|
|
Post by dgriffin on Jul 21, 2008 10:14:06 GMT -5
One of the most interesting books I've read in the past few years is,
"Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies," by Jared Diamond. He followed it up with a book that was also quite good, "Collapse."
Anyone read either of these?
|
|
|
|
Post by Clipper on Jul 21, 2008 10:33:26 GMT -5
Not yet Dave, but every book that is mentioned on this site is going on a list of books to seek out and look at. I haven't had as much time for "serious" reading lately, but when winter comes back around, and I have completed some of my projects outside, I will be grateful for a full list of selections to peruse over the winter.
I am going to enjoy this site, along with the "Hobby site." This forum is getting better with the suggested improvements from members. the problem is clicking off of it, and getting outside and getting to work, haha.
|
|
|
|
Post by dgriffin on Jul 21, 2008 11:52:53 GMT -5
I know that, for sure. This damned Internet has cut into my reading! Gotta cool it. Just too easy to sit here. I'm getting off until late tonight!
|
|
|
|
Post by rrogers40 on Jul 21, 2008 15:25:23 GMT -5
"Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies"
I hate that book, I hate that book, I hate that book-
And I find many of his conclusions wrong (Im an Anthropology major- for the next 15 weeks then I'll be a "real" anthropologist). The guy just annoys me- especially the National Geographic Movie version.
|
|
|
|
Post by Clipper on Jul 21, 2008 16:21:23 GMT -5
I googled "Guns Germs and Steel". It sounded fairly interesting to me. I may read it at some point. I read some of the exerpts and reviews.
I myself, don't subscribe to Darwins Theory, or any of evolutionist theories. Anthropology to me, leaves a lot of room for "theory" and the scientufic evidence can be interpreted in different ways by different anthropologists.
It IS interesting in theory, but I believe in creationism. I think we were created as a human being, and apes were created as apes. I am not belittling your education or beliefs Ryan. I just have a different opinion. Anthropology is a great field to be in, and very interesting. You will have opportunities to travel the world and be paid for it.
I am afraid that I will have a list of "must reads" too long to read them all in my lifetime. This is going to be an interesting forum to visit.
|
|
|
|
Post by rrogers40 on Jul 21, 2008 16:41:11 GMT -5
I believe in evolution and such- what I don't like about his book is that its long, boring, and I think I have better answers than he does.  |
|
|
|
Post by dgriffin on Jul 22, 2008 5:29:51 GMT -5
Ryan, I didn't think the book was boring at all, but I suppose it depends upon what floats your boat. I couldn't put the book down.
OK, Diamond's first question in "Guns" is, "Why did the Spaniards come over and conquer the Incas, rather than the Inca's invading and taking over Spain?' One answer, he says, is that the east-west physical orientation of the continents in the eastern hemisphere was conducive to the propagation of similar food plants such that populations could more easily grow outward, increase and continue communications with each other as they leaned to exploit nature and and invent technologies. Over here, on this side of the Atlantic, a north-south orientation of the continents prevented the same.
What's your answer to the Inca question?
|
|
|
|
Post by dgriffin on Jul 22, 2008 5:38:41 GMT -5
It IS interesting in theory, but I believe in creationism. I think we were created as a human being, and apes were created as apes. Clip, I wouldn't say Diamond has much to say about evolution, per se, except that short-term evolution ... thousands of years and accepted by creationists that I know ... would be assumed in his writing. As for creationism, I think only a strict adherence to a literal interpretation of the Bible ... e.g. garden of eden, 6,000 year old universe, etc. ... would be at odds with the book. One could consider the timeframe of "Guns, Germs and Steel" to be after they got thrown out of the Garden. |
|
|
|
Post by dgriffin on Jul 22, 2008 5:45:26 GMT -5
The guy just annoys me- especially the National Geographic Movie version. Sounds like the way I felt about Carl Sagan. So, I can appreciate that. |
|
|
|
Post by Clipper on Jul 22, 2008 7:03:14 GMT -5
I guess I have mixed my impression that Guns Germs and Steel is about evolution, with my browsing about on Jared Diamond's writings, and the reviews and commentaries on "The Third Chimpanzee", which hints that we are closely related to the chimpanzee, sharing 98% of our genetic material with them. The remaining 2% certainly makes us a totally different species. I would have to read the book to determine if it is assumed that we evolved from the ape, or if we were simply created with similar genetic material and similar characteristics. He may not be addressing any evolutionary theory at all. I could be mistaken.
