The Book GUNS, GERMS AND STEEL

[Genghis Pwn]

So I just finished reading this book. While I found much of it informative, I also have some grave misgivings about the book´s outlook and conclusions. I really enjoyed and learned a lot from the author Jared Diamond´s last book, THE THIRD CHIMPANZEE. But GUNS, GERMS AND STEEL basically seems like one long laundry list of excuses why Aboriginees, Native Americans and black Africans were conquered by Europeans and Asians, and not the other way around.

First of all, Diamond starts the book telling us that he has spent 20 years in New Guinea doing research and making lifelong friends there. On the first page Diamond tells us that, in his opinion, New Guineans on average are SMARTER than Europeans. From then on, I was on guard against the author´s intellectual bias... which totally sucks when you are trying learn from, and enjoy, a book.

Like I said, the book seems to give little credit to Eurasians (like it was all so easy for them), while making literally hundreds of excuses for primative people--like the Africans, who never even invented the wheel thoughout all of history, until European explorers told them about it a few hundred years ago.

Diamond claims, for example, that Asian large mammals were much easier to domesticate than African big mammals. He says the African zebra and bush pig were too badly tempered to tame and domesticate. I guess he assumes that wild horses in Asia were a bunch of nice guys, just waiting to join forces with their human friends so they could work their asses off for the rest of eternity!! Or that wild asian pigs were friendly little fellows ready to devote their lives to their new masters´ dinner table. I have never met a friendly wild pig in my life!

It really makes me doubt some of his major assertions. Diamond flatly states several times that his excuses show us that one group of peoples were not better or "smarter" than others. But if that is one of the questions he sought to answer, why not take human intelligence into account? He never mentions books such as the BELL CURVE, nor did he do any cognitive research to be able to back up his assertions that germs, native plants and animals, and climate completely determined how fast civilizations progressed in relation to one another. This seems very dishonest to me.

Did anyone else notice any of these things?

 

[arcticpenguin]

Yes.

I also thought the book was repetitive and redundant and repetitive and redundant.

He presents some interesting ideas, but with no way to substantiate them they are little better than 'just so' stories.

I think his claim about the intelligence of New Guineans vs. Europeans is that they still face constant selection due to their harsh habitat, while, let's face it, you don't have to be brilliant to survive in a modern western culture.

 

[Genghis Pwn]

Lol, care to elaborate?

 

[arcticpenguin]

Lol, care to elaborate?

Sure. I think you should have chosen a slightly different user name: Genghis Prawn. If you prefer it, Hal is pretty open to name changes.

 

[arcticpenguin]

Also,

I apologise for elaborating by editing, as it makes your response appear irrelevant.

 

[bignickel]

I thought the book presented interesting ideas, and backed them up pretty well. I found it well-researched, and found the arguments well-reasoned.

Don't know what higher compliments I can give the book than that, except to say: I wish that there was a version of this book I could give my mother to read. She gave up in the first chapter.

As for 'not giving enough credit to Eurasians', "A human is a human is a human." Do you think differently, Genghis?

It would be nice if we discovered an alternate Earth where the Eurasian's main sources of proteins were sumpweed and rodents, but alas, the only thing we have for now is speculation.

 

[Frostbite]

I read half of it and it's been rotting on my bookshelf for 6 months. It's just boring.

 

[Genghis Pwn]

I thought the book presented interesting ideas, and backed them up pretty well. I found it well-researched, and found the arguments well-reasoned.

Don't know what higher compliments I can give the book than that, except to say: I wish that there was a version of this book I could give my mother to read. She gave up in the first chapter.

As for 'not giving enough credit to Eurasians', "A human is a human is a human." Do you think differently, Genghis?

It would be nice if we discovered an alternate Earth where the Eurasian's main sources of proteins were sumpweed and rodents, but alas, the only thing we have for now is speculation.

Well, I mean the author goes out of his way to proclaim that "intelligence" had nothing to do with why some geographic or "racial" groups took quickly to science and others did not. He gives us 200 other reasons, but never bothers mention any research or science dismissing intelligence as a factor. While I understand and agree with most of the assertions Diamond puts forward in GERMS, it really bothers me that he would be so reckless in terms of logic, science and reason. Or maybe, as I honestly suspect, this book suffers from his personal biases, and a big old dose of "political correctness."

Science has no place for either.

 

[Frostbite]

Screw that book. I'd recommend the Lucifer Principle by Howard Bloom. Well then again, I havent read a lot of books, but to me it made a lot of sense. Bloom puts forward the idea that evolution and a specie's development comes from competition from within and from without. A stagnant or isolated specie simply has no motivation to surpass itself and therefore gradually degenerates and dies. That's why eventually, you get polarity; a specie or culture splits in two and the two sides compete. Bloom suggests that "evil" is what motivates the evolution and development of a specie.

 

[Genghis Pwn]

"Lucifer Principle", huh? I´ll have to check that out.

 

[bignickel]

Not sure if I understand where you're coming from. Is it

1. Hammegk's 'A human is not a human is not a human'

or

2. "I agree with his ideas, but he was very horribly sloppy and illogical in how he got to them."

 

[Genghis Pwn]

What I´m saying is, there was clearly information in the book that was good and informative. Lots of anecdotes and little gems of popular science. My problem is that I feel like the author approached the overall subject with bias; possibly personal bias, maybe a bad case of political correctness; or both.

I was just wondering if others who have read the book had similar thoughts to mine, or if they thought the book was intellectually honest. From page one my guard was WAY UP... and I never do that reading a book. In fact, it was so bad that I nearly quit the book. It´s kind of like a love relationship--if you can´t trust your partner (the author), it´s not a very good experience.

 

[Darwin]

Good thing you produced this thread.
I´ve run to this book online a few times and this offers me enough of information on how to deal with it-stay away from it.
I think I will publish a similar thread on my own.

 

[GrapeJ713]

I found the book informative and it did get repetitive later on, I skipped a few chapters in the last third of the book. I guess he didn't want to put anything in the book that could be construed as politically incorrect so he could sell more books. The Bell Curve authors caught hell for being racist and bad scientists. I forget the name of this other guy I have heard about recently that is saying that intelligence is mostly an inherited genetic trait and that all the wonderful schooling in the world won't make the vast majority darker shades of brown people as smart or smarter than the vast majority of european and east asian descendants. I think he is catching a lot of hell too. I think Diamond had some good points that might explain the reason why natural selection in Europe and Asia resulted in more smart people than the descendants of hunter-gatherer tribes in other parts of the world. Also, he did have a very good point about how far more advanced India and China were than medieval Europe at one time. And how the less competition of the 'One Really Big Country' governments there, instead of the smaller nation states in Europe where countries had to be as advanced as nieghboring countries or they would get taken over led to greater advances by Europe later on.
That is what I got from the book, I read it 4 years ago.

 

[Cain]

Pwn... do you happen to play CS/NS/TFC/DoD?

I really enjoyed and learned a lot from the author Jared Diamond´s last book, THE THIRD CHIMPANZEE. But GUNS, GERMS AND STEEL basically seems like one long laundry list of excuses why Aboriginees, Native Americans and black Africans were conquered by Europeans and Asians, and not the other way around.

Ah, yes, "excuses". So the conquest, slaughter, and enslavement of Aborginees, Native Americans and black(?) Africans must be the result not of environmental circumstances, but perhaps some superior intelligence. Yeah, where have I heard this before...?

First of all, Diamond starts the book telling us that he has spent 20 years in New Guinea doing research and making lifelong friends there. On the first page Diamond tells us that, in his opinion, New Guineans on average are SMARTER than Europeans.

What were his exact words? I've read Diamond's famous article originally printed in Discover ten years ago (and reprinted extensively), titled "The Arrow of Disease": "When Columbus and his successors invaded the Americas, the most potent weapon they carried was their germs. But why didn't deadly disease flow in the other direction?"

Like I said, the book seems to give little credit to Eurasians (like it was all so easy for them), while making literally hundreds of excuses for primative people--like the Africans, who never even invented the wheel thoughout all of history, until European explorers told them about it a few hundred years ago.

Those stupid black people.

Diamond claims, for example, that Asian large mammals were much easier to domesticate than African big mammals. He says the African zebra and bush pig were too badly tempered to tame and domesticate. I guess he assumes that wild horses in Asia were a bunch of nice guys, just waiting to join forces with their human friends so they could work their asses off for the rest of eternity!!

You assume a great deal. This sort of comparative analysis is by no means unique to Diamond. I can cite at least one other work, _Ecological Imperialism: The ecological expansion of europe from 900 to 1900_ by Alfred Crosby (originally published in 1986). Crosby compares the success of europen conquest in temeprate climates (Australia, present day United States) lacking distinct ecosystems and large predatory animals.

Or that wild asian pigs were friendly little fellows ready to devote their lives to their new masters´ dinner table. I have never met a friendly wild pig in my life!

I shouldn't have to point out that your limited experiences are not very convincing...

It really makes me doubt some of his major assertions. Diamond flatly states several times that his excuses show us that one group of peoples were not better or "smarter" than others. But if that is one of the questions he sought to answer, why not take human intelligence into account? He never mentions books such as the BELL CURVE, nor did he do any cognitive research to be able to back up his assertions that germs, native plants and animals, and climate completely determined how fast civilizations progressed in relation to one another. This seems very dishonest to me.

Perhaps he never mentions the _Bell Curve_ because it's strongly refuted pseudo-sciencientific pabulum. *shrug* I confess this is only speculation, however.

