Jared Diamond

[dgriffin]

Gear, those are very interesting points. I am not knowledgeable enough to carry on a debate … and don’t want to … but a few thoughts occur to me.

You’re right about maize in that it has been found everywhere north and south. Could it have been less advantageous to people in the west than wheat was for Europeans? I remember once reading about the carbohydrate content of corn contributing to the decline of man’s health (via teeth, I think) once agriculture was established. This may have come from Diamond, I don’t remember.

I do remember he said the co-habitation of people with their animals proved to be an incubator for the transference of diseases from animals to man. I wonder if there were more reasons for that cohabitation in the east and less in the west, producing the lack of immunity in western cultures decimated by Europeans when they finally arrived here with new diseases.

Regarding communications, I was unaware of the possibility of much trade activity, routes and communications you mention. I don’t think I’ve ever heard that. Just a thought: it’s collapse shows these routes may have had some degree of trouble. Perhaps they were too thin. This goes to my question about how the western hemisphere was peopled so quickly. It’s a matter I wonder about.

Also, I’d forgotten about the domestication of animals discussion. I remember Diamond argued that there existed in the Americas no animal as suitably productive as the pig or goat was in Europe. And I vaguely remember that his argument seemed to be rather weak. It seems to me a producer of food could be bred from just about any animal large enough to be an efficient food converter.

Potatoes, I’ve never had any luck with them in MY garden. Seriously, I was unaware they were that widespread in the era we’re discussing.

So I understand your main point that a simple difference in the orientation of the continents appears too easy an explanation for the technological differences between east and west. It is an elegant thought, though, and a place to start from, as I think you and Ryan have indicated. I wonder if you got Diamond down on the academic ground and pinned him, he might back off a bit and say, “my editor made me do it.” Who knows?

I think if this thread appears to continue active, I’ll go ahead and post my population question. It will be rather simply stated, since my understanding of the issues is not deep. Between yourself and Ryan, and anyone else who wants to join in, I’m sure I can learn something.

[rrogers40]

Jul 22, 2008 19:32:54 GMT -5 @dgriffin said:

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.

I agree and I think he says it that it was not just one main "Immigration Push". It probably occurred not only by people crossing the land bridge but also by people skirting the land bridge and western coast with boats. Also people tend to ignore the eastern coast (a place that even the vikings were reaching in more recent times). However, some where in there a massive amount of "cross breading" occurred that made the American Indians Genetically Close- So I still say that the "Main" thrust came over the land bridge (I cant think of the main years this early in the morning).

[gearofzanzibar]

Jul 22, 2008 22:57:47 GMT -5 @dgriffin said:

Gear, those are very interesting points. I am not knowledgeable enough to carry on a debate … and don’t want to … but a few thoughts occur to me.

You’re right about maize in that it has been found everywhere north and south. Could it have been less advantageous to people in the west than wheat was for Europeans? I remember once reading about the carbohydrate content of corn contributing to the decline of man’s health (via teeth, I think) once agriculture was established. This may have come from Diamond, I don’t remember.

A maize-dependent diet can lead to problems, but the use of lime during the grinding process helps make the nutrients in the kernel more available. While corn itself doesn't have all the proteins necessary for life it's cultivation with beans was widespread across the Americas and helped provide a complete diet. Oddly enough, when maize was introduced to Africa it produced to a population explosion that in turn helped support the slave trade.

I do remember he said the co-habitation of people with their animals proved to be an incubator for the transference of diseases from animals to man. I wonder if there were more reasons for that cohabitation in the east and less in the west, producing the lack of immunity in western cultures decimated by Europeans when they finally arrived here with new diseases.

This is something that continues to mystify me despite my continued efforts to read up on the subject. I still don't think there's a definitive answer for why the New World populations were so vulnerable to Old World pathogens, other than the obvious population isolation factor. I've read a few discussions that the genetic mutations that allowed Indo-Europeans to survive the black plague also conferred resistance to other diseases, but I think it may go even further back to our origins in Africa. The continent was the cradle of humanity as well as the cradle where most of our pathogens evolved.