I guess it is dangerous to form opinion by reading short excerpts. Now I have TWO Jared Diamond books to try and find and read. When I finally find more time for reading, I guess I will be wearing the magnetic strip right off my library card, LOL.
|
|
|
|
Post by gearofzanzibar on Jul 22, 2008 15:15:28 GMT -5
"Guns, Germs, and Steel" is a great read even if I disagree with almost all of Diamond's conclusions. From my point of view it's hard to see the book as anything other than an ornate apology for the triumph of the West, but the way he lays out his case is still a fascinating bit of work. If nothing else it's a great jumping off point for further reading on the development of technology and "civilization".
|
|
|
|
Post by dgriffin on Jul 22, 2008 17:05:46 GMT -5
Although my memory is fading fast, I've read a bit on evolution and natural selection, but I'm not well versed in anthropology. So I may certainly learn something if anyone can tell me Diamond's specific errors. I didn't accept everything he wrote as gospel truth and I'll admit "Collapse" had its "just so" moments. . Regarding his style, I'd often hear Carl Sagan chanting through his nose , "millions and millions and billions ..." in the background. But regarding "Guns," as a neophyte I found his arguments most times sensible and often compelling.
Gear, your comment, "it's hard to see the book as anything other than an ornate apology for the triumph of the West ..." really surprises me. That aroma didn't come across to me.
Also, I have a couple of questions that have always bothered me about the populating of North and South America, if anyone is open to tutoring me.
|
|
|
|
Post by rrogers40 on Jul 22, 2008 18:15:21 GMT -5
Ryan, I didn't think the book was boring at all, but I suppose it depends upon what floats your boat. I couldn't put the book down. OK, Diamond's first question in "Guns" is, "Why did the Spaniards come over and conquer the Incas, rather than the Inca's invading and taking over Spain?' One answer, he says, is that the east-west physical orientation of the continents in the eastern hemisphere was conducive to the propagation of similar food plants such that populations could more easily grow outward, increase and continue communications with each other as they leaned to exploit nature and and invent technologies. Over here, on this side of the Atlantic, a north-south orientation of the continents prevented the same. What's your answer to the Inca question? Like you say (and I agree): what ever floats your boat. Personally I am reminded that we are the bread basket of the world and that we are extremely rich in iron ore. I think development of weapons was based more on the fact that the American Indians had not as much time to develop is one answer. As well as the lucky chance that China Developed gun powder. And the luck that the Europeans wanted to trade with the west indies. I guess he does give the basic ideas and lays a foundation however, I think that the various discussions that I've had (in which his ideas are added upon) have been more insightful than his actual work. |
|
|
|
Post by dgriffin on Jul 22, 2008 19:32:54 GMT -5
Ryan, OK, that's fair. I suppose Diamond would say it isn't so much that we wanted to trade with the West Indies, but rather that we had the technology to get here.
What do you know about the populating of the Americas? I've always wondered how it could have happened so quickly. I'll expand if you are interested. If not, I know you're busy.
|
|
|
|
Post by gearofzanzibar on Jul 22, 2008 19:40:18 GMT -5
I think the "apology" thing sticks in my mind because of the way Diamond credits almost all of Western development to a happy accident of geography. His basic thesis, that Europe lucked out by being aligned along a convenient east-west axis of climate, is an insightful one, but it discounts the achievements of the New World populations and fails to pinpoint what actually held them back. Consider:
We know domesticated maize spread across the north-south axis of the Americas. Some genetic testing seems to show the first crops were actually grown in the desert Southwest of the US and then spread both south and north. Despite having a crop just as productive, if not more so, than the emmer wheat that fueled European development the Americas failed to thrive. Why?
What about the potato? One of the most productive of food crops, requiring little or no cultivation after planting, was found all across the Americas, but wasn't domesticated to any great extent. Why not? It can't be because native cultures lacked agricultural ability, since many of them had incredibly sophisticated gardening and cultivation operations. The floating gardens of the middle Americas alone are ample evidence of that.
Archeologists have found artifacts that seem to support the idea that a trade network stretched from here in New York all the way to the tip of South America. Why did the network collapse? Why wasn't the flow of ideas along that network enough to fuel a New World rennaissance?
Diamond touches on the lack of domesticated animals as a possible explanation, but I don't think that holds water. There are thousands of new world species that could have been as productive as the goat or pig, yet they were never domesticated to any notable extent. Why not?
Maybe the thing about the book that rubs me the wrong way is that it doesn't really answer why the New World was so technologically stagnant. It didn't lack for food crops, the continents were loaded with mineral resources, and it had two thousand-mile long river systems that should have been the cradles of civilization...yet nothing ever came of it.
|
|
