/lit/ - Literature

Unironically I can't think of a better book for the argument that history is geographically determined.

It has flaws, but its easy to read, and gives you a new angle to look at history.

Most people on this website should read it, as their view of history boils down to "strong men make good times, good times make weak men".

>>19750143
isn't this the author that said you couldn't tame and ride zebras?

>>19750317
Of course, and you'll still get retards claiming
>b-b-but they're actually donkeys and way more skittish than horses so africans could never use them as beasts of burden
Motherfucker taming them is the first step in the selective breeding process, you think horses are anything like they used to be?

>>19750143
deterministic and reductive

>>19750143
It's anti-white propaganda rationalized.
Ryan Faulk made a good response to it.

>>19750255
Zeihan makes the argument much better, and it's still incomplete. Murray's Human Accomplishment shows that. Diamond in particular is an idiot who doesn't understand how domesticating animals works.

Here's a protip: see in your picture where it says "Pulitzer Prize"? That's an award for JOURNALISTS. Journalists are PROPAGANDISTS. They're not worth reading. Don't read anything written by journalists.

>>19750352
How is explaining how white people came to dominate the world 'anti-white'?

>>19750357
>Here's a protip: see in your picture where it says "Pulitzer Prize"? That's an award for JOURNALISTS. Journalists are PROPAGANDISTS. They're not worth reading. Don't read anything written by journalists.
incredibly based

>>19750255
It completely ignores mass population turnovers and biological variation, which drove the spread of new cultures and genes.
>>19750385
Because his explanation is basically "they're lucky" and don't really deserve any praise. It's the same impulse which drives the left to say rich peoples children should not inherit wealth, because they didn't earn that. Europeans didn't earn their wealth, they lucked into it, therefore it should be given to those they exploited.

>>19750464
But they are lucky. History is the product of material conditions.

>>19750472
Not a single historian agrees with that statement. Only Marxists.

>>19750478
Here's a decidedly non-Marxist thinker arguing basically that.
https://slatestarcodex.com/2013/03/07/we-wrestle-not-with-flesh-and-blood-but-against-powers-and-principalities/

>>19750481
lmao. You think he's not a marxist? And even setting that aside, he's certainly not a historian.

I encourage you to actually read some history books, starting with Herodotus and Thucydides.

Wouldn’t different levels of technology cause different levels of biological evolution because success would increasingly favor the capability to use increasingly complex tools? Whether or not technology precedes biology or biology precedes technology makes no difference to where we have arrived.

>>19750516

retard detected

>>19750516
Scott Alexander is most definitely not a Marxist. Marxist isn't very popular among the LessWrong diaspora.

>>19750385

>How is explaining how white people came to dominate the world 'anti-white

Because it rules out genetic factors that weve already determined are highly correlated with behavior necessary to build a modern civilization

>>19750572
>it's freaking genetics!!! everybody knows this!!

>>19750472
Material conditions are determined (in part) by the people who make them. If they're not smart enough to invent (or copy) new modes of production then they die out. Europeans from about 1750, and probably before, were in a accelerating process of invention. This only had the barest relation to geography and much more to do with intellectual culture and ability.

>>19750572
>>19750582
What a coincidence that every 'race realist' thinks it's their own race that's objectively superior.

>>19750559
He accepts marxist presuppositions: he's a marxist. And again, he's certainly no historian. How telling that when I state no historian would agree, you instead present someone you claim is not a marxist. You don't even know of any historians, yet you claim to know what history is, which is not surprising because marxists think they know everything while simultaneously denying their own belief in marxism.

No, I will not argue with the the genealogy of ideologies. Miss me with that shit. I already recommended you a start towards an actual study of history.

>>19750520
Only that one is impossible, you do understand that don't you?

>>19750584
That's obviously the conclusion Jared Diamond is strenuously trying to avoid for why europe invented the modern world, it's just unfortunate that his best answer is "luck".

>>19750588
>He accepts marxist presuppositions: he's a marxist.
He accepts the premise of historical materialism, but he certainly doesn't accept that communism is its inevitable conclusion. So he has some things in common with Marxists but he differs with them on a very important point.

>>19750582
It’s partly true but those material conditions are increased with division of labor which brings with it innovation and invention, Adam smith explains its better than me, I’m fully aware he is an economist but when you invoke material economy what can you expect

Now if someone could figure out why Africa with its abundance of mineral wealth has not turned that into material wealth despite having a longer history

>>19750584
>What a coincidence that every 'race realist' thinks it's their own race that's objectively superior.
I don't belong to thr 'white race' as a collective. I am individual superior to most members of the white race.. However white people are certainly superior to other groups of races in many measurable aspects. The lesser ones being pretty much subhumans.

>>19750588
Marx was racist. Don't lump him in with these subhumans.

>>19750611
read Weber

>>19750594
2/10 response
>ascribing beliefs to me and then immediately calling me an -ist
Classic marxist.
Better would have been
>you really believe in ants the size of dogs digging out gold and that Pericles really gave that speech
But that would have required you to read and think critically.

>>19750601
But a superior race, the Scots, invented the modern world.

>>19750590
The same biological machine can have different levels of ignorance. Imagine one group of monkeys learns to build spears then the ones who can use the spears most effectively are favored to pass their genes. Either way results in uneven evolution and the start of a new race. You have to have >140 spatial IQ to understand this. I don’t expect word nerds to comprehend it.

>>19750611
>>19750627
Zeihan also explains this well from a geographical perspective, and pic related is worth a thousand words. What you don't see is the lack of deepwater ports and lack of navigable rivers.

>>19750655
How did Europe rape Africa of all of her resources, if their are no deepwater ports to which one could capitalize off of the extraction of those raw materials?

>>19750655
Modern civilization emerged because Europeans would kill people for anti-social thus creating a sort of eugenics.

https://thealternativehypothesis.org/index.php/2017/03/15/first-worldism-part-5-the-european-revolution/

>>19750655
Does England have navigable rivers? Or did the English build them with might?

>>19750627
As it is the power of exchanging that gives occasion to the division of labour, so the extent of this division must always be limited by the extent of that power, or, in other words, by the extent of the market. When the market is very small, no person can have any encouragement to dedicate himself entirely to one employment, for want of the power to exchange all that surplus part of the produce of his own labour, which is over and above his own consumption, for such parts of the produce of other men’s labour as he has occasion for."

Smith makes argument that it is logistical(geographic) reason for lack of development and from what I’ve read in the summary of your suggested book is an ideological/social cause but I believe it might be both, I will read your suggestion and think more on it

>>19750664
I'm going to be nice today and assume you're sincerely asking that question.

Learn to google. And while you're at it, check your presupposition that "Europe rape[d] Africa of all of her resources".

>>19750669
A broad-wheeled waggon, attended by two men, and drawn by eight horses, in about six weeks time carries and brings back between London and Edinburgh near four ton weight of goods. In about the same time a ship navigated by six or eight men, and sailing between the ports of London and Leith, frequently carries and brings back two hundred ton weight of goods. Six or eight men, therefore, by the help of water-carriage, can carry and bring back in the same time the same quantity of goods between London and Edinburgh, as fifty broad-wheeled waggons, attended by a hundred men, and drawn by four hundred horses.

>>19750692
Yes, or put another way, all of the British Isles are surrounded by a navigable river. They also have the Thames which is more of an afterthought by comparison.

