Jared Diamond

**Le_Cliffe85** · July 27, 2012, 05:56 PM

After watching the tv show Guns Germs and Steel a couple of years back and reading the book shortly after, I discovered that they were extremely interesting

but i haven't bought or read any of his other books, so in the possibility that someone here has what is you opinion of them and are they worth buying?

**sumskilz** · August 08, 2012, 03:25 AM

Collapse is descent, not as ground breaking as Guns, Germs, and Steel.

**Morkonan** · August 09, 2012, 05:53 AM

I've read both and agree that "Guns, Germs and Steel" is much more interesting and relevant than "Collapse." I found "Collapse" to have a few interesting ideas and explanations, particularly the discussion of systems of government and their causes as well as their effects on a population engaged in problem-solving, but the rest of it was just not very enlightening. They're both worth reading if you're interested in someone's opinion regarding human culture and its survival.

**Condottiere 40K** · August 09, 2012, 03:13 PM

I watched Germs, and whereas I agree geography has a great deal of influence on development, I would say culture would by far the greater.

**sumskilz** · August 09, 2012, 11:19 PM

Originally Posted by Condottiere 40K

I watched Germs, and whereas I agree geography has a great deal of influence on development, I would say culture would by far the greater.

Culture is shaped by geography to a great extent.

**Condottiere 40K** · August 10, 2012, 01:20 AM

While I partially agree on that, I don't fully do so, since it comes down to how groups collectively decided to find solutions. The Egyptians and the Sumerians could have decided to continue to live in mud huts without a central authority. Someone decided that they at least weren't going to do so and organized society to take care of them, and somehow convinced their followers it was a mutually beneficial relationship.

**conon394** · August 10, 2012, 08:08 AM

There worth buying because almost everyone has read them, but I'm not much of a fan of JD. In the largest possible scale his ideal are OK but he tends to just make stuff up to fit his theory and ignore the holes as well

A good example is in collapse where he goes on about the failure of the Norse Greenland settlements and suggests and 'irrational' unwillingness to eat fish (or seals whatever). Sounds good hey he manages to cite a lack of bones. fish bones are not however very solid but Diamond makes that sort of joke - light making fun of those trying to come up explanations for why fish bones might not be obvious. What he does not address research of the bones of the Norse which rather dramatically point a strong shift to a fish diet:

http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=2023780

Published a good 4 years before his book and easy to find on Google this is classic Diamond, just ignore anything that gets in the way of your bloated theory.
The key point is sure they did not start out which a strong fish diet, but they did in fact switch as conditions (completely beyond there control) made there traditional diet less available and it still did not help.

He does the same thing with Domestication in Africa or North America more or less - say it could not be and just ignore not only the vast uncertainty about the process but lots of published research that shows it can be done and often quite easily.

**Dr. Croccer** · August 10, 2012, 08:23 AM

Originally Posted by conon394

He does the same thing with Domestication in Africa or North America more or less - say it could not be and just ignore not only the vast uncertainty about the process but lots of published research that shows it can be done and often quite easily.

Which Subsaharan animals have been shown to be 'quite easily' domesticated?

**visser300** · August 10, 2012, 08:32 AM

I just bought two books of ths guy today. He is a buzz nowadays.

**conon394** · August 10, 2012, 08:42 AM

Which Subsaharan animals have been shown to be 'quite easily' domesticated?

I working on that I have to drive to the a different local university library now to get the references and half my house is gutted for a re do right now - so my storage computer is in a pile - but hold off for a a couple days and I will follow up on this point (here and in the VV)

But for the moment I want to return to Greenland.

This is a good read and available online ans on the face of it supports of Diamond -

http://faculty.washington.edu/steveh...0al%201996.pdf

Notice something however Greenland looks to have depended really very much for its entire existence as a producer of a luxury - Walrus ivory and skins. So really Greenland faced several completely external factors - the climate (and what it might have done to sailing risk from ice), and a drop in demand for its main export. Not only that it a lot farther from Europe than Iceland and so a simple shift to fish exports was not so easy (again if the worse still if Ice became a bigger problem).

