would be more accurate to say that "history has privledged some groups over others".

he sure likes his own literate, european community

This is a pretty inflammatory comment; it's also pretty innaccurate. Diamond makes little (no?) attempt to distinguish between the literate, agricultural, trading cultures of Eurasia. Certainly any of his analysis that applies to Europe also applies to India and China.

I guess that I should also add that I, personally, reject environmental determinism - or any other determinism for that matter - as it is far too shallow a concept to encompass and describe the human condition throughout time. Therefore, he lost me by the end of the introduction and I was a bit critical through the rest.

So you rejected his argument outright as a matter of ideology? Hrm....
posted by mr_roboto at 7:08 PM on July 11, 2005 [1 favorite]


Wow, I'm in it now, aren't I. Well, from the top (first sophist, then mr_roboto)

Race is by no means a social contruct

Race is a social construct. The genetic difference between so-called races is tiny (< .1% if i'm recalling correctly) to the point of insiginficance. the way that we understand, identify and treat race is socially constructed. i>You are making a very bad case for yourself when you say that acknowledging differences between race (or gender) leads to deeming one better than the other.

I was unclear here, the acknowledgement of difference does not lead to racism (or chauvanism) rather the qualification of peference and privileging of perspectives concerning the other. I did ignore, but agree, that difference does not condone discrimination. My contention goes back to my first point, race is socially constructed (but does exist) and arguments that naturalise abilities of races are in danger of justifying these constructs.

Isn't this just a simple fact? People in regions where horses are not present are naturally ....

It is a fact that people may only use what they have at hand, but I still reject environmental determinism. I do not beleive that people behave solely according to laws defined by stimulus-response. People are more than just reacting machines (at least that's what I think.

..."history has privledged some groups over others".

History didn't happen. History is the interpretation and coallation of perceived structures and patterns in the past that are written down by historians. If there is a perceived privilege it is exactly that - a socially constructed perception.

Certainly any of his analysis that applies to Europe also applies to India and China.

Yes, his analysis could apply, but he doesn't do it, the entire book is written from the european perspective of, "we won because our stuff was the best." It is spectacularly shortsighted (history is not over) and biased to read the present moment as the culmination of all history.

You are right though, that is a pretty inflammatory statement, I'll have to go back and read through the book again.

So you rejected his argument outright as a matter of ideology? Hrm....

So, it is ideology when I reject the argument, but "fact" when he makes it? Just because I reject Enviro_ Determinism outright doesn't mean I don't have lots of long-winded, reasoned arguments for it. Anyway, that's why I put out the little mea culpa, to qualify my statements.
posted by jmgorman at 9:07 PM on July 11, 2005


jmgorman: You called the book "racist" (your word) -- are you claiming that Diamond is personally racist (either implicitly or explicitly)?

...if so, can you please do better than saying it isn't a far step to presume that one group is *better* than an other and arguments that naturalise abilities of races are in danger of justifying these constructs?

Because those are fairly pathetic reasons to call someone racist, and in fact could apply to you as well.
posted by aramaic at 9:33 PM on July 11, 2005


I do not believe that people behave solely according to laws defined by stimulus-response.

But you certainly must believe that they behave according to the laws of physics, and maybe even those of biology..... If a people didn't have access to horses, they were at a military disadvantage. If they were geographically isolated, they were unable to trade, and subject to the rapid spread of deadly infections. In purely objective terms, these are real, quantifiable disadvantages.

If there is a perceived privilege it is exactly that - a socially constructed perception.

Yeah, tell the Aztecs that the advantage of the invading Spanish armies was a socially constructed perception. Come back to Tenochtitlan, boys! Sorry about the perception that your society was completely wiped out!

Yes, his analysis could apply, but he doesn't do it, the entire book is written from the european perspective of, "we won because our stuff was the best."

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you're misremembering the book. But you're misremembering the book. There's little, if anything, said about the past 500 years of history, and no conclusions drawn about Western Europe versus other Eurasian cultures.

It is spectacularly shortsighted (history is not over) and biased to read the present moment as the culmination of all history.

Speaking of perception..... I'm pretty sure this point of view is entirely in your head.
posted by mr_roboto at 10:53 PM on July 11, 2005


If I understand jmgorman correctly, I think it'd be more accurate to criticize Guns, Germs, and Steel for being deterministic, rather than racist.

