/lit/ - Literature

>>18894193
>assumption: human beings are generally equal across the globe
incorrect.

>>18894198
I understand you can argue it, but the people who critique the book are almost always left of center (in the American sense) so they take it as given that humans are genetically similar across the globe.

Also, I obviously understand the criticisms of the book where they point out straight up historical errors. That's is obviously a fair criticism.

>>18894193
>assumption: culture is generally equal across the globe
incorrect.

>>18894198
Proof? Tranny subhumans like this fag >>18894198 exist (compare with great men like Plato, Aristotle, etc.)

>>18894193
If you want a useful critique of environmental determinism go and read one. The essential argument of modern archaeologists/post-processualists is that while the environment defines some of the possibilities individuals face they themselves choose which to pursue. The environment influences but does not determine. Diamond's thesis suggests that if you restarted everything then human societies would of necessity go the same way, since the environment would not have changed - this is nonsense. At every stage individuals could or could not have chosen to do as they did - influenced by environmental factors that partially defined the options available to them, certainly, but living in China does not automatically mean you will develop chinese society.

>>18894218
rude.

>>18894193
https://www.bitchute.com/video/qvaxPH3ftUQ/

/thread

>>18894216
Why is culture different across the globe?
>>18894223
>Diamond's thesis suggests that if you restarted everything then human societies would of necessity go the same way
Does he say that or does he just say that this was the most likely series of events? I don't see how what he does is any different from what any other historian does. If I'm a historian and I write a book saying event A was caused by X, Y and Z that doesn't necessarily mean that if I restarted the event and played it out again it would happen all the time. Any explanation of a historical event sounds deterministic the more you explain it.

>>18894193
It's down syndrome Biodeterminism denial.

What came first, the genes or the environment?

>>18894193
sorry my english is not so good. Dont read this book its garbage. It could be 100 pages but the faggot kept telling utter nonsense over 500 pages. Not a single convincing argument.

>>18894193
>Guns, Germs and Steel
it is hard to invent stuff when it is hot, in africa and australia and places it is very hot, QED

it is not because of genetics

>>18894193
Free will fags will rage, but the fact is they were always predetermined to have that reaction.

>>18894198
>>18894216
>assumption: Jews don't use media and academia to steer culture in extraordinarily passive-aggressive and destructive ways equally across the globe
incorrect.

>>18894193
>If you take it as given that humans are genetically similar enough across the globe so that it shouldn't make a difference in human development
This assumes your particular culture and history is an imperative. The book tries to justify its racist and imperialist beliefs, common to you as well, by denying the reality with some handwavey bullshit and reinforcing the beliefs that would make differences between peoples be considered bad (and therefore needing to be revised).

>>18894570
Environment

Because life only came after a suitable environment.
What do you think Apustaja plato?

>>18894261
See >>18894255
Deterministic approach isn't exactly the problem. Unresearched, unexamined ideologically motivated intuitions and preferences passed off as absolute determinism is. Also, lack of humility and openness in your attempt.

>>18894659
But the logical conclusion to this is that in places where it's not hot, genes that make people good at inventing stuff are selected for

>>18894193
>What other explanation is there?
maybe there isn't, in a way. maybe it was a matter of a few small accidents (followed by a snowball effect), irreducible to grand general factors such as continent axes etc. the differences in development between various societies before 1400 are also vastly overblown. it's just doubtful that the geographical explanations provided can do the required work (see https://louisproyect.org/2009/04/24/jim-blaut-on-jared-diamond/).).

but I nevertheless agree that the vague gesturing at the "neglect human agency" without further elaboration is just pure academic cretinism. humans don't make their history as they please. the point is just that the explanations in the book are most likely largely insufficient.

>>18895724
no, that's not the logical conclusion. societies can adapt culturally without the genetic makeup of the individuals being altered. technological progress is not a matter of acquiring better genes but of slow progress of the particular "social brain" throughout generations based on existing genetic capabilities of the species. trying to shove genetic change into this without independent justification is an illogical effect of wanting to arrive at a preconceived conclusion.

There have been many many many many many rebuttals written about this book. It made a quite a lot of people quite a big mad. Some were just sperging out because the book posed uncomfortable questions, but a lot of the criticism is quite valid.

My recommendation would be to do research outside of 4chan, none of us really have the knowledge to refute even one area of the book properly.

my fav book since 2010. along with Dawkins, Desmond Morris and F. Capra

>>18895987
>societies can
So can 70IQ people with down syndrome. Their genetic condition is what limits their total potential ability and whether they achieve their potential. "Can" only applies to a small contingent possibility which is entirely determined by genetics. Humans would not even be capable of intelligent thought at all without the correct genes for it, and intelligent thought is by no means a binary on/off trait. Like everything in nature, it operates non-discretely along a gradient, with lower intelligence and higher intelligence.
>technological progress is not a matter of acquiring better genes
Yes, it is, for the most part. The social conditions of a civilization directly select for particular genes. This is why, on a more obvious level, Western Europeans and Eurasians in general are better at processing high carbohydrate diets and have significantly lower levels of obesity and dietary issues with modern diets compared to races which have not had access to agricultural diets for as long (which is only a matter of a few thousands of years, mind you).