>>19750701
Trains carry more tonnage with less manpower, these things were all true in the past, now there are solutions

>>19750701
I wouldn’t be surprised to find out Africa has more rivers than Europe, they still didn’t capitalize on them at same level as Europeans

He is wrong about almost everything. Except that abos are magic.

>>19750680
You don't understand what I'm saying. I'm helping you destroy the anti-white retard.

>>19750692
The English built a canal system to develop and utilize the resources on their territory. Why didn't Africans do this?

>>19750729
Navigable. Climate is also important.

>>19750704
Nope, check your figures.

And I forgot to mention: look at the map of africa again. You can't build trains up those slopes very easily. Brazil tried and it doesn't work well at all.

>>19750701
Were there not obstacles that they had to avoid on that navigable river? And how did they get resources from inland? They must have needed resources from different environments to find success. Or did they mine for iron and chop down trees in the ocean?

>>19750336
We've tried to domesticate zebras in the years since. No results.

>>19750767
Yes, the climate and geography of Africa is very diverse and offers a wide range of resources that can be crafted into any number of tangible goods that allow the bearer to conquer the planet. They failed themselves.

>>19750667
lol does this blogger really think that the death penalty (or anything similar) didn't exist outside of Europe? In traditional societies they had the death penalty too, and unlike in more developed societies it's hard for criminals to hide.

>>19750778
I guess they should invent a substance that moves mountains, made from material found in said mountains. That's what others did.

>>19750588
Marxist "presuppositions" have affected basically all sociology and philosophy since Marx's time, including schools of thought that have no support for Marx's political platform.

>>19750803
>he thinks african bush people had a legal system

>>19750846
Because all of Africa is filled with bush people

>>19750846
They don't have written laws, but they have rules and customs, like every society does. Read Napoleon Chagnon's work or any other book about "primitive" peoples.

>>19750860
Yes. Precisely. Until Europeans came and introduced civilization.

>>19750873
A centrally organized legal system is going to change the face of a population much more drastically than tribal laws practicing punishment friendo. The argument isn't whether or not these tribes had the rule of law, it's that a civilization changes the genetic makeup of a race of people. Why do I have to spell it out?

>>19750874
Greece learned from Egypt so no not really.

>>19750898

>>19750874
Modern civilization. They had in various complexity, legal systems and everything else that is necessary for groups of people to be together. Why did it take longer to conquer the New World in comparison to Africa? Part of the answer is, they had any number things that we had. And we won the technology race. Without the "exploitation" of Africa, we wouldn't have any number of things that we enjoy today.

>>19750886
It depends how much it's enforced. The only advantage a central legal system (which BTW was NOT the case in Europe until governments themselves became more centralized) has over a customary one as a force of genetic change is that it can theoretically apply over a larger population. But that in turn is dependent on the stability of the state and legal system and how effectively it can enforce its laws. As you can see from how severely the punishment of banishment from a city is seen in works from early modernity, governments back then weren't so powerful outside the cities or villages.

>>19750918
You said (or agreed with) 'all of Africa'. The Egyptians may not have been black, but they were certainly African. You're moving the goalposts.

>>19750920
>They had in various complexity, legal systems and everything else that is necessary for groups of people to be together.
They were far less complex than that of the Europeans when the scramble for Africa began.
>Why did it take longer to conquer the New World in comparison to Africa?
Because European colonization of the New World began when the Europeans were [comparatively] primitive to how advanced they were in the 19th century. European colonization of the new world was before capitalism and private property, the latter two which emerged as a result of the enlightenment and European championing of reason.
>>19750925
I'm sorry, I meant NIGGERS. Happy now?
>>19750924
The 'blogpost' which we were referring to back when this argument began shows the percentage of the adult male population who were executed for various crimes. We can argue about the power of 'government' in those days but the point is that a significant portion of individuals were executed for their crimes and this changed the dominant traits of the whole group. The proof is in the pudding.

>>19750967
>I'm sorry, I meant NIGGERS. Happy now?
Can you define this term? Are there any genetic markers you can point to?

>>19750967
Vast numbers of people executed in a time when police and forensics didn't exist and the death penalty wasn't even the routine punishment meted out to all criminals. Yeah, seems totally legit. And in a "study" where the author doesn't even pretend to have done his reading about how medieval law actually worked and instead chooses to quote Thomas Aquinas and advance his own revisionist theories. Really excellent, high quality work...

>>19750967
And how does that refute me saying Europeans brought, Modern civilization? How do all of those things mentioned about the New World and ideology contradict my statement on the technology development that took place as a necessity to be able to control a majority of African territory at the turn of the century? All of those advancements: capitalism, colonialism were all made to compete with the Africans.

Oh yeah and the court system was different too. They didn't really have trial by jury and evidence like we do today.

>>19750992
>Can you define this term? Are there any genetic markers you can point to?
No. It's purely spiritual.
>>19751004
What the fuck are you talking about retard.
Either the numbers are correct or they're incorrect. Are we talking about the same blog post?
>>19751021
What are you talking about? What do you mean those 'advancements were made to compete with Africans'. Those advancements came well before the Europeans went to Africa, in fact the Europeans went to Africa BECAUSE their advancements allowed them to exploit new resources— resources which would have otherwise been of no use to a primitive people.

>>19750729
Ah yes, we all have heard of English rivers and their tse tse fly, malaria, vicious hippos and water buffaloes, river blindness, muscle burrowing worms, and the other dozens of bugs, parasites and dangerous wildlife.

>>19751052
>No. It's purely spiritual.
Well then the theory you're proposing is metaphysical nonsense and doesn't even qualify as a hypothesis in the first place.

>>19751052
Then Europeans shouldn't have taken centuries to occupy a majority of Africa. They can't be primitive, and be difficult to conqueror at the same time.

>>19751052
I'm taking about the study Faulk cites. I just looked this up, and apparently executions were relatively low in the late middle ages. The numbers peaked later, in the 16th or 17th century, when the great drop in homicide was already well underway, then they plummeted in the 17th and 18th centuries for the most part. In short, Harpending's work looks sketchy. It's plausible in theory but doesn't really take into account the reality of medieval and early modern law in Europe (or elsewhere for that matter).

>>19751064
There is no need to classify an exact point in which a group begins or ends. It doesn't mean the aforementioned group doesn't exist.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sorites_paradox
It's like saying a chair doesn't exist because it's actually a bunch of quarks that 'look' like a chair.

>>19751089
>They can't be primitive, and be difficult to conqueror at the same time.
that wasn't even what I said. I said the Europeans didn't enter africa until they had a material need to do so. Why conquer a land you have no use for?

>>19751103
Buddhism would actually say that though.

>>19750464
>It's the same impulse which drives the left to say rich peoples children should not inherit wealth, because they didn't earn that. Europeans didn't earn their wealth, they lucked into it, therefore it should be given to those they exploited.
Yes, and?

Tbh europeans were wrecked for 1000 years between the fall of the romans all the way to 1500 ad.
Pajeets, chinks and arabs were in a better position up till then

>>19751058
I think these things inhibited african development less by the fact that they're nasty, but that they prevented the expansion of successful outside early farmer populations from places like the middle east, so any innovation had to come from within populations that had already adapted to them, e.g. the Bantus, which eventually happened, but just much later than elsewhere. Europeans couldn't expand into the continent until the late 19th century. If some super nasty pest existed only in europe you'd probably have WHG sitting around chucking spears at each other still. Not because of the pest, but because they hadn't been wiped out and replaced by people who had worked out how to farm.