It is spectacularly shortsighted (history is not over) and biased to read the present moment as the culmination of all history.

Diamond certainly doesn't adhere to this view. See this MetaFilter thread for an example: Diamond argues that adopting agriculture was a terrible mistake, that hunter-gatherer societies are much better places to live than agricultural societies, if you look at things like nutrition, leisure time, and political oppression.
posted by russilwvong at 11:13 PM on July 11, 2005


I think it's mistake to say that Diamond theory states that groups of people in different geographic locations had different abilities. Possibilities are what he's talking about. It's not possible for a society to develop steel tools if there is no raw material available. More importantly, it's not possible if there is nobody with enough spare time to dedicate to the task.

After having watched the first episode, the case of the New Guinea farmers jumps to mind. In order for your society to develop technologies that are not directly related to farming, you must, of course, have the raw materials available to help you create them, but you also need enough food stored up to feed the people who are no longer working the farms but are instead developing other skills.

Every early society that advanced past simple farming was able to do so because of surplus food.
posted by pmbuko at 12:40 AM on July 12, 2005


You know, I'm a peculiar guy. I despise racism, but that somehow doesn't keep me from despising people who holler "racism" every time they see something they disagree with. Diamond not only talks the talk, he walks the walk; he's on friendly terms with a great many New Guineans and has learned several of their languages (you can see him conversing on easy terms with them in the program). He is very clearly not the Great White Hunter condescending to the native bearers; one reason he embarked on his search for the root causes of unequal development is his puzzlement that such smart, adaptive people hadn't gotten farther than they had. He says the New Guineans he's worked with are as capable as anyone he's known and have taught him much of what he knows, and he clearly means it. He's the exact opposite of a racist, and to call him one because you quarrel with his view of history is contemptible. In my humble opinion.
posted by languagehat at 6:06 AM on July 12, 2005 [1 favorite]


I watched this last night, and was surprised at how elementary and simplistic it was-- this doesn't mean that I disagree with Diamond in the least (on the contrary) but just that I had thought all this stuff was completely obvious. I learned in Grade Six that food surpluses permit cultural specialization and the development of material culture (monuments, temples, the longhouses of the B.C. Coast First Nations, religious castes), and the rest seemed pretty straightforward for anyone with an interest in economics and history, or who had even a passing acquaintance with Marx. It's all about resources. What's there to argue with? The only quibble I really had with the show was that it focused on 'guns, germs, and steel' without mentioning that other engine of social development: the patriarchy, i.e. the control of women's fertility.
posted by jokeefe at 7:32 AM on July 12, 2005


The only quibble I really had with the show was that it focused on 'guns, germs, and steel' without mentioning that other engine of social development: the patriarchy, i.e. the control of women's fertility.

It's part 1 of 3, jokeefe. He'll get to that.
posted by jefgodesky at 7:47 AM on July 12, 2005


I don't know if Jared Diamond is a racist. I would expect that he is not (of course I expect that most people are not and am too often suprised to find that they are) and was wrong to personally characterise him as such. My apologies.

I still maintain that his environmental determinism is wrong and the effect of naturalising racial differences is wrong. If it isn't racism it is akin to it and may serve to promote and justify it.

Diamond may not talk much about eurasian societies in the last 500 years, but they are clearly his point of reference. Every point he makes is, in a larger way, a comparison with europe and its advances. The idea that one may "advance" beyond simple farming is clearly biased. Is farming so low and schlepping away in an office so high that we should feel privileged to be so advanced.

I find the whole thing to be condescending and spectacularly shallow for a book that contends to be about "human societies."
posted by jmgorman at 7:48 AM on July 12, 2005


BTW - How was the show? I feel bad arguing about the book in the context of the show when I cannot even watch it.
posted by jmgorman at 7:50 AM on July 12, 2005


Is farming so low and schlepping away in an office so high that we should feel privileged to be so advanced.

Where do you get this stuff, jmgorman? You're completely mischaracterizing Diamond's perspective... did you ever make it past that introduction?

You're right about one thing, in a sense. Diamond doesn't like farming much. But he's also not a huge fan of much that came after it.