Then again, it is actually more complicated than this, because the most successful races historically have been the conquering races, which were generally a small number of people who seeded entire populations through rape, and did not stick to geographical borders in their conquests. So in reality, most of the world's population is a genetic underclass which slowly accumulates superior genes from the conquering races over time, and genetic barriers are not, generally, divided according to geography as significantly (obviously with exceptions concerning geographically isolated populations), but according to class, at least most strongly. Unfortunately this is the hardest avenue of research, because outside of India, solid class distinctions no longer exist, thus it is almost impossible to undertake this research. There is only preliminary research, which showed higher average intelligences prior to the Industrial Revolution due to the tendency for the rich to have more children than the poor prior to technologies which made it much easier for the poor, genetically unsuitable class to reproduce at a much higher frequency than the superior class.

>>18896050
feel free to substantiate any of those assertions any time you want

>>18896068
Likewise with your assertions. Mine are based on a combination of common historical facts and basic knowledge of genetics and phenotypes, but I'll find proper references for you if you do the same for yours.

>>18896093
modern humans are flexible. they can adapt to new circumstances and start accumulating the tools and techniques to deal with them over a single lifetime, meaning that it doesn't require any genetic changes. if you want to propose that over generations the need for genetic changes that "make people better at inventing stuff" somehow emerges, you need to show why.

>>18896154
>they can adapt to new circumstances and start accumulating the tools and techniques to deal with them over a single lifetime, meaning that it doesn't require any genetic changes. i
Adapting to tools is not equivalent to invention (most people barely understand the tools they work with, they just follow instructions). Do I really need to tell you this? Using modern humans still doesn't help us either, because they are the product of history, they are not independent of history (and the same applies to genetics).

https://westhunt.wordpress.com/2017/09/04/guns-germs-and-steel-revisited/

>>18896304
you don't need to tell me this, because I'm not talking about adapting to tools. and I don't know what the remark about modern humans is supposed to mean. we know for a fact that homo sapiens already had the proper genetic makeup needed to survive all around the world by developing ways of dealing with the environment and by passing that knowledge to the next generation, thus accumulating technique. if they had had to develop some complex genetic capabilities first, they wouldn't have survived a year. in other words, any successful adaptation presupposes that there already was a generic adaptative flexibility, simply because you don't survive long enough to develop specific genetic adaptations when you change the environment. starvation takes a few weeks, complex genetic mutations take tens of thousands of years.

>>18894193
tl;dr of this book: white people have results, everyone else has excuses.
the book should just be titled, 'Excuses, Excuses, and Excuses'

>>18894193
My own critique is that I applied to be in Diamond's Honors Collegium class at UCLA and I was not accepted, and therefore I now petulantly point out the flaws in his book.

That said, there are better and more substantial critiques than that.

>>18896963
maybe the reason why you didn't get accepted is because you lived in a warm climate and it made you stupid. if you lived in a cold climate you would have been able to build a better resume

>>18894193
>If you take it as given that humans are genetically similar enough across the globe so that it shouldn't make a difference in human development, then the only explanation for differences has to be geography.
Geography is the reason why people across the globe are not similar

>>18897310
yes, but you have to accept that once these differences arise they're fixed in place genetically.
if you took europeans and swapped them all geographically with africans (like you teleported them or something) the europeans would still have higher iq's and would still have the ability to create good art and technology.

>>18896047
uh huh and when are you going to stop being 14?

>>18897257
I'm sure you're right, anon!

>>18896697
>and I don't know what the remark about modern humans is supposed to mean
The fact that modern humans are necessarily more "domesticated" in their behaviour than older humans, on a graduated scale moving backwards in time, which is a product of social, and thus gradually genetic, influences which have been exerted upon us over the course of history.
> we know for a fact that homo sapiens already had the proper genetic makeup needed to survive all around the world by developing ways of dealing with the environment and by passing that knowledge to the next generation, thus accumulating technique.
You're speaking in a complete vacuum here. Different human societies existed, or even up until now exist, with very different levels of technological and even social sophistication. Technology does not just "develop" at a static rate over time in all human societies. There are incredibly many factors which could and would affect this rate, with proper genetic outfitting foreseeably being at least one of the most important (or at least central, when considering all factors) considering how important individual thought is for the development of new technology. Technology is not something that just democratically appears, it needs a genius (not necessarily in the sense we usually use the word) behind it. The only exception is in the case of certain primitive animals like birds and beavers, who instinctually build things without even understanding what they are doing, which is to say there is no genius, but only deeply programmed instinct. Genius is a very different kind of instinct because it is not hard-wired in the same way as animals, yet it is still "wired" in a sense because it requires a uniquely developed brain and mind which is the product of a unique genetic "adaptation."
cont.