Regarding communications, I was unaware of the possibility of much trade activity, routes and communications you mention. I don’t think I’ve ever heard that. Just a thought: it’s collapse shows these routes may have had some degree of trouble. Perhaps they were too thin. This goes to my question about how the western hemisphere was peopled so quickly. It’s a matter I wonder about.

Again, this is a huge mystery. The Americas not only had animals that could have been domesticated as beasts of burden (bison, elk, deer), but knowledge of the wheel as well. Yet we can't find any evidence that the cart or wagon was ever developed beyond it's use as a toy. Given that, it's probably not surprising that the foot-based trade network was extremely vulnerable to the climate changes that appear to have swept across the desert SW in North America.

Also, I’d forgotten about the domestication of animals discussion. I remember Diamond argued that there existed in the Americas no animal as suitably productive as the pig or goat was in Europe. And I vaguely remember that his argument seemed to be rather weak. It seems to me a producer of food could be bred from just about any animal large enough to be an efficient food converter.

The entire ungulate population of the New World was ripe for domestication, but it never happened. Turkeys and ducks were domesticated, but the rest of the fowl varieties were only hunted wild. Wild boar ranged across the Americas, but were never domesticated.

Seriously, when you really look at what happened, or what failed to happen as the case may be, you're left shaking your head. I can understand that there are some racist and imperialist undertones to questioning the NW failure to thrive, but it just boggles my mind that hundreds, perhaps thousands, of vital, sophisticated cultures advanced to a high stone-age level of culture and then just...stopped. Total technological stagnation for thousands of years.

[dgriffin]

This is a great discussion. I'm learning much more than I had anticipated, certainly. I'm going to start a couple of other author/book threads to get your opinions. (Robert Kaplan will be one of them, possibly.)

Gear, can you recommend a few books on all of this at the "motivated reader" level, rather than "scholarly?" I hate scholars almost as much as Carl Sagan! I guess it's a personalities thing, which is the reason I can understand Ryan's aversion to Diamond. True, I was reading Sky and Telescope regularly back when Sagan was doing his television routine, so I was somewhat derisive and felt like an expert, which I wasn't. I'd watch the Sagan, the Squire of Ithaca, and wonder if indeed reincarnation was possible, he being the later manifestation of Bishop Fulton Sheen, all decked out in a new "religion." I never saw two people happier with themselves.

... it just boggles my mind that hundreds, perhaps thousands, of vital, sophisticated cultures advanced to a high stone-age level of culture and then just...stopped. Total technological stagnation for thousands of years.

It happens. Every once in a while a "miracle" occurs and drives a process off the well worn path to oblivion or the unexpected. There are those who think that sentient human beings were the result of a collossal series of anomalies, the chances of which are one divided by the universe. There certainly may be life forms on other planets, they would concede, but they're not on the Internet.

Enrico Fermi's simple argument has always resonated with me. If they're out there, why haven't we (reputable scientists)heard from them?

[gearofzanzibar]

Jul 23, 2008 13:11:54 GMT -5 @dgriffin said:

Enrico Fermi's simple argument has always resonated with me. If they're out there, why haven't we (reputable scientists)heard from them?

When you have loud neighbors you call the cops to quiet them down.

I can't remember where I first read that idea, but in terms of the Fermi Paradox it's one of the scariest things imaginable.

[dgriffin]

Jul 23, 2008 6:49:39 GMT -5 rrogers40 said:

I agree and I think he says it that it was not just one main "Immigration Push". It probably occurred not only by people crossing the land bridge but also by people skirting the land bridge and western coast with boats. Also people tend to ignore the eastern coast (a place that even the vikings were reaching in more recent times). However, some where in there a massive amount of "cross breading" occurred that made the American Indians Genetically Close- So I still say that the "Main" thrust came over the land bridge (I cant think of the main years this early in the morning).

Ryan, this will be pretty feeble, because I don't remember all the numbers. I'm unwilling to research it, because when I tell you my thoughts, I'm sure you'll know from your study that they've been addressed in the past and so I'd be wasting my time to put together a case.