>>19751115
But it took them centuries of occupying ports, before the scramble for Africa took place. Why did it take so long to take on these primitives with spears? Is it because they weren't as primitive as you say, and it required an arms race to have a foot in the game?

>>19751136
What about the plague?

A very decently argued book that is laughed at by scientific racists who never read it.

>>19751158
plague spread across the entire world, it would need to be a local endemic thing that prevents outsiders from invading even with superior technology/numbers. The Sahara also works in this capacity, so it can satisfy Diamonds geographic boner, but only if you accept that the key factor is the recent evolution of man.
>>19751127
That's what it ultimately boils down too, ban the family, ban legacies of all types, distribute the proceeds of all work and talent to the lazy and talentless. It's the ultimate dysgenic dream.

>>19751182
>distribute the proceeds of all work and talent to the lazy and talentless.
Nigga that’s LITERALLY capitalism

>>19751182
Your genome is basically the same as man, 1000 years ago. We haven't really evolved for sometime now. Technology is what led them to overcome the geographic boner and diseases and .....

>>19751210
Can confirm, im lazy and talentless but managed to become CEO of Nestle inc

>>19751210
I am apologise comrade, i put you on priority list for dacha and lada immediately.
>>19751226
That's an assertion that is not really born out by modern genetics, lots of studies coming out now looking at active selection in the last 1000 years. That's of course ignoring that 40% of places like england were genetically replaced by outsiders in 600ad. I recommend greg clark, who documents the differential fertility of different classes and how social status is inherited. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_8S-_L4eZQ4

>>19751285
Nutrition is the factor that affects your status in society more than any intrinsic factor.

>>19750767
one barge that operates on a river is equivalent to about 15 hopper cars, a modern train can pull about 100 of the jumbo hoppers

im sure you can get enough barges to beat that tonnage but it doesn't remove the point, which was that solutions exist to supplying landlocked regions now and they have been around for multiple generations, that is no longer an excuse

>>19751378
>100
Nah, buddy, they're way bigger now.
>t. trainfag

>>19751378
>lol, just spend resources to get advantages that certain regions had since the dawn of time you will soon catch up
I wish i was as flooded with resources as first worlders so i could be dumb and not suffer any consequences

>>19751378
Also, you're forgetting that barges get grouped together similar to a train.

>>19750655
Where are the deepwater ports and navigable rivers in the Valley of Mexico, the Yucatan, or the Andes?

>>19751602
They had llamas, mayze and potatos
Africa just had niggers and shitty geography

>>19751378
See
>>19751058
Retard

>>19751378
Shipment by rail is a lot more expensive than barge. For a lot of grain companies that have a choice, they'll easily prefer to barge it. Rail is the premium service if they really need to move product.

>>19750765
Tse Tse Fly and African tropical parasites/diseases cannot be overstated in the how much they raised the difficulty bar for Africans. You cant bring horses south of the Sahel they die in droves and cant be bred effectively due to said parasites..

>>19751783
And it can't be overstated that immunities to diseases, via genetic adaption, or an inoculation is something that Europeans had to conquer on their homefront as well, with human and other domesticated animals.

>>19751541
Hi fellow Train Fag. I operated a Yard locomotive on the Mississippi River for about 10 years loading/unloading river barges and quit shortly before Covid hit so I could get out of DOT bi weekly drug tests for derailing. (Our tracks and SOPs were complete dogshit, I tried to tell them multiple times) I think I have about 30 not at fault derails under my belt. My first derail was at fault. Me not throwing a switch right after about 9 months as a switch men so I'm better but not by enough. Had to cover for a union guy who left a joint in the loco. Our trains were only about 15-30 cars long though max. Our tracks had pretty steep grades to get up and down fucking sucked in the winter with rotten grain and salt ferts lubricating the tracks, and the fuckin sanders always clogged or werent filled up by first shift go fuckin figure.
>>19751378 Suck me dry for this anon.
The 6 figure fortune Im using to make my weed business from sueing my employers for safety violations says you have no fucking clue as to what you are typing anon, your welcome for the >you. A barge on the river costs minimum 150k-200k usd for a POS used one. Also industry standard fiberglass lids are 10-20k a piece and a barge has 7-9 of them per barge. This was in 2019 when I stopped working my suicide 75s on nights. Prices for shipping are at Human history level highs right now fyi there was a chronic shortage of workers before Covid after? I enjoy the stories cause I don't have to deal with it anymore. You're also not accounting for the Fortune in fuel it takes to make that train speed up and slow down even 1MPH. Trains are efficient for land based logistics but water is the king by orders of magnitude. Also tracks take legit engineering which Africa does not have at present. A clod of dirt or a piece of track spaced out 3 inches due to wear and tear can and will derail a train I've seen it happen with less even. Fuck I even derailed underwater once.
>>19751542
This anon is right. It takes money to make money so get to work bitch. Barges and the logistics needed to unload them are in the double digit millions minimum. A fucking POS rusted out Cable crane is 500k and that Air compressor is gonna blast out and freeze shut every other fuckin week in the winter have fun son.
>>19751550
Depending on location and river conditions aroun 5-12 on the open river depending on direction of travel. This is for the Mississippi though around IL/MO. River gets way bigger down south. 200ft depth vs 30-40 in St.L.

>>19751902
Imagine spending this much time on a post and entirely missing the point.

>>19751954
Make the suck sounds twink.

>>19751963
Africa has no excuse for not developing their infrastructure with all of the technologies that they've had access to after the beginning of the 20th century.

The bantu race is a bioweapon that destroys civilization. That is all

>>19751058
Why sub saharan africans never tried to escape their fate by travelling out of the continent, like the neanderthals and even more primitive hominids did hundred thousand years ago? Not talking about modern immigration.

>>19752013
They have been developing their infrastructure though

>>19752061
Light years behind. Take the loss dude.

>>19752013
You are boring, its not about blame.

>>19752069
I'm a different anon. And no, it's not like the whole continent looks like the rural DRC. Addis Ababa has trains that look nicer than those in some middle-income countries.

>>19752082
I'm not blaming anyone. You're clearly wanting to win. You're not in search of the truth.

>>19752084
I don't disagree at all. They have some strong economies with formidable infrastructures. The point is, coming up with excuses for not developing, or blaming white men for many places not being developed, is silly. European countries have given them all of the tech that we used to conqueror their lands. Now they just have to put in some effort.

>>19752109
They are though. Their hdi is better than 30 years ago (on average)
This shit takes time and has many setbacks on the way.
Give niggers 50 more years and they will be latin american tier (unless some crazy shit happens like ww3)

>>19752261
Excuses.

>>19752317
Yes
What did you expect? Wakanda like in your retarded capeshit?

>>19752343
I expect them to be on par with the rest of the developed world for how rich their continent is with resources.