GrapeJ wrote:

I guess he didn't want to put anything in the book that could be construed as politically incorrect so he could sell more books.

Wildly speculative nonsense.

 

[GrapeJ713]

Re: Re: The Book GUNS, GERMS AND STEEL

Wildly speculative nonsense.

Wildly speculative I would agree with.
I don't see how it's nonsense, it could be a reason why he approached the subjet from the point of view that he did. The book was written after "The Bell Curve".
A very wild and speculative guess on my part, it could be nonsense, but maybe not.

 

[Cain]

Let's be clear once again about what you're saying:

I guess he didn't want to put anything in the book that could be construed as politically incorrect so he could sell more books.

First of all, you're speculating, without an inkling of evidence, that Diamond altered the content of his book to sell more copies. That's ridiculous.

Second, it's plain stupid. A racially charge book with a right-wing, anti-pic bent would most certainly sell more copies, especially coming from a respected academic (unlike AEI "scholars" like Murray and D'Souza).

 

[Genghis Pwn]

Lol, it looks like a crusader of political correctness has already decided to descend on this thread in order to impede any real intellectual debate.

Cain, by saying things like "Those stupic black peope" you are showing an inability to debate the subjects at hand on their merits. Stop throwing around subtle and not-so-subtle accusations of racism. That, or please leave this thread.

Apparently you haven´t even read GUNS, GERMS AND STEEL, so why are you here throwing around blanket nonsensical statements about its conclusions?

I have read the "Bell Curve" cover to cover, twice. The book has had a tremendous impact in racial, genetic and sociolgical circles, even if people such as yourself feel content to dismiss it as "pseudo-sciencientific pabulum" without saying why. The "Bell Cruve" seemed very simple, straightforward and conclusive to me. I mean, the stats of the IQ scores are simply beyond refute. Even after liberal scientists attempted to retool the Stanford-Binet IQ test to give ADVANTAGE to blacks and peoples from primitive societies, they still scored far below other "racial" groups, such as whites and asians.

If Diamond´s point was to show that disease, climate, plants, animals, etc, were responsible for one group of people advancing far beyond other groups, he should at least seek to disprove the most obvious answer -- that one group might have been a little brighter than others. There is not one credible person on earth today who believes whites are on average better basketball players than blacks. So if balcks have a clear and obvious edge in leg power, why is it impossible to believe that whites or asians might have a bit of an edge in brainpower?

 

[Earthborn]

If Diamond´s point was to show that disease, climate, plants, animals, etc, were responsible for one group of people advancing far beyond other groups, he should at least seek to disprove the most obvious answer -- that one group might have been a little brighter than others.

Okay, let's assume for a moment you are right, and blacks are (on average) less intelligent than whites. (Ignoring for a moment that Africa has the largest variety of people in the world, with for example both the tallest and the shortest people, darkest and quite light people being African, while their most important similarity between them is that they tend to be darker than Europeans)

Suppose you are right about it. If we draw a bell curve for the Europeans it will be shifted more to the right than the bell curve for the Africans. It shows that the greatest intellects are almost all white. However...

More closely to the the average intelligence, there is a huge overlap. The vast majority of people fall somwhere in the middle and this means that for the vast majority it doesn't make any difference whether they are black or white and their intelligence is comparable.

Now ask yourself: if the intelligence of the vast majority of people isn't so different from that of another people, why is one people more successful than another? It means that there have been other factors...

I don't believe that Europeans were so much more advanced than the people they encountered during colonization. Only their sea faring abilities were superior. But once you have a slight edge over others, you can increase that edge, which is true of all sorts of things: VHS won, not because it was superior, but because it had a slight advantage on the market, which made it win in the end. Same thing with white people: if some African tribe was just a little bit faster with sea faring, we piggy-pink people would now be demanding reperations for being the decendants of slaves, from our African imperialists.

 

[bignickel]

Ah, so it is
'Hammegk's 'A human is not a human is not a human'

Well, anyways: The assumption by 'learned men' for centuries has been that the 'lower' races were not as smart as the 'upper' races. For racial reasons. They then point to conquest here and conquest there, and say: case closed. (then phrenology shows up later to just add icing to the cake).

Along comes Jarod Diamond, who says: Whoa. No one has yet bothered to prove that the 'lower' races are less intelligent, or that there is even such a thing as a 'lower' race. As to why one continent conquered another... why don't we examine this, and see where that takes us?

And so Jarod is the one being PC?

The proponents of the PC hypothesis fail to realize (or refuse to) that PC has always been around. Whatever group is around: their vision becomes PC.

It's been PC for the last several hundred years to believe that the 'lower' races are less intelligent. That there's a jewish 'cabal' controlling the world'. That women don't deserve equal rights. Well, things change as different groups assume power. I can't see how any excesses of current PC can ever compete with what went before it.