I watched the doco and listened to one great lecture that I found more interesting than the docu. And thus far found Jared Diamond's theory to be fascinating - "Diamond argues that Eurasian civilization is not so much a product of ingenuity, but of opportunity and necessity. That is, civilization is not created out of sheer will or intelligence, but is the result of a chain of developments, each made possible by certain preconditions." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guns,_Germs,_and_Steel

 

Has anyone bothered to read the book? Any views?

It seems a bit trivial to say that environmental factors will have a determining influence on a culture - if anything the negate would be taking an anthropocentric view to an absurd extreme.

It seems a bit trivial to say that environmental factors will have a determining influence on a culture - if anything the negate would be taking an anthropocentric view to an absurd extreme.

 

I suppose what's not trivial is the explanation of exactly what environmental factors had the largest impacts on the various populations that hold power...and those that don't?

I read the book a while back — I think it's very good, other than Diamond's annoying tendency to repeat himself. (I'm currently reading Collapse, which suffers from the same flaw but is otherwise also very good)

Ditto swansont's review, and I'd like to add that even "obvious" ideas need to be tested. It's basic scientific rigor, and you'd be surprised how often they turn out to be wrong.

It seems a bit trivial to say that environmental factors will have a determining influence on a culture - if anything the negate would be taking an anthropocentric view to an absurd extreme.

 

What Diamond does is explain these environmental factors in some detail, and shows what the differences are in some superficially similar settings. e.g. it's not enough to have the same climate to expect two civilizations to advance in similar fashion — one needs access to other regions with similar climates, which was facilitated in Eurasia but prevented in Africa and the Americas.

I've read it. I found his analysis very persuasive, but I have too little exposure to that kind of anthropology to trust my own evaluation. What criticisms I've seen seem to focus on minor exceptions, but it seemed to me he was always speaking in very broad terms, which are still valid.

The only thing I found obviously unreliable (in the Docu) was the talk about Captain Pizarro leading 170 conquistadors to victory against 80000 Incas! Look, I can believe the microbes hypothesis being primarily responsible for this victory, but not the talk of horses, muskets and swords. I think Captain Pizarro ensured a over inflated legend for himself.