>>19750143
Nothing more than critical race theory disguised as history/anthropology. many such cases. just more leftist schlock for the gladwell crowd. ashamed that some of you fucking niggers have actually read this book lol. How do I know what's in it? Because I read the wikipedia (which was pozzed as shit by the way) so fuck off.

kys you fucking retards

>>19751881
>Europeans had to conquer on their homefront as well, with human and other domesticated animals.

top fucking retard strikes again

The condition of the tropics is much DIFFERENT than anything North of Italy. The tropics are wet (at periods) and very fucking hot, which makes them a cesspool for disease and pests. Literally, a fucking utopia for virii, bacteria and parasites that have all the warmth, water and time to evolve into the horrible things they are. Europe gets winter and snow. The freeze wipes out most pests, winter is literally a fucking fridge that puts a stop to anything resembling (widely spread) parasites. Sure they exist, but not even close to the extent of Africa
>but muh plague from a gorillion years ago
>but muh parasites that muh ancesturds got (from eating raw seafood)
>muh extinct megafauna

Meanwhile in most of Africa, you step in dirty stagnant water, there's like a dozen type of parasites that will burrow through your skin and 10 years later it comes out of your eye or some shit. A mosquito bites you, boom malaria. A tse tse flies bites you? you're fucked. And all the disease you get from bushmeat. Shit load of bugs that will kiss you while you sleep, you don't even notice, and over the years you watch your body bloat (because of the rampant infection of blood parasites) and fail bit by bit. You wouldn't make it a year in the bush, faggit

It's fairly good in parts but the scope is larger than the author's area of expertise. Diamond also has a really annoying habit of saying "the experts are not in agreement on this but you can clearly see that (the option that helps his argument) has to be right". It's still far far better than most similar pop history books.

>>19750874

they had it good. but as with life there are trade-offs. disease, war, famine, the famous meteor expected to destroy our planet.

but honestly we still have those so

>>19752779
Interesting that the only major epidemic or pandemic to come out of Africa was the Plague of Cyprian in 250 AD. Which originated in Carthage, not the wet tropical environment you talked about.

>>19750464
>Europeans didn't earn their wealth, they lucked into it, therefore it should be given to those they exploited.
Yes, there is nothing wrong with this statement. They were born with higher IQs and simply accomplished more as a result. What is controversial about this? From their very inception, they were destined to rule. What exactly is so impressive about carrying out a god-given duty which had no chance of failure?

I'm lucky. Other races weren't.

>>19752879
Didn't mean to quote the last part. I don't believe in imparting fortune onto those that weren't chosen.

>>19750784
They'll never respond to you.

>>19750357
based

>We didn't civilize because we couldn't tame Zebras.
>Never mind all the war and cannibalism.

He opens the book by saying that he will not be making any racist conclusions i.e. he pre-emptively shuts down one avenue of investigation for political reasons, and not soon after he says that the people of Papua New Guinea are genetically more intelligent than whites. Complete hack. Leftists are always performing mental gymnastics to deny the reality of biological, evolutionary differences between races (unless those differences are Good Things, like blacks being innately anti-racist vs. whites being innately racist).

>>19753502
>not soon after he says that the people of Papua New Guinea are genetically more intelligent than whites
He never says that.

>>19753514
I was just looking over an article I read about the book, which had this to say:
>In particular, Diamond argues that people in PNG (Papua New Guinea), are significantly smarter than the average bear. “in mental ability, New Guineans are probably genetically superior [my emphasis] to Westerners”: p21. “Modern ‘Stone Age’ peoples are on the average probably more intelligent, not less intelligent, than industrialized peoples. ” p 21.
>This is sufficiently odd that readers of GGS often refuse to admit that Diamond ever said it. They’ll deny that it’s even in the book.
Funny.

>>19750317
Where can we find these domesticated zebras though?

>>19753545

>>19753537
>may have come to be
Notice how this isn't his main thesis, and he doesn't bother even trying to prove it as such. He just says that if anyone would be genetically selected for intelligence, it would be "stone age" peoples, for the reasons he lists.

>>19751119
>Buddhism would actually say that though.
Perhaps, but Buddhism was refuted by Sri Shankaracharya (PBUH)

>>19753558
>1 image off google images
riveting thesis

>>19753558
One black and white photo of one zebra is all you got, huh? Weak

>>19753571
You wouldn't accept anything I gave you anyway. Typical woman.

>>19753559
He uses weasel words to give himself an exit if he needs one. Not that he does, because nobody is going to object to someone saying that People of Color (tm) are genetically smarter than whites, even if they all simultaneously agree that genetic racial differences in intelligence don't exist.

>>19753589
Imagine what you could do, if you learned how to ask jeeves for yourself.

>>19753593
Which weasel words? You wouldn't be trying to exit an explanation, would you?

>>19753558
that doesn't mean it's domesticated.
it just means this man had the balls to saddle it and ride it

>>19753600
"may have come to be"
"probably"

Why does this even need to be explained? Anyway he's a hack who says Papua New Guineans are genetically more intelligent than whites while simultaneously denying racial intelligence differences.

>>19752864
>what is AIDS?

>>19753591
>an example of a tame zebra = OMGZ ZEBRAS HAVE BEEN DOMESTICATED
based retard

>>19753606
And navigate it through an obstacle course. White men know how to tame wild beast.

>>19753608
Those aren't weasel words. They're proof of speaking in hypotheticals where you're not 100% certain. This is an attempt at history, not a math textbook.

>>19753620
>tame an animal
>breed it with another tamed animal
>keep the offspring that are easier to tame/less hostile to humans
>rinse and repeat
Simple as.

>>19753636
Why would he even be presenting this hypothetical if he also insists that racial IQ differences don't exist?

>>19753615
30 million dead in 50 years. Where as H1N1 killed ~twice as much in a couple of years. And that's not even the biggest killer that we've had to eradicate with our brains.

>>19753593
He posts evidence then claims its lacking and all on the same page, you have to be legally retarded to not see through the bullshit

>>19750143
Is shit.

>>19753645
So your point is that you don't know the definitions of "epidemic" and "pandemic?" Ok.

>>19753643
>any animal can be domesticated
based retard

>>19753593
>modern "Stone Age" peoples are on the average probably more intelligent
>Abo's routinely master industrial technologies
OK
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s1yeBmSFkC4

>>19753685
I want to say they can, but then I remember niggers and how much time and money we've spent trying to domesticate them. Africa's only hope might be the good ol' fashion "kill anyone who commits even a minor crime" method.

>>19753683
The vast majority have originated in Eurasia. We fought hard against these diseases, and we shouldn't be disparaged. You owe white man all.

>>19753721
Stealing in somewhere like Nigeria can get you burned alive or beaten to death with a crowbar.

>>19750143
Test

>>19750655
>Zeihan also explains this well from a geographical perspective, and pic related is worth a thousand words. What you don't see is the lack of deepwater ports and lack of navigable rivers.

What these purely material arguments omit is that it was never a level playing field intelligence wise. Africans are heavily mixed with ancient hominid species, possibly dating back millions of years.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-science-ghost-idUSKBN2072X9

>>19750472
It's a combination of both, but mostly it's that intelligent people adapt and diversify quicker, produce more intelligent offspring and in the case of Eurasians snowballed from there.

>>19750352

https://www.altcensored.com/watch?v=qvaxPH3ftUQ

>>19750784
How do those intermittent breeding experiments compare to the millennia that went into the development of the horse?

>>19750143
jewish and anti-white

>>19750352
>>19753832
thanks. that made me to want to read it more

>>19750143
fanfiction history

>>19750357
Imagine ever thinking an award named after someone who was considered a yellow jourrnalist of its time is worth anything but shit.