If you want to condemn Diamond for eurocentrism, maybe you should read _Collapse_. Diamond's even harsher on the Europeans (and their Montana descendants) there than he was in GG+S. It's a pretty damn dry read, though -- good points, but it doesn't flow as well as GG+S.
posted by gurple at 9:35 AM on July 12, 2005


The transcript for episode 1 may be found here, jmgorman. You might want to check it out and reconsider your interpretation of the book.

Here's a short passage:

Jared Diamond: To me, any explanation based on race is absurd. I know too many really smart New Guineans to believe there’s anything genetically inferior about them. It’s their ingenuity and their quickness to learn that have always impressed me. They can go empty-handed into some of the most difficult environments on earth, knock up a shelter in a few hours and survive. I wouldn’t know where to start. In this environment I’d be helpless without them. So why didn’t these ingenious people invent metal tools, or build great cities, or develop any of the other trappings of modern civilization?

AND

Jared Diamond: I’d reached a moment of realization. Farming was clearly crucial to the story of human inequality. But, just as important was the type of farming. People around the world who had access to the most productive crops became the most productive farmers.
Voiceover: Ultimately it came down to geographic luck.

THEREFORE

Jared Diamond: When I first came to New Guinea in the 1960s, people were still using stone tools like this axe in parts of the island, and before European arrival, people were using stone tools everywhere in New Guinea. So why didn’t New Guinea develop metal tools by itself? And eventually I realized that to have metalworking specialists who can figure out how to smelt copper and iron, requires that the rest of the people in the society who were farmers, be able to generate enough food surpluses to feed them.

Voiceover: But New Guinea agriculture was not productive enough [because of the crops available to them] to generate those food surpluses, and the result was no specialists, no metalworkers, and no metal tools.
posted by kingfisher, his musclebound cat at 10:16 AM on July 12, 2005


The genetic difference between so-called races is tiny (<.1% if i'm recalling correctly)

Would you be ok with changing 0.1% of your child's chromosones, or would that make a significant difference?
posted by yerfatma at 12:58 PM on July 12, 2005


>Oooh - neat-o. Will the miniseries be as racist and full of holes as the book?

>Yes, his analysis could apply, but he doesn't do it, the entire book is written from the european perspective of, "we won because our stuff was the best."

That is spectacularly, egregiously full of shit. Did you even read the same book I did, jmgorman? Honestly, I didn't want to flame you, but it sounds from your arguments upthread as if you've read a negative review of the book, but never bothered with the book itself.

To dismiss his argument as 'environmental determinism' is to simplify it in order to dismiss it. Which you've clearly done.

I'm not saying Diamond is right -- that takes more learning than I have -- but your dismissals and 'arguments' don't seem based at all on the actual text, and do him a great disservice.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 7:34 PM on July 12, 2005


From the first episode: According to Jared Diamond, Americans have had an advantage over New Guineans because for centuries they’ve grown crops that are more nutritious and productive. Crops like wheat, which provides about a fifth of all the calories they eat. The wealth of modern America could never have been sustained by taro and bananas.

This statement strangely foreshadows his latest book, Collapse!

I also have a lot of important, scientific objections to the PBS special, but since it doubled the historical total number of minutes devoted to PNG in primetime in the US, I will overlook them.
posted by ~rschram at 10:12 PM on July 12, 2005


What stavros said.
posted by languagehat at 6:19 AM on July 13, 2005


For shame. The evil pirates have done it again. Apparently they are releasing the episodes of this show as they come out! With only the help of a bittorrent client you can download the first episode here. Please do not download the episode, because that would be wrong, unethical and possibly illegal. Link only provided as an example of the depravities on the internet. This poster does not condone any sort of piracy (except the kind where you actually hijack ships.)
posted by lazy-ville at 9:18 AM on July 13, 2005


jmgorman, confess! You never read the book. I did and I can't for an instant think you've done more than read a negative review by a crackpot that can't differentiate between a book that can be used to argue for environmental determinism and one that specifically excludes all possibilities but environmental determinism. Jared never truly throws out culture, but he does make a compelling argument that the environment can curtail culture's development. Of course, the case for or against environmental determinism is nothing compared to your completely daft accusation of racism.
posted by john at 1:03 PM on July 13, 2005


« Older Oh Thank Heaven.   |   "Was it all a dream...F911" Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments