Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Grizzly on June 20, 2011, 05:24:30 am
-
I am currently reading trough a book called "Guns, Germs and Steel". Since I have the time to do so, mainly. The book tries to explain why history unfolded as it did, with the western states gaining quite a bit of power.
I have not progressed that far into the book, but Jared Daimond, the book's author, implies that it is the enviroment where a civilization starts out is the determining factor, as opposed to, say, culture (Which is determined by the enviroment) and genetics.
He also made an interesting point in his prologue, reckoning that if there are more intelligent and less intelligent races, the western ones are certainly not the most intelligent ones (Which appear to be implied during the last race, genetics and intelligence discussion). He bases this on evolution: Europeans, having a vast agricultre, live in an much easier enviroment, but bunched up. Selection takes place on the ability to survive rapidly spreading diseases. In a (former) hunter-gatherer society, the selection would take place mainly on intelligence, for one needs to be intelligent in order to survive with limited means and resources.
-
I believe this is somewhat simplified, as it overlooks the fact that living bunched up is an excellent way to cause people to kill each other intentionally. Or unintentionally.
-
And then there is greater competition between a "bunched up" people.
I mean take Greece vs Persia.
Or the whole Europe, riddled with different competing countries.
I think this explanation is easier and best.
-
Europeans, having a vast agricultre, live in an much easier enviroment,
Given how crappy the winters are in Europe I would hardly consider it "easier".
-
This book is old but good, and contains a lot of interesting theories. I really enjoyed it about ten years back.
I think the single best notion in the book is the idea that Eurasia as a continent provides major advantages to its civilizations because it's oriented horizontally, not vertically - which means crops adjusted to a certain latitude can be used all along its length.
-
Oh hey I read this book. It was pretty cool, reminds me of playing Civ.
-
Jared Diamond's book contains rather interesting points that are supported by research. What it comes to his writing style then, my personal feeling is that the book could be halved and nothing would be missed, but that's just me.
As Battuta mentioned, I also found the rationale behind why continents longer in East-West direction tend to develop faster than the continents longer in South-North direction one of the most interesting discussion points in the book. Also note that other continents did not have as much animals that could be tamed, or plants that could be cultivated.
Diamond is likely correct in his comment that people in a smaller communities might be smarter than those in larger cities. Given equivalent food in nutrition values, I don't find the increased competition in a city compelling for the need for more intelligence as just living in a challenging environment - remember that humans are almost always at disadvantage compared to animals of similar size. Or perhaps the "intelligence" is a bad choice of word here, in a city you need to be able to compete better with people and observe current trends, while in rural area it is different. Knowledge of surrounding environment is quite important as well as cooperating with the people that are important to you - and the more hostile the environment, the more friendly the people tend to be towards each other. Hunting does require intelligence too, coordination of hunters to be at the right place at the right time is important, especially when you don't have other means of communication.
-
Mika is correct that the second half of the book is a lot weaker than the first.
-
Wait isn't that the same Diamond guy who said something interesting about the Easter Island.... let me check. Ah yeah he was.
-
I believe this is somewhat simplified, as it overlooks the fact that living bunched up is an excellent way to cause people to kill each other intentionally. Or unintentionally.
This, of course, is valid only if close proximity to other people really results in higher homicide rate per capita. According to my cursory search: Even in contemporary cultures plenty of evidence exists towards one direction or another, so it's difficult to even say if urban homicide rate is higher than rural homicide rate - in modern western societies, where we of course have lots of numerical evidence from.
-
And then there is greater competition between a "bunched up" people.
Of what resource?
I mean take Greece vs Persia.
Clarify.
Or the whole Europe, riddled with different competing countries.
Are you implying it's the countries, not the people living in it, who compete of the resources?
-
And then there is greater competition between a "bunched up" people.
Of what resource?
Of everything. Technology (mostly military at first), resources from outer colonies, culture, religion, you name it.
I mean take Greece vs Persia.
Clarify.
By "Greece" meaning the legion of isolated city states that were battling each other in every domain (again, military, cultural, etc.), toughing themselves up, viz a viz an homogeneous gargantuan Persia that was unable to win the Peloponnesian war.
Or the whole Europe, riddled with different competing countries.
Are you implying it's the countries, not the people living in it, who compete of the resources?
Are you trolling me?
-
Persia
Peloponnesian War
what
-
**** confused my history names. I didn't sleep at all last night sorry. Just the usual "Persian-greek" wars...
-
And then there is greater competition between a "bunched up" people.
Of what resource?
Of everything. Technology (mostly military at first), resources from outer colonies, culture, religion, you name it.
But the reason people live in communities is that because it allowes of better sharing of resources due to different roles in the society. It allows for more efficient agriculture, for example. It also allows people to focus on fields otherwise considered unnecessary or not worth the time. It allows for better allocation of resources because there can be a specialized class of people responsible for allocation of resources. It allows for higher level of technological developement because, aside from resource question, it also allows people to exchange ideas and technology more freely. It also increases mate encounter rate.
I mean take Greece vs Persia.
Clarify.
By "Greece" meaning the legion of isolated city states that were battling each other in every domain (again, military, cultural, etc.), toughing themselves up, viz a viz an homogeneous gargantuan Persia that was unable to win the Peloponnesian war.
The same Greek states that after that fell into decades of what could be called a civil war, only later to be annexed by more centralized powers?
Or the whole Europe, riddled with different competing countries.
Are you implying it's the countries, not the people living in it, who compete of the resources?
Are you trolling me?
I am not. I only wish to know if you think the state in somewhat vague definition is a good unit of measure for this discussion.
-
But the reason people live in communities is that because it allowes of better sharing of resources due to different roles in the society. It allows for more efficient agriculture, for example. It also allows people to focus on fields otherwise considered unnecessary or not worth the time. It allows for better allocation of resources because there can be a specialized class of people responsible for allocation of resources. It allows for higher level of technological developement because, aside from resource question, it also allows people to exchange ideas and technology more freely. It also increases mate encounter rate.
This is a completely different phenomena, one that I was not referring to, although it is a very good point too sure. More population equals more efficiency in the systems due to scale economies.
But what really rocks the boat like hell is when you have good competition. And the myriad of different countries, city states, etc. that existed in Europe in the middle ages was a constant selective pressure for imagination, technology, intelligence, economy, etc. Europe was constantly in war. That kind of pressure does foster creativity like nothing else.
The same Greek states that after that fell into decades of what could be called a civil war, only later to be annexed by more centralized powers?
Yes, exactly. I'm not saying that these states were "good", I'm saying that the competition between these states fostered an evolution unparalleled in other much more homogeneous empires. They were still pretty much fragile in their status, and were eventually anexed by the roman empire. But it is a testament to their achievements that much of the subsequent roman culture was heavily (like "dominantly") influenced by the greeks.
I am not. I only wish to know if you think the state in somewhat vague definition is a good unit of measure for this discussion.
That depends upon the scale of what we are talking about. This is like a fractal phenomena, where there is no single "unit" of measure, but lots of intermediate scales (empires, allied blocks, countries, city states, towns, movements, etc.). I was being simplistic when saying "countries", but I think the audience is sufficiently intelligent to get the hang of it.
Nevertheless, I think dividing europe in their former countries is not a bad "measure" unit for some purposes, since language was a good frontier between the peoples.
-
Wait isn't that the same Diamond guy who said something interesting about the Easter Island.... let me check. Ah yeah he was.
That was in a different book, and he what he said about it was completely wrong.
-
Yeah I am aware of the divergence of opinions on the matter.
But it's an environmental theory about the inevitable demise of mankind, therefore it is by definition right (at least that's the tone I get whenever I hear a podcast by some environmental preacher that happens to touch on this factoid)
-
Yeah I am aware of the divergence of opinions on the matter.
It isn't a matter of opinion, it's a matter of what the evidence says, which is that his theory is wrong. He also showed up on Earth 2100 (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1471346/) spouting a bunch of doom is nigh civilization is coming to an end nonsense.
-
The evidence is slim for any side. Both interpretations of the data are mostly speculative.
But I'm always amused on how doom mongerers use this example as "PROOFFF" that mankind is inevitably doomed.
Even if the story was true, it would say nothing about the thousands of other insular tribes that didn't manage to **** their environment up.