>>19750352
This. Based fellow althyp watcher

>>19750143
literally and unironically refuted by a random /pol/ screencap

>>19753685
Yes, probably, given time and effort.
The remarkable thing about domesticated animals is that it was done without much knowledge of breeding or long term planning, but by happenstance. There were many breeds of horses all over the world, they were almost all hunted to extinction, except the ones corralled in the southern russian steppe for meat, which they kept rather than cattle because they could break the snow to eat grass.

tfw no one responds to threads about books i'm reading/about to read unless anons can find a way to argue about racism

>>19750143
I had the good sense never to read it

>>19750143
I liked it, though his historiography is a little flawed. He takes Spanish explorer accounts at face value, for example.

>>19750255
Good luck trying to predict america conquest or opio wars, using only geography

>>19755591
That's a sign you need to read better books.

>>19756238
but half the poster in the thread didnt even read the book i posted about and openly admit it. If anything /lit/ mostly talks about mostly the same books over and over. Been trying to start a conversation about my latest read for the last few months but i finally moved on. It was an excellent book though, especially if you're into sailing.

>>19756393
I didn't read the book in OP, but I've studied enough to be able to show contradictions on both sides of the argument in this thread, from the people attacking the book, and the one's defending it.

Imagine thinking what kind of dirt you walk on and what the weather is outside gets to dictate whether you invent writing and the wheel or not.

>>19756498
Why would a landlocked nation, create ocean fearing boats? There's a board for you to troll on, I suggest you take your shit there.

>>19756498
imagine thinking the environment influences agriculture pfft i just piss on sand and wheat sprouts out

>>19750317
He said you couldn't domesticate them.
The difference being that you couldn't have a new born zebra be pre-tamed, you needed to tame all of them individually.

I don't think he was right about that, but that was what he said anyways.

No, not really

>>19750143
Checked it out after much hype and was severely disappointed and disgusted by the poorly argumented leaps in logic, 0/5 would not recommend.

>>19753558
Do you not understand the difference between 'tamed' and 'domesticated'?

>>19753566
'Refuted' how exactly? Isn't anatta kind of obvious if you're honest with yourself?

>>19753696
Isn't any IQ test devised by Westerners going to be biased towards measuring the skills that are useful in Western civilization rather than the skills that are useful in a Stone Age society?

>>19753832
Not an argument. If his thesis is true, it's true, and if it's false, it's false, regardless of who he is and why he's arguing it.

>>19756393
Your problem is you feel entitled to a good thread and you blame /lit/ for not giving it to you. Lurk more and pay attention and maybe someday you'll be able to make a good thread.

>>19755722
Does 'it's determined' imply 'a human can predict it'? There may be variables that you don't know about, and it may be too complex to predict the outcome of, but that doesn't mean it's not determined.

>>19750143
More accurate than it's detractors claim, not as accurate as it's defenders claim.

>>19757229
>I'm an autist and I don't like threads that are different

>>19757190
Do you not know, that first comes love, than comes marriage, that comes a baby something or other. It's a process. You keep on taming them, for decades.

>>19757361
I don't think merely continuing to tame them does it, since inheritance isn't Lamarckian.

>>19757348
I'm an autist and I don't complain in other peoples' threads about my threads that didn't get the number of replies I wanted. I'm a better person than you. Lurk more.

>>19757396
This is my thread though
>lurk more
i dont care about you're formats or the books you circle jerk or your horrible charts
Imagine posting your opinion on a book when you havnt even read it.

>>19757375
How do we have certain behaviors that exist in different dog breeds.
>>19757396
But you do complain about people not upholding your standard of post protocol.

>>19757445
By selective breeding. But that doesn't mean every species is domesticable like wolves were.

>>19757453
Have we not domesticated numerous species of animals. We don't know, because we, or they, stopped the process.

what exactly is his argument? if he says that euros had a harder time so they learned (evolved) to become more intelligent and dominate the world, how is that controversial?

>>19757467
I'm not a biologist, but a biologist could probably tell you more about whether a species is likely to be domesticable and why.

>>19757442
>Imagine posting your opinion on a book when you havnt even read it.
Where do you think you are?
>This is my thread though
And I replied to you very early on with my thoughts about the book (which in fact I have read in its entirety). The conversation died not because I left, but because you didn't feel like continuing the discussion about geography and other books that talk about it. So then other anons, and maybe you, got into it about race and racism which is a valid point of discussion for this particular book anyway. My spoiler stands.

>>19757445
Talking about post etiquette is always on topic. If not for that minimal level of gate-keeping our precious community would dissolve into lowest common denominator NPC copy pasted opinions.

>>19757519
>If not for that minimal level of gate-keeping our precious community would dissolve into lowest common denominator NPC copy pasted opinions.
kek

>>19757508
I respect that. I mainly studied plants and insects, so I don't really know, but I'm unaware of anything that would make an organism unworthy of domestication. But, why isn't one being able to tame a zebra, not good enough for them doing this to any number of other zebras, and using them as a tool to increase their quality of life.

>>19757534
>but I'm unaware of anything that would make an organism unworthy of domestication
domestication of large carnivores (like cheetah and tigers) is an obvious example as something that doesnt usually work out.

>>19757519
And that thought process on proper post protocol hinders new views from being etched into the echos of time decreasing our ability to know.

>>19757478
>how is that controversial?
It is taken simultaneously as axiom and value by the media that every group is equal. To suggest otherwise, especially across racial lines (which became the whole point of equality after the american civil war), is therefore controversial. Groups that show this is not true by their excellence, such as whites, asians, men, indian immigrants to america who have a media income in the six figure range, etc, are therefore bad and lose the protections of "equality". It is thus permissible to discriminate against them.

>>19757551
https://youtu.be/Ndlf5_L5gsE

>>19757553
Only if you assume that the only forum is /lit/, and ignore all the billions of other forums and platforms on which to post any way you please. That's a pretty anti-diversity position you're taking there, sure you don't want to rethink it?

>>19757562
I mean pittbulls are known to cuddle with babies but i wouldnt want my child around one just because someone showed me a cute picture.

>>19757559
How do you tell superiority from the effects of discrimination when discrimination still exists though? We don't have a control society where black people and white people are treated exactly the same to compare to.
>>19757562
Again there's a difference between taming and domestication.

>>19757576
This forum being dubbed /lit/, means post should be about literature. The way you post about literature, shouldn't matter. You're taking away creativity. You're possibly even making someone that isn't well versed, feel like they are being shooed away, cause they write in a different or less articulate style than you. And they could possibly teach you something. If you just listened.

>>19757585
What differences does it matter about domesticating or taming, if you're able to use that animal's talents to increase your happiness by carrying shit or helping you to plow a field, you're life is better. Stop with the excuses.

>>19757508
I'm not a biologist, but I know some things make it impractical or nearly impossible to domesticate certain species. Some animals, like hippopotamus, some elephants, and many kinds of bear, could be fed fairly economically and could be housed if you have enough land, but the adults of the species are potentially so dangerous that even a wildlife expert would have to keep his distance. Other species are hard to mate in captivity.

>>19757478
I think he said europeans and early middle easterners had it easier because they had the proper climate containing animals best for domestication and that because of similar climates existing on lines of longitute technology and people spread thusly. Therefore ideas and technology spread slower southward. There were also exposed to diseases from animals early on to build immunity.