They do seem to have switched to a fish diet but that was not enough - recall they had to certainly import a lot of stuff because I can't recall all to many iron, copper, or tin mines on Greenland and lacking a key export the basic economy of the Island was hosed. Sure I suppose maybe some people went native, but why not just take the last ship to Oslo - unless you want to try to convince to your wife how gnawing on sealskin is a step up in life.

**saxdude** · August 10, 2012, 09:27 PM

What domesticated animals are we talking about exactly and exactly how are you defining domestication? I dont think we are ever quite on the same page in regards to the domestication of animals in North America. Are you talking about animals capable of use for transportation exclusively?

**Dr. Croccer** · August 12, 2012, 02:42 PM

I find it rather hard to believe that hundreds of generations of Africans and even, for a relatively short time, modern Europeans were unable to domesticate most of the large native animals for effective use and that suddenly some studies have shown that it's quite easy to do so.

**conon394** · August 12, 2012, 04:10 PM

I find it rather hard to believe that hundreds of generations of Africans and even, for a relatively short time, modern Europeans were unable to domesticate most of the large native animals for effective use and that suddenly some studies have shown that it's quite easy to do so.

Really? do have any problem believing that while both Greeks and the Chinese described loadstone the Greeks for hundreds of years failed to develop a compass? Maybe the European loadstone was not usable for a compass? Maybe the Greeks were dumb? I doubt either I just think that chance - the right person at the right time with the right resources and the ability to communicate his or her advance is seemingly rather fickle(*).

*Similarly Chinese iron and sand must have just not been able to support the development of glass blowing, and clearly all those generations of people who failed to develop writing could not because it could not be invented...

modern Europeans were unable to domesticate most of the large native animals for effective

Why bother?

Why domesticate a NA Bison when you have cow/cattle? Path dependance comes into play as well as most thoughtful observers of the occasional effort in South Africa noted with Zebras - they are not horses. However most attempts were sporadic,short term and involved silly attempts to force zebras to be horses by people experienced with horses and equipment for the same.

Once you get to the industrial era in Europe certainly any examination of new domestic animals becomes rather a side show unless a whole new market emerges - thus for example the proto-domestication of Bison in North America that is now more or less a fact.

**Dr. Croccer** · August 12, 2012, 04:43 PM

Originally Posted by conon394

Really? do have any problem believing that while both Greeks and the Chinese described loadstone the Greeks for hundreds of years failed to develop a compass? Maybe the European loadstone was not usable for a compass? Maybe the Greeks were dumb? I doubt either I just think that chance - the right person at the right time with the right resources and the ability to communicate his or her advance is seemingly rather fickle(*).

*Similarly Chinese iron and sand must have just not been able to support the development of glass blowing, and clearly all those generations of people who failed to develop writing could not because it could not be invented...

There's quite a difference between fairly advanced technological discoveries and the domestication of native fauna. Pretty much every people, no matter how technology advanced, has managed some degree of taming or domestication of at least some local animals. The Aztecs didn't use wheels for anything more than toys nor did they use iron by the 1500s, but they had long before domesticated the turkey and the dog. Domestication of fauna arrives at a fairly early time among most human communities, because of their long-term exposure to the feral animals. Taming quickly turns into domestication when possible.

Why bother?

Why domesticate a NA Bison when you have cow/cattle? Path dependance comes into play as well as most thoughtful observers of the occasional effort in South Africa noted with Zebras - they are not horses. However most attempts were sporadic,short term and involved silly attempts to force zebras to be horses by people experienced with horses and equipment for the same.

Doesn't mean that there weren't many serious attempts to do so either. Domestication of zebras was practical because horses rarely survived due to diseases such as sleeping sickness. Having an effective beast of burden in a huge resource-rich region which was largely dependent on human labour was hardly a stupid idea, it failed because zebras simply were too unreliable. Hence why there have been many attempts at creating zebroid races.

And also just for the sake of science. The American government bred zebroids during the early 20th century, not out of any practical necessity, but mainly for the sake of investigating genetic inheritance. It wasn't necessary to breed new dog races like the German Shepherd, but that happened as well during the same period.

