Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Jared Diamond: A Reply to His Critics

blog.daviskedrosky.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 168 posts

Re: Jared Diamond: A Reply to His Critics

#81

Post by boringuser2 »

Guns, Germs and Steel is ridiculous nonsense and an horrific just so story to explain European supremacy for a bulk of the modern era. I'd sooner listen to Jared Taylor than Jared Diamond, because at least the former's hypothesis is somewhat intellectually sound.

It also has laughable, extremely racist tidbits such as Jared Diamonds unironic opinion that, on a genetic basis, people of Papua New Guinea are "superior" to Europeans, where he cited industrialization as dysgenic.

Absurd.

Re: Jared Diamond: A Reply to His Critics

#82

Post by FrustratedMonky »

worik wrote: post #72
FrustratedMonky wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are quoting his thesis in the wrong order. He is not saying Europeans are 'dominant for ever'. He is saying that because of geography, etc... that Europeans developed technology faster, which gave them a head start, and that head start has perpetuated, exactly because that is what a head start does. Not that it can't even out in time, like a ripple. I think his thesis is totally compatible with saying "if New Gui…

> . And Europeans just lucked into it. That is your interpretation, and mine Not his His was that the geography of Europe is special But it is not. Even in his speciality, geography, he gets it wrong Because he cannot bear that "...Europeans just lucked into it. "

Been awhile for me also. But wasn't it more about East-West Trade. And that 'cross-fertilization' would help everyone across that path, the rising tide raises all boats. So at some point China or Persia also had a chance to leap ahead, but for other factors. I don't think it was a given that Europe would 'win' the technology race. Though, now my memory fails me on what was the deciding factor.

But given that humans are equal, with a equal history of violence and conquest. If geography was not a factor. Then what was? We can't just blame Europeans for being successful. If we can't find any external factors, then we are left with internal, and then we'd have to do some logic around what makes them specifically different. Culture? Genes? Those also don't seem correct.

Re: Jared Diamond: A Reply to His Critics

#83

Post by FrustratedMonky »

worik wrote: post #74
prepend wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> He makes up a story about why Europeans are dominant, not dominant now, in this time, but forever. He never claims the dominance will last forever. He just presents theories as to why Europeans are dominant now (or were 40 years ago when the book as published at least). It’s not racist to try to explain why Europe conquered New Guinea and not the other way around. It’s racist to say that’s a good thing or destined…

> It’s not racist to try to explain why Europe conquered New Guinea and not the other way around. What is racist is to say it happened for a reason, not blind luck

Isn't that opposite.

If all humans are equal, and one group wins, then it was either external factors or luck.

But if it is not luck or external reasons, then isn't that racist, because now you are saying Europeans are somehow genetically different (better), or have a better culture, and that is what caused their success?

I think you are mixing possible reasons. There are non-racist reasons.

Re: Jared Diamond: A Reply to His Critics

#85

Post by FrustratedMonky »

worik wrote: post #56
George83728 wrote: post #12

I never bought into the claims that Jared Diamond is some sort of racist; he book is plainly anti-racist and anybody who says otherwise probably never read it. Honestly. That said, some of Jared Diamond's arguments are really lame.. just poorly thought out. For instance, is claim that the use of wheels for transportation is in some way gated by the availability of pack animals. This guy has never used a wheel barrow…

> book is plainly anti-racist and anybody who says otherwise probably never read it. I read it. It is deeply racist as none of the argument makes sense unless you look from a European POV from the end of the twentieth-century It so happens that the industrial revolution happened in England and not India, and a bunch of European gangsters went on a three hundred year world wide rampage that is coming to an ignoble end…

I think you are agreeing with him.

Your quote > "It so happens that the industrial revolution happened in England and not India, and a bunch of European gangsters went on a three hundred year world wide rampage that is coming to an ignoble end now"

This is exactly what happened. The book agrees with this.

That is not being argued against.

What he is discussing is 'why did the industrial revolution happen in England?'. What lead up to that. Not that they didn't do bad things once they had the technology.