>>19757562
Taming /=/ domestication, for the 184th fucking time ITT

>>19757610
There's a difference between having it domesticated on a genetic level and having to re-tame each new one

>>19757585
>How do you tell superiority from the effects of discrimination when discrimination still exists though?
That couldn't be more simple. You just discriminate against the group you suspect of being superior (or equivalently discriminate in favor of the group(s) you suspect of being inferior) and then see if they still achieve results higher than the other groups. The real problem, though, is being forced to conclude that people are NOT equal, and the terror of what you assume is the only logical action to take: genocide. Of course, this isn't the only logical action to take, there's an infinity of possible actions and ways to co-exist, but the people who consciously insist on equality unconsciously are the exact type of person who would instantly default to genocide as the only way to act in a world of inequality.

It's a fucked up way of seeing the world perpetuated by media.

>>19757615
>live in a climate where you die if you don't properly ration food for the winter
>had it easier
so jared diamond's IQ is 90? how'd he get a book published then?

>>19757594
>The way you post about literature, shouldn't matter.
Wrong. That's the ONLY thing that matters. It's what makes 4channel.org/lit distinct from any other literature discussion forum. Stop posting. Lurk more.

>>19757627
>>19757619
Who fucking cares? If the animal can provide utility to your life, you win. Stop giving them excuses, they were lazy. And still are.

>>19757629
When did I say that genocide is the only logical conclusion? The mentally disabled are obviously inferior in capacity and I don't advocate genocide against them.

>>19757639
It's not necessary practical if you have to re-tame each new one, especially if a non-tame one is highly dangerous and even a tame one is still somewhat dangerous. (Take what happened to Siegfried and Roy!)

>>19757637
You're just smugy snob with no friends.

>>19757630
"Winner of the Pulitzer Prize" is one clue. His surname being that of some kind of precious stone or metal is another clue. Check _____ ___.

>>19757644
But it's definitely not practical to plow your field with your own hands each season. You're talking about, a possibility, that we have no fucking idea of it's probability, cause they gave up.

>>19757658
You go domesticate a rhino, then, and tell me how it goes.

>>19757641
I didn't say you think that. I said the type of person who treats the belief in equality between groups as a virtue while also supporting/tolerating discrimination against claimed "superior" groups believes genocide is the only logical consequence of equality between groups being proven wrong. It's a form of mental illness. Like I said, not-insane people understand that there are plenty of ways to co-exist without resorting to mass murder.

>>19757637
>the only thing that matters are arbitrary formats
npc opinion you have much more in common with normies than you think.

>>19757639
>Who fucking cares? If the animal can provide utility to your life,
but that's the point you fucking retard, taming means that the animal will be generally OK with being around you, even 'playing' with him, but they're not going to do any "work" for you, taming does not mean the animal has been domesticated and coerced to work for you, and in fact, a lot of tame animals snap for no reason and kill their handler

>arguing with a /pol/tard

>>19757662
Stop with your childish argument, they didn't even fucking try.

>>19757664
I don't think anyone should be discriminated against.
>>19757683
How do you know that, have you looked into it? Do you really think they wouldn't have by now if they could have?

>>19757683
He's right. Trying to domesticate an animal like a hippo is more dangerous than having to plow your field by hand.

>>19757693
>b-but no one has really tried
yeah because it murders anyone who gets near it

>>19757674
They didn't even try to though. And until we do know, I will continue to say you're a retard that gives excuses for people that don't even know how to keep their children alive, still to this day. 150k children below the age of 5 starved to death this week, all because they still don't know how farm.

>>19757685
>I don't think anyone should be discriminated against.
Okay, this wasn't about you, but sure. I hereby deem you a good person.

>>19757703
Most of Africa works in agriculture.

>>19757685
>>19757693
I know that they didn't try, because a man was riding on a zebra in a picture over a hundred years ago that I posted in this thread. And I'm about as certainly as anyone could be, that a ruminant isn't dangerous enough, to where they're gonna rip off it's handlers arm because it doesn't want to plow a field anymore. Stop with your retardation.

just came across this in atomic habits, is this true?

>>19757730
Diamond goes into more detail about it, but basically, yes.

>>19757730
Nope, read Zeihan. Much more important is the presence of navigable rivers to facilitate trade and defensible borders to allow societies to have continuity.

>>19757729
The danger factor was something I mentioned in relation to hippos. Zebras aren't as dangerous but they're unpredictable and cocky enough that keeping them and selectively breeding them for generations would probably be more trouble than it's worth. It's not like it is with most canines - they have a social structure that is fairly easy to take advantage of, and they will gladly scavenge for food at campsites.

>>19757726
And they still have children starving to death, this very year. Why, cause there are still people there that need us to teach them how to farm, or farm properly to have higher yields. Or are all of the nonprofits doing something else. And they receive most of their food from other continents, 85% of their food comes from another continent. Enough of the excuses.

>>19757762
So you just want to argue? They didn't help themselves. So why should we?

>>19753545
If Zebras lived in Eurasia they would've been domesticated.
>but they're so much different from horseys
So were horses before they were domesticated.

>>19757763
>Why
war. Also there are actually people starving in america and europe right now.

>>19757763
It was like this in Europe a long time ago, and even more recently in Asia. It's how life is in agrarian societies, especially those located in areas geographically prone to crop failure. Western "aid" just dumps free stuff into the markets, so local production collapses since it can't compete with free stuff.

>>19750584
This would be a compelling argument if not basically every white race-realist says that East-Asians, if not Jews, are the smartest.

>>19757788
>Also there are actually people starving in america and europe right now.
Nope. It would be international news if someone in America or Europe actually died from being unable to eat. Food is literally available for free, no questions asked, in America and Europe.

>>19757762
again, what about aurochs and horses?
do you think they just randomly decided they likes being enslaved and slaughtered?
aurochs were described as caesar as being tremendously aggressive and dangerous and as big as a small elephant. We know from their skeletal records they were bigger than any breed of cattle we have today.
Fucking cope don't reply to me just give me your adress so I can choke you out

>>19757801
'Smartest' and 'superior' aren't the same thing, don't they usually say 'they're smarter but whites are better because X, Y and Z'?

>>19757792
I'm not going to deny that as being a factor, aid, destabilizing or creating any number of problems in a system. But they have a history of not helping themselves. And still, if most African are working in the agriculture sector, food scarcity should be minimal in the 21st century with all of the technologies that we share with the world.

>>19750143
> What are your thoughts on <<Guns, Germs, and Steel>> by Jared Diamond?
HORRIBLE FILTH... the amount of racism this Jared guy spewed against Hispanics is astounding, and show the sort of propaganda being nurtured at the "Pulitzer Price" and the protestantized "gringo" academia. The chapters regarding Hispanics in <<Guns, Germs, and Steel>> seem to have been written by someone who copy-pasted the most anti-Hispanic sentences from wikipedia. A good example was his "reasoning" behind the lack of the wheel in the New World.

THANKFULLY, his anti-Hispanic racist diatribe was debunked by the great American writer: E. Michael Jones. This good man, valiantly countered Jared's bitter racism against Hispanics, by outlining how the development of "the wheel" in the New World took place after a "logos" was brought over by Christians from Europe. IT IS IMPERATIVE to highlight that "the wheel" has three categories:
1) The <<wheel>>, a "flat" structure with it a circular edge.
2) The <<wheel and axle>>, which is composed of a wheel and an axle that is connected to its center.
3) The <<infrastructure surrounding of the wheel that allows its existence", or in more vulgar terms: roads.