When I first read of the mitochondrial DNA work used to investigate where the American populations came from, I became intrigued with the subject. Spencer Wells provided a very readable account in his "Journey of Man: A Genetic Odyssey." Some time later I read "Ancient Encounters," by forensic archeologist James Chatters, a book about the Kennewicke Man found in Washington state. Although spends too much time discussing his problems with the Indians, who wouldn't let him keep the skeleton, the book is a fascinating look into what archeologists do all day (less hype than Leaky Junior) and the first time I read that ancient skeletons have been found in North America that are far older than any known Indian culture in the US. And in fact, whereas modern American Indians have facial characteristics like certain upper Asian races … the similarity a result of their migration from Asia over the Aleutian land bridge … the older skeletons of about 9,000 years plus (I think) are skull-wise not at all similar. They’re more round faced. This means that either Malaysians found there way up and over the land bridge or that they came by boat across the Pacific, probably to South America. Of course, mankind probably did originally migrate up from the topics into Asia and across the land bridge, but by that time they had taken on the square face characteristic.

So, I got to thinking about early societies. Human replacement rates were low, maybe around 2.1 when it didn’t go negative. Skeletal remains of human females seem to show (if I remember correctly) they didn’t live very long. Menstruation could have begun early (not sure if I’ve seen are numbers on this). Human infant remains indicate that nursing lasted possibly 3 years. (You can tell from the teeth when an infant stopped nursing.) During this time a woman would ordinarily not reproduce. Hormonal changes helped. A woman could not gather or travel with fellow nomads with more than one babe in arms. Such conditions didn’t foster large families.

A nomadic existence was usually necessary, because tribes followed migrating game and they could also wear out the surrounding land occupied by the tribe, especially before organized hunting began. It takes about a square mile to support a gatherer-person. (Today, with informal home agriculture, it's about an acre. What an improvement in efficiency was agriculture! 640 to 1!) Twenty five square miles is a 5x5 mile square, which is about the amount of the ground one can cover each day while gathering. Therefore, tribe size was limited to about 25. (Steven Pinker, the evolutionary psychologist, in “The Language Instinct,” says this fact may be responsible for why you normally have no more than 25 friends.)

There are, I believe, geological data to show the land bridge was open twice during the era of man, but the total years would have ordinarily admitted only so many souls to America. Now, given all of that, how the heck did these people migrate down through California (or the plains), across to Florida, down through what is today Latin American and on to Patagonia. (An aside: Another great book from some time back, Paul Theroux travels from Boston in “The Old Patagonian Express: By Train Through the Americas.”) It seems easier to believe that somehow the Malaysians got to South America (they got to Honolulu, after all) and migrated upward while the Asians were headed south from the Alaskan land bridge. And you can throw in travelers across the Atlantic, ala Kon Tiki.
But I never believed the St. Brendan Voyage from Ireland.

[rrogers40]

This is something that continues to mystify me despite my continued efforts to read up on the subject. I still don't think there's a definitive answer for why the New World populations were so vulnerable to Old World pathogens, other than the obvious population isolation factor. I've read a few discussions that the genetic mutations that allowed Indo-Europeans to survive the black plague also conferred resistance to other diseases, but I think it may go even further back to our origins in Africa. The continent was the cradle of humanity as well as the cradle where most of our pathogens evolved.

There may have been a plague that ravaged the New World before, or during, the time Old World reached them, in that case it might not have just been old world diseases that ravaged the New World. Also, because at the time of first contact, there were so few Old World "Immigrants", the New World diseases weren't seen. (Or were and confused with the Old World diseases).- Just a little theory I like to put forward, but I have no proof.

Ryan, this will be pretty feeble, because I don't remember all the numbers. I'm unwilling to research it, because when I tell you my thoughts, I'm sure you'll know from your study that they've been addressed in the past and so I'd be wasting my time to put together a case.

The less numbers the better- doesn't wrack my brain as much

There are, I believe, geological data to show the land bridge was open twice during the era of man, but the total years would have ordinarily admitted only so many souls to America. Now, given all of that, how the heck did these people migrate down through California (or the plains), across to Florida, down through what is today Latin American and on to Patagonia. (An aside: Another great book from some time back, Paul Theroux travels from Boston in “The Old Patagonian Express: By Train Through the Americas.”) It seems easier to believe that somehow the Malaysians got to South America (they got to Honolulu, after all) and migrated upward while the Asians were headed south from the Alaskan land bridge. And you can throw in travelers across the Atlantic, ala Kon Tiki.
But I never believed the St. Brendan Voyage from Ireland.