>>18897643
> if they had had to develop some complex genetic capabilities first, they wouldn't have survived a year.
No, humans originally, according to the evolutionary view, existed thanks purely to instinct, like animals, without fluid thought or any kind of genius. Genius developed very slowly in the purported span of humanity's evolution, slower in some areas than others. Especially slowly in some "social groups" than others, when those social groups finally began to appear as discrete entities. It's not quite right to assume that humanity must all have had the same genetic makeup in order to all survive. Humans can survive instinctually without significant thought or genius, it is just not a very dignified life compared to what we are used to in civilization. There is no reason a primitive human group -has- to develop technology, for example the Australian aborigines, because they can survive just fine without any intelligent thought whatsoever, just like animals. They subsisted in the stone age because there was no impetus, or even internal drive/passion amongst the aborigines, to go any further.
>complex genetic mutations take tens of thousands of years.
They can take anywhere from a few thousand to a million, or even down to a few decades in the case of selective breeding (dogs/wolves, for example). It's interesting to note that aristocracy has often conducted its own, unwitting (in a sense) selective breeding "programs." It's entirely dependent on circumstances, and also even luck to an extent.

>>18897643
>There are incredibly many factors which could and would affect this rate, with proper genetic outfitting foreseeably being at least one of the most important
and I've shown that this is exactly what you have to prove, because you once again attempt to sneak that in without any justification
>It's not quite right to assume that humanity must all have had the same genetic makeup in order to all survive.
I don't assume that. I simply deduce that all the groups that survived thousands of years while spreading around the world must have already had the genetic makeup enabling adaptation when they split off. further genetic modifications play no explanatory role here, so a further justification needs to be provided if they are to be brought in.
>for example the Australian aborigines, because they can survive just fine without any intelligent thought whatsoever, just like animals
the only human lacking an intelligent thought so far is you. because non-intelligent animals simply don't hunt in the way Australian aborigines hunt.
>They subsisted in the stone age because there was no impetus, or even internal drive/passion amongst the aborigines, to go any further.
this statement is pure tautology. its emptiness is an apt illustration of the just established emptiness of your brain.
>It's interesting to note that aristocracy has often conducted its own, unwitting (in a sense) selective breeding "programs."
yes, that's why they often ended up literal inbred retards (and they as a whole ended up being replaced in power by a bunch of Jews). are you a descendant perhaps? this is starting to make sense

>>18895724
Bro, have you ever tried to take a test or do mental work in the heat. It is hard. Brain slows down when it overheats.

>>18894193
>dutch immigrants expanding into south africa and displacing khoisan is bad
>bantu expanding into south africa displacing khoisan good

>white people are evil and nazi when they say they are genetically superior to others
>I think papuan islanders are genetically superior to whites

And some shit about crops and domestication of animals supposedly being impossible in Africa. Otherwise a very good and informative book.

>>18894193
Is not about not taking in account human agency, the problem is that the entire argument makes no sense, he says geography lead europe to have guns, germs and steel and this facilitated the conquest of the americas, the issue is that guns and steel play a very small role and most of the early conquest was done by making alliances with minor tribes to topple the ruling empires, the conquistadors even dropped the steel armor ealy on since there was no need for it against the glass weapons of the natives, other than the help of other tribes it was the difference in tactics that help them win, native tactics were aimed at capturing prisoners for later sacrifice while the spanish were going for the kill, the germs also didn't play a major role until after the conquest was mostly done and it wasn't because euro germs were worse but because the conditions on which the spanish kept the natives lead to overcrowding which facilitated quick spreading of diseases none of them have any immunity, on the subject of germs, this moron says that euro germs were worse because of how crowded their cities were and due to them living close to livestock but of the germs he lists as responsible for the conquest, most of them are not transmitted by livestock or came from them or they're native to europe but to china
There are more criticisms about this book but in general it comes to this retard making a nice story that makes sense but that doesn't match reality

>>18898020
>I simply deduce that all the groups that survived thousands of years while spreading around the world must have already had the genetic makeup enabling adaptation when they split off.

"Adaption" and the ability to form large societies, with a sizeable portion of that society having the potential to develop new things for that society to advance and prosper, are not the same. You use the word adaption far too broadly. Many animals besides humans can live in various different climates and under different conditions, that doesn't automatically mean that they can do what you claim.


Different groups of humans have developed differently over the span of the last 100.000 years at least, and they all have evolved certain ways of dealing with their environment. In that sense, Diamond's environmental determinism is correct to an extent, but not in the way he thinks it is.

>>18896068

Escape from Rome is a much better book imo. Geography has to be the answer here, it's the influence on culture and politics that Jared should have focused his argument on. Generic arguments are completely spurious and pushed by people with racist agendas.

>>18895987
>societies can adapt culturally without the genetic makeup of the individuals being altered
Not for thousands of years they can't. Of course there's going to be a genetic change (and we can see this through phenotypes and through genetic data)

>>18898204
Exactly, so in places where brain slows down, intelligence is not selected for. But in places where brain does not slow down, intelligence is selected for

>>18900200
its hard to have big brain when you poor and nothing to eat, or did they normalize for wealth in that survey

>>18900362
as long as there is relative difference in apparent intelligence, actual intelligence can still be selected for. if heat make brain slow down half, then someone who is twice as smart as someone else, will still be twice as smart as them after the slow down