While certain Native Americans tribes had "the wheel" as toys; it is only after the advent of European Hispanics that they introduce a "logos" that allows "the wheel" to be a real thing.
>pic related, wheeled Native American toys

FYI: Do NOT forget that European Hispanics made Native Americans into citizens of their European nation, with not only the same rights, but after the Nueva Leyes, more rights under certain circumstances.

>>19757819
Ancient writers described aurochs as only aggressive if provoked.

>>19757730
>>19757755

Do you hate Hispanics?

>>19757906
yeah, like trying to tie a rope around them, drag them around, force them to do work and slaughter them?

>>19750143

>>19750472
Yes, but it's called a historical dialectic for a reason.
Material conditions shape the people
The people shape the material conditions
The changed material conditions shape the people again
The changed people reshape the material conditions
and on and on and on...
History is positive, not normative. Even if one accepts that civilized people lucked into conditions for civilization, existing in a civilization has changed those peoples. The supposition that "History is a matter luck, so level the playing field" assumes that the playing field CAN be leveled. That Europeans can just dismantle their empire and hand everything to Africans and magically Africans will become a civilized people equivalent to everyone else. The answer is simply "no". Even if it was true that Africans could develop a psychologically and biologically distinct population capable of civilized living, that civilization would be radically different by virtue of resulting from massive paternalistic transfer of material wealth rather than a real historical dialectic.

This unlocked a high school memory.
Huh. Will rewatch

>>19757981
This is now a wooded path thread. JK

I don't have a position on either side of this debate, but it's so strange to me how the race/biology side desires their explanation to be the correct one. It's like they WANT it to be inherent and irreformable, so that they can gloat sadistically about how superior they are to blacks and native Americans. Any good-hearted person would want Diamond's explanation to be the right one so that we might eventually see Africa develop and claim equal dignity with us.

>>19757788
Can you prove it? That war is the reason why children are starving to death in Africa

>>19758030
Sounds like you not only have a position, but also a desire for said position, to be the correct one.

>>19758030
They don't care about the dignity of mankind - they just want to shit on it.

>>19758030
I don't think that's true at all. Certainly there are some legitimate misanthropic racists who hate Blacks personally, but that's a very small minority of people who qualify as "racist" these days. Most are opposed to Diamond's explanation because of the points made elsewhere here, that if Diamond's explanation is correct it means the success of Europeans is purely luck, and therefore illegitimate. There's an implicit bias of association which makes this unpalatable (and in my opinion this reflexive reaction is the correct one), because what it seems to say is "Yes, your ancestors went through incredible suffering to create this society, and have produced objects of total wonder, but that doesn't matter because you have no entitlement to the conditions you live in. Give it to someone else and don't ask any further questions"
I suspect also that many who think that expect that Africa will eventually develop and claim equal dignity, but the timescale on that happening is so high as to be irrelevant to any of us. That's true even if Diamond's explanation is correct.

>>19758078
>Yes, your ancestors went through incredible suffering to create this society, and have produced objects of total wonder, but that doesn't matter because you have no entitlement to the conditions you live in. Give it to someone else and don't ask any further questions"
I mean, why does who your ancestors were have any moral significance?

>>19758060
Worse than that, he doesn't care whatsoever about anybody living in Africa. He'd rather make moral judgments about people (without also listening to let alone understanding their position) with whom he disagrees. He's exactly the type of person I was describing above, who thinks that if we don't all stick to the axiom that groups are evil that inevitably we'll have to attempt to genocide each other.

>>19758078
saying that someone had a leg up doesnt mean they didnt will themselves to what they are through hard work

>>19758060
I desire the environmental explanation, but I don't know if it's true.
>>19758078
How would the racial explanation be any different. "Your ancestors happened to move to a colder climate, so they became more intelligent than the savages through natural selection. It's pure luck."
None of these positions exclude luck.

>>19758089
Because the society they construct is a noumenous birthright to which all of their progeny are entitled by default. It is the sum total construction of the social values they pass down to the people who come after them, the spirit in the parents who inherit the society they live in, and the very construction of the world through the forms of architecture. You cannot insult Pythagoras without also insulting geometry, and by extension mathematics.

>>19758094
Logically it doesn't, but psychologically it does. Policy decisions have nothing to do with logic and everything to do with the psychology of the mass.

>>19758121
It places the object of change in the actor rather than the world around him. The racial explanation says "YOU are different because you're lucky", Diamond's explanation says "Your SOCIETY is different because you're lucky."

>>19758121
But you're excluding: hard work, endurance, overcoming adversity, suffering, [hardships that Eurasians had to overcome, and shouldn't be overlooked when thinking about how we earned our keep, while you do nothing but create excuses for being an insufferable little faggot]

>>19758129
>The racial explanation says "YOU are different because you're lucky", Diamond's explanation says "Your SOCIETY is different because you're lucky."
No it doesn't. Racial averages don't tell you anything about individuals. A man could be white and stupid, or black and smart, despite the fact that the racial explanation says whites are smarter than blacks in general. Both of these theories are dealing with generalities, with societies at large, not individuals.

>>19758129
>Because the society they construct is a noumenous birthright to which all of their progeny are entitled by default.
You didn't choose who your ancestors though, so how can it make you any more or less morally deserving?

>>19758161
Because morality is deterministic and not probabilistic. It doesn't matter that you COULD have been born in Africa. You WERE born in Europe.

>>19758149
Sure, but that's irrelevant. Day-to-day living doesn't operate in the realm of statistics, it operates in the realm of symbols. A British man cognizant of being British lives his life as the symbol of being British through its definition TO HIM. When you attack the symbol of "British-ness" as being a result purely of luck, you by transference also attack him for viewing the symbol as not being luck-based.
This is not an alienable part of human psychology. It is totally irrelevant that a given British man is retarded. The symbol of British-nature to him is intelligence, and by defining it as luck you attack his core identity directly, even when he has minimal participation in it.

>>19758161
Concept of "thrown-ness" detected. Shut the fuck up. It's not a lottery. You and every other human are created by your parents.

>>19758161
I deserve, because they suffered. I still suffer. And like my kin, I work hard to not suffer. Now, how about you do a little bit of suffering, and let invention, guide you the promise land.

>>19758200
>Because morality is deterministic and not probabilistic. It doesn't matter that you COULD have been born in Africa. You WERE born in Europe.
So? You didn't choose who you were born to.
>>19758205
You didn't choose to be created by them, did you?

>>19758239
>So? You didn't choose who you were born to.
And who you COULD have been born to has no relevance to your decision. I COULD have been born to Jian Xian in Guandong Province but it doesn't mean that I have some very very small obligation to fly across the planet and take care of him in his old age. I have zero obligation. I was NOT BORN TO HIM. His ethnicity, heritage, and needs have NO INCLUSION in any concept of filial obligation that I have.
Because, again, morality is deterministic and not probabilistic.

Here's an example, a classic trolley problem.
There's a trolley coming down a rail. On its current lane, there's a man stuck on the rails and I'm too far away to reach him. But there's a lever next to me that switches the trolley to another rail where no one is present. The lever doesn't work too well, and there's a 50% chance that when I pull it that nothing happens and it gets stuck.
Does this mean that, compared to pulling a hypothetical lever that works correctly, it's 50% as good to pull this lever that doesn't always work correctly?