Yep- I think that the idea that there was only one migration movement from the north to south is dieing. Also don't count out the ability of people to move rapidly.- It really is amazing how fast they could/did move.

[dgriffin]

Also don't count out the ability of people to move rapidly.- It really is amazing how fast they could/did move.

Good point. There are examples of this in the literature I came across, although I don't think it is felt that was the norm.

[dgriffin]

Gear wrote:

I've read a few discussions that the genetic mutations that allowed Indo-Europeans to survive the black plague also conferred resistance to other diseases, but I think it may go even further back to our origins in Africa. The continent was the cradle of humanity as well as the cradle where most of our pathogens evolved.

That is a sensible proposition, because the geographic separation of the western peoples could have helped to select out the genes responsible for combating certain diseases. When immunity conferred in Africa was not needed in SoAmerica, the gene could have mutated to some other use, becoming unavailable for fighting European diseases in the 1500's.

That seems more likely than Black Plague immunity acting as a silver bullet.

Oh, and yes, the lime added to the corn meal by grinding it in a stone mortar and pestle aided nutrition, but the sugars in the corn destroyed the teeth.

[frankcor]

I think Lewis Black sums up my thoughts on evolution v. creation better than I ever could.(search "lewis black evolution" at YouTube)

However, this recent story may shed some factual data on the debate: abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory?id=5373461

Dave posed the question: "Enrico Fermi's simple argument has always resonated with me. If they're out there, why haven't we (reputable scientists)heard from them?"

We on Earth have been broadcasting our presence for only 65 years or so, since the invention of television broadcasting. Radio waves bounce off the ionosphere but television frequencies pass right through it.

Thus, any advanced intelligent life out there within 65 light-years, knows we're here. Based on what information they can garner from those broadcasts, they may or may not choose to respond and what form their response may take.

Let's hope they give more credence to "Nova" than "American Idol" while making that judgement.

Regardless, assuming their response will also travel at the speed of light, can we assume there are no advanced civilizations within a 130-light-years radius of us? Keep in mind, that's a very very tiny distance.

[rrogers40]

Jul 28, 2008 16:16:15 GMT -5 frankcor said:

I think Lewis Black sums up my thoughts on evolution v. creation better than I ever could.(search "lewis black evolution" at YouTube)

However, this recent story may shed some factual data on the debate: abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory?id=5373461

Dave posed the question: "Enrico Fermi's simple argument has always resonated with me. If they're out there, why haven't we (reputable scientists)heard from them?"

We on Earth have been broadcasting our presence for only 65 years or so, since the invention of television broadcasting. Radio waves bounce off the ionosphere but television frequencies pass right through it.

Thus, any advanced intelligent life out there within 65 light-years, knows we're here. Based on what information they can garner from those broadcasts, they may or may not choose to respond and what form their response may take.

Let's hope they give more credence to "Nova" than "American Idol" while making that judgement.

Regardless, assuming their response will also travel at the speed of light, can we assume there are no advanced civilizations within a 130-light-years radius of us? Keep in mind, that's a very very tiny distance.

Who says that they are more advanced than us?- What if- and this is scary - we are the most advanced species out there?

[dgriffin]

Well, that's just it. 65 LY is an extremely short distance in terms of the universe. At that distance they're just now getting Milton Berle on their televisions. Maybe they will have come here and killed us all by the time Young Doctor Kildare begins.



Hey, they're synchronized!

[dgriffin]

Re the Tasmanian Devils and evolution. Unless they can show a genetic change, it doesn't appear to be evolution by gene selection (neo Darwinism.) In fact it smells of Lamarckian evolution, which said that (simply) our experiences and physical changes can be passed to the next generation. I don't believe anyone has advocated for that since Herbert Spencer, 100 years ago.

But, no question, Lewis Black has my vote.

[frankcor]

"I take out a fossil, and I say FOSSIL!"

[dgriffin]

If I lived in Utica and he would run, I'd vote for Lewis Black for mayor.