Re: Jared Diamond: A Reply to His Critics

#86

Post by specialist »

worik wrote: post #72
FrustratedMonky wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are quoting his thesis in the wrong order. He is not saying Europeans are 'dominant for ever'. He is saying that because of geography, etc... that Europeans developed technology faster, which gave them a head start, and that head start has perpetuated, exactly because that is what a head start does. Not that it can't even out in time, like a ripple. I think his thesis is totally compatible with saying "if New Gui…

> . And Europeans just lucked into it. That is your interpretation, and mine Not his His was that the geography of Europe is special But it is not. Even in his speciality, geography, he gets it wrong Because he cannot bear that "...Europeans just lucked into it. "

Diamond's geography thesis is that migration is easier east-west than north-south, not that Europe is (otherwise) special. (Until the UK figured out how to use their island made of coal to make steam and steel at scale.)

Re: Jared Diamond: A Reply to His Critics

#88

Post by yyyk »

FrustratedMonky wrote: post #76
yyyk wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>It has been awhile but think the Vikings had more variables, like weather that prevented fishing This was categorically refuted by bone analysis showing that Vikings did eat seaborne food[0]. The current hypothesis is that the fish bones were used to feed animals or burnt. The more important point that the thesis was absurd in the first place. The Vikings were seafarers, and we have no record of any such taboos. You…

Have an upvote. I can't argue the fish. The settlements did fail though, right? So something happened. Doesn't he also outline poor soil and over-grazing, and the climate change when warm period ended. It is possible that there were enough negative variables that fishing alone couldn't save it. And it is a 26 year old book, so maybe he was speculating on what was known at the time. Like if it did fail, and they were…

>The settlements did fail though, right? So something happened.

The area was already very marginally habitable for humans. In the same general area, the Dorset Eskimos also died off (in their case, we aren't entirely sure which century that happened), so even specially adapted cultures had serious trouble. Maybe it always had little slack.

If I had to take a very wild guess: What changed was the Little Ice Age making conditions even worse. Maybe plague played a part too (though I can't substantiate that). Eventually enough people died to make the society not work (you need a certain number to maintain a complex society). Perhaps the reminder decided to leave, but with no food stocks the sea journey failed... Or perhaps they died in place, having nowhere to go. Grim either way.

> pretty sure there was a counter-counter addendum to the book on Easter Island. He published on his web site a new chapter re-discussing the latest theories on Easter Island.

Can't find anything on his current website. I'll try more thoroughly later.

Re: Jared Diamond: A Reply to His Critics

#89

Post by perardi »

FrustratedMonky wrote: post #38
api wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I always get a little suspicious of big nonfiction books arguing some big thesis that arrive with fawning reviews from all the right places and whose authors immediately get crowned as important public intellectuals. These books often seem to have a life cycle: sensation, canon, “but wait a minute,” and then lastly forgotten. I figure the initial splash might mean the author just knows the right people in New York. T…

This seems more like sour grapes. Is "A Brief History of Time" in this category? Who's to say. There are a ton of non-fiction books that are written for popular audiences that do not make it big. If they are all equal, than all the ones that don't make it should also end up being wrong. That doesn't seem right, why is it only the ones that do become popular must turn out wrong. This seems more like moralizing on the…

“A Brief History of Time” is a standout here, as it’s dealing with really well-defined, well-studied, well-tested physics theories. (Well, except for Grand Unification stuff.)

But Diamond’s work, and other authors that are in this middle-brow reviewed-in-The New Yorker mold, deals with really complex sociology and psychology, which aren’t reducible to equations. (There’s no Lorentz transformation for colonialism.) Malcom Gladwell really comes right to mind here—lot of pop-sci stuff which gets in all the right publications and then ends up being just wrong in all the ways.

Re: Jared Diamond: A Reply to His Critics

#90

Post by prepend »

worik wrote: post #77
prepend wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It was explicitly written with a European POC at the end of the 20th century. What else would you expect? That doesn’t make something racist if you’re European writing during that period. Should all books by euros from 1950-2000 be discarded? I’m not sure I understand your argument.

He mistook his post hoc analysis for historical and geographical determinism Not all writers do that

I think the geographical determinism is the whole point though, right?

That’s the argument is that geography contributed heavily to what we have today. Not that we’ll have this forever.

I remember reading about the East/West spread vs North/South spread of technology and it seems clever to me.

Post reply on HN