>>19758302
>I COULD have been born to Jian Xian in Guandong Province
No, you couldn't have. The concept of thrown-ness is complete bullshit. You are only you because your parents made you, and hypotheticals have no moral weight whatsoever.

>>19758239
>You didn't choose to be created by them, did you?
That has nothing to do with any kind of moral value relating to inheritance. You're attempting to create a kafka-trap argument, and I refuse to accept your presuppositions. Go away.

>>19758200
>A British man cognizant of being British lives his life as the symbol of being British through its definition TO HIM.
Yes this is the basic fallacy that underlies all racism. Nobody is responsible for the actions of other people, whether or not they happened to be of the same race as you. You didn't build the Cathedral of Notre Dame and you have no right to be proud of its architecture just because the people who did were white. Racial/national pride is simply a mythology created by governments to control populations so they'll be ready to die for their country.
>When you attack the symbol of "British-ness" as being a result purely of luck
Diamond isn't attacking the symbol of whiteness he's merely claiming that white society developed because of geographical factors. You claim it developed because of natural selection in response to environment. Both of these explanations are based on luck.

>>19758302
>Does this mean that, compared to pulling a hypothetical lever that works correctly, it's 50% as good to pull this lever that doesn't always work correctly?
I mean, in a strictly consequentialist viewpoint, yes, it's half as good, but the best thing to do is what will save the most lives, whether it's 1 life guaranteed, or 1 life with 50% odds (0.5 lives).

>>19758355
>Racial/national pride is simply a mythology
Identification with a mythological symbol is an inherent component of human psychology. It's not "just made up" by governments. If anything, governments are made up by mythological symbols.
>Both of these explanations are based on luck.
I don't care, see >>19758129

>>19758356
Shut the fuck up. I didn't ask you to recite useless undergrad jargon at me. Are you a human being? Do you have opinions? Is it or is it not 50% as good to pull the lever?

>>19758386
Yes, but both are the best thing you can do in that scenario, so in that sense they're equivalent.

>>19751143
The biggest problem was actually malaria and they didn't have much of an incentive. Shooting some blacks in a bush was never a problem

>>19758386
I don't think there's much human left there. I'm about 100% positive you're talking to a tranny.

>>19758417
>Is it X or is it not X anon?
>"Yes"
How fucking retarded are you? Where in the question did I ask anything that could answered with "Yes"?

>>19758422
That's not true. Why did they not get any headway into pushing inward, until the Gatling gun was created? Why did they need to invent it in the first place?

>>19753685
>any animal can be domesticated
Yes literally. Some are easier but with enough time, generations and selecting the right ones you always can. Most animals are just not worth being domesticated

>>19758438
"Yes" as in "it is".

>>19757227
>What are your thoughts on it?
>Gives thoughts
>That's not true!
Why do you do it for free?

>>19758453
Okay, so then if the probability of something occurring has no bearing on its goodness or not, why would the probability of you being born to different parents, a precondition of many things to be considered in themselves good, have any bearing on the morality of your current actions?

>>19758461
Because false statements aren't useful?
>>19758467
What are you talking about? I'm not talking about how likely it is, I'm talking about the fact that you didn't choose it.

>>19758467
Are you really asking, why we should honor those that came before us, by having actions that are morally sound?

>>19758483
You sound like you're upset about not having control over what body you were born in, tranny

>>19758444
Except it is true. The gatling gun was invented so americans could kill other americans in the civil war. Most of africa wasn't colonized because of the insane amount of deadly diseases and because steam ships hadn't been invented yet. This made it a logistical nightmare if you needed to move troops to large colony to supress natives. Furthermore was there not much insentive. Most of africa was some shitty jungle or desert and it made more sense to just move past it towards india and indonesia where you could actually make money. Take for example the west coast of africa. It is close enough and has sufficiently low population countries like spain and portugal could occupy large parts of it. It made however no sense to take anythin but some ports since there was nothing there

>>19758483
>I'm talking about the fact that you didn't choose it.
And if you pull the lever you don't choose whether or not it's going to work, but you agreed that it was moral to pull the lever.

>>19758494
No, I'm asking why anon thinks we shouldn't honor those that came before us, and instead act with total disregard for them because we didn't choose our ancestry.

>>19758505
So what if I am? More morphological freedom would be an unqualified good.
>>19758519
I feel like your entire concept of morality makes no sense.

>>19758510
The Gatling gun was used in numerous places throughout Africa to defend against massive rush attacks, that they experienced once they began to expand inward. They would have been overran without it. They needed technology to defeat the superior Africans.

>>19758527
The concept of morality makes no sense cause you're a tranny

>>19758544
No, your concept of morality makes no sense because it's stupid.

>>19758527
You said that it was immoral to treat your heritage as significant because you didn't choose it
I asked a question that boiled down to "Does the fact that doing something good might be dependent on external probabilistic circumstances matter?"
You answered no
I asked you why it mattered then that you couldn't choose your heritage
You are now confused and saying my morality makes no sense

Frankly, it's your morality that makes no sense. And you couldn't even frame a real answer to it, to be honest. Your response wasn't even to contend that it was right, but to say "Well this theory says it's right, and this theory says it's also right, so it must be right". I glanced over it to keep things moving, but that's not an answer. You made a rationalized argument to minimize your probability of being called incorrect, rather than attempting to deduce an answer.

Frankly, I think you don't understand my morality because you don't have any outside of a textbook, and the idea that someone could have personally held beliefs on whether something is good or not confuses and offends you.

>>19758532
It was used sure and it made it easier sure. But it was not required. If they wanted to take it without the gattling gun they would have just needed to send more men or it would have taken longer.

>superior Africans.
not superior enough to invent anything more than a spear

>>19758567
Watch it, don't think I won't defend the honor of my ancestors by throwing you against heavy objects in the room because you have no respect for hardwork.

>>19758588
I like your speculation. And if they're not superior, why are they fucking your women?

>>19758585
I mean, I believe it's good to do what leads to more happiness and less suffering, in total, in the world.

>>19758603
And you do that by segregating people.

>>19758603
basado

>>19758609
No you don't.

>>19758601
they don't
No woman wan't to sleep with them. When I ask them if they would ever data a black guy they just laugh and say no.

>>19758623
Cause they don't want you to neck yourself.

>>19758532
>superior Africans.
You mean "more numerous" Africans or "militarily superior African forces", not "superior Africans". Words mean things.

>>19758771
But they didn't let some disease from a lil ole insect stop them from conquering a piece of land.

>>19758623
Don't feed trolls, just report them for racism.

>>19758787
It's racist to say Africans are superior?

>>19758956
Yes? It's racist to say any race is superior.

Jared makes some good points and some bad points that part I thought was interesting was about weather patterns and how they would have helped certain civilizations and hurt others. Its the type of thing you wouldn't really think about until someone points it out to you.

>>19750143
death to

>>19759355
this

>>19759358
thread

>>19750478
I feel like you have never met a single historian

>>19759502
They probably haven't.

>>19759502
>>19759548
One of my degrees in history. Incidentally it was in a mando history course that I read GGS and had a conniption fit with the poor grad student who was teaching the course.

>>19750516
Lmao