**conon394** · August 12, 2012, 05:58 PM

Taming quickly turns into domestication when possible.

Really you seem to a have profoundly better insight on domestication that actually exists.

Just curious how many even feral domestic animals have you tried taming?

**Dr. Croccer** · August 13, 2012, 06:34 AM

Originally Posted by conon394

Really you seem to a have profoundly better insight on domestication that actually exists.

Just curious how many even feral domestic animals have you tried taming?

Could you offer some actual responses rather than more inane statements like these?

Are you denying that domestication occurred fairly early in human history, and that most animals that have been domesticated were done so by early man?

Recent evidence indicates that domestic dogs existed as early as 30.000 BC. Cattle was domesticated more than 10.000 years ago in Mesopotamia, as were sheep. Turkeys were domesticated around 2000 BC in Mexico, around the time sedentism and agriculture in the form of domestication of maize was popping up too. A few examples. In general it is plain to see that most animals, mainly large herbivores, were domesticated roughly around the same time that we can see signs of sedentary life and agriculture, which makes sense, hunter-gatherers wouldn't have had the time or resources to breed successive generations of cattle to their liking, and agriculture and livestock complement eachother. Obviously there are exceptions, such as the dog, which are animals which would've been useful to hunter-gatherers (small, multifunctional, very mobile and social).

**sumskilz** · August 13, 2012, 04:44 PM

Originally Posted by Dr. Croccer

Recent evidence indicates that domestic dogs existed as early as 30.000 BC. Cattle was domesticated more than 10.000 years ago in Mesopotamia, as were sheep. Turkeys were domesticated around 2000 BC in Mexico, around the time sedentism and agriculture in the form of domestication of maize was popping up too. A few examples. In general it is plain to see that most animals, mainly large herbivores, were domesticated roughly around the same time that we can see signs of sedentary life and agriculture, which makes sense, hunter-gatherers wouldn't have had the time or resources to breed successive generations of cattle to their liking, and agriculture and livestock complement eachother. Obviously there are exceptions, such as the dog, which are animals which would've been useful to hunter-gatherers (small, multifunctional, very mobile and social).

One hypothesis that explains the disparity in timeframe between dogs and other large mammals is that some wolves may have initially domesticated themselves by following human groups to steel food or beg for scraps. Becoming less afraid of humans gave a fitness advantage to wolves who made this their primary form of subsistence. Humans found these wolves useful because their senses gave early warning to potential threats and animal food sources (and as a backup food source when others were scarce). As long as humans didn’t kill these wolves often enough to offset the fitness advantage they gained by becoming more accustomed to humans, then the hypothesis works.

EDIT: Oh I see your link already mentions this.

**Dr. Croccer** · August 17, 2012, 12:09 PM

Originally Posted by sumskilz

One hypothesis that explains the disparity in timeframe between dogs and other large mammals is that some wolves may have initially domesticated themselves by following human groups to steel food or beg for scraps. Becoming less afraid of humans gave a fitness advantage to wolves who made this their primary form of subsistence. Humans found these wolves useful because their senses gave early warning to potential threats and animal food sources (and as a backup food source when others were scarce). As long as humans didn’t kill these wolves often enough to offset the fitness advantage they gained by becoming more accustomed to humans, then the hypothesis works.

EDIT: Oh I see your link already mentions this.

That's the other advantage of wolves as a animal for domestication: they're intelligent. They're clever enough to realize that humans aren't usually hostile and being friendly to them is beneficial. The fact that it comes from both sides allows for a very speedy process of taming and ultimately domestication.

**conon394** · August 14, 2012, 12:20 PM

Could you offer some actual responses rather than more inane statements like these?

I will but you might have to wait a bit, but well over half my house is gutted for remodel/septic work and the other half is piled up in boxes covered in drywall dust (and it was small anyway), only about 50% my power works and its time to get my kids ready for school, and my contract work is shifting to on site vs remote for the next few weeks... on balance if I can find all the pieces to my storage PC and if I can find the time to hook it up and if the contractors I have to deal with don't drive me insane I will provide a coherent reply at some point in the next week or two. If this thread falls off I will PM you.