dichotomy Posted August 9, 2009 Share Posted August 9, 2009 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the tree Posted August 9, 2009 Share Posted August 9, 2009 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dichotomy Posted August 9, 2009 Author Share Posted August 9, 2009 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted August 9, 2009 Share Posted August 9, 2009 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) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mokele Posted August 10, 2009 Share Posted August 10, 2009 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted August 10, 2009 Share Posted August 10, 2009 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sisyphus Posted August 10, 2009 Share Posted August 10, 2009 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dichotomy Posted August 13, 2009 Author Share Posted August 13, 2009 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now