Jared Diamond's _Collapse_ [MOFOE discussion]

[ChinoCoug]

Has anyone read Jared Diamond's Collapse? I heard him speak last night and got an autographed copy. His basic thesis was that societies that fall are ones that destroy their surroundings. I haven't read it yet, but I wanted to see if I can start a discussion.

I realize that environmental arguments differ in validity.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by ChinoCoug

Has anyone read Jared Diamond's Collapse? I heard him speak last night and got an autographed copy. His basic thesis was that societies that fall are ones that destroy their surroundings. I haven't read it yet, but I wanted to see if I can start a discussion.

I realize that environmental arguments differ in validity.

I loved "Guns, Germs and Steel," as I've said before (it's one of those books that alters the way you look at the world forever), but this book just hasn't grabbed me. I've felt no impulse to pick it up. I think Diamond's weakness is that he's kind of a polemicist, very politically motivated. For example, "Guns, Germs" makes a convincing case (in my view) for why Europeans ended up the way they were, and aborigines in the Americas and elsewhere ended up the way they were, when they came face to face beginning in the late Fifteenth Century. But he artfully dodges the harder question--i.e., why is, say, Afghanistan or Russia or Bolivia the way it is, and America or Western Europe the way it is? This is because such an analysis would probably require him to make the kinds of value judgments comparing one culture to the other which apparently he is not comfortable making.

[ChinoCoug]

I loved "Guns, Germs and Steel," as I've said before (it's one of those books that alters the way you look at the world forever), but this book just hasn't grabbed me. I've felt no impulse to pick it up. I think Diamond's weakness is that he's kind of a polemicist, very politically motivated. For example, "Guns, Germs" makes a convincing case (in my view) for why Europeans ended up the way they were, and aborigines in the Americas and elsewhere ended up the way they were, when they came face to face beginning in the late Fifteenth Century. But he artfully dodges the harder question--i.e., why is, say, Afghanistan or Russia or Bolivia the way it is, and America or Western Europe the way it is? This is because such an analysis would probably require him to make the kinds of value judgments comparing one culture to the other which apparently he is not comfortable making.

IMO, introducing culture in his argument would weaken explanatory power. When you have a compelling argument from the natural sciences why convolute it with culture?

Cultural explanations aren't only politically incorrect, they're metholodologically problematic. Cultural theories that explain wealth disparities, like the so-called "Protestant Work Ethic," are now mostly considered invalid.

Culture is hard to model (let alone quantify), it changes all the time, there's the problem of subcultures, etc. It's no wonder in many disciplines, like political science, it's shrinking as a methodological school, and in others, like economics, it's almost non-existent.

[creekster]

Does that mean you are suggesting that if the compelling arguments from natrual science are inadequate that one should simply ignore possible culture-based explnantions becasue they are convoluted and difficult?

I, too, liked Guns, Germs and Ssteel, and I am looking forward to reading collapse, esp. now that it is in paperback, but I have a long queue of books right now and it iwll be awhile before I get to it. I look forward to any of your reivews.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by creekster

Does that mean you are suggesting that if the compelling arguments from natrual science are inadequate that one should simply ignore possible culture-based explnantions becasue they are convoluted and difficult?

Amen. What explains Western Europe's and the United States' highly developed republican forms of government, economic freedoms, prosperity, etc. compared to other countries with equal or greater access to the fruits of the fertile crescent? Diamond simply doesn't go there. He sticks with comparing aboriginies to Eurasians. I agree with his book as far as it goes. It's brilliant; very illuminating. But it ignores the harder question.

I have read a number of extended reviews of Collapse. And while I haven't read the observation I am about to make stated as such, it seems to me that this book has a similar problem with oversimplification. The communities that Diamond studies are quite small and isolated, and sometimes in extreme environments. For example, the primary one is a Danish (I believe) settlement in Greenland that, for example, obliterated its timber supply to duplicate European buildings including churches, etc. The relevancy of that to the United States' super consumptive but super rich and hyper ecologically self-aware culture is hard for me to follow (apparently this is the extrapolation that Diamond suggests). The evironment is cleaner in the United States than in most third-world countries.

I agree that the "Protestant work ethic" explanation for the rise of the West is a stretch. But not because I reject those kinds of value judgments wholesale. I think that Protestantism actually--in its aim--was a counter force against the Rennaisance, which was a force in the direcation of the Enlightenment. And it's the Enlightenment that explains the West's dominance. On the other hand, the Protestant Reformation broke Catholic Christianity's hammerlock on European institutions. Still, accelerating progress toward the Enlightenment was an unintended byproduct of the Reformation, and "protestant work ethic" per se was not of overriding significance. This is my opinion, anyway. More on this another time.

[ChinoCoug]

I agree that the "Protestant work ethic" explanation for the rise of the West is a stretch. But not because I reject those kinds of value judgments wholesale. I think that Protestantism actually--in its aim--was a counter force against the Rennaisance, which was a force in the direcation of the Enlightenment. And it's the Enlightenment that explains the West's dominance. On the other hand, the Protestant Reformation broke Catholic Christianity's hammerlock on European institutions. Still, accelerating progress toward the Enlightenment was an unintended byproduct of the Reformation, and "protestant work ethic" per se was not of overriding significance. This is my opinion, anyway. More on this another time.

Some people say that Protestantism was a catalyst for the Enlightenment because the Reformation, as you said, broke the Catholic hammerlock and got people thinking for themselves. Some believe that it was Christianity that produced the Enlightenment because the belief that "reason can conquer all" was a byproduct of the Christian soteriology, as opposed to Platonism, which held that pure reason cannot be attained by mortals.

PWE also held that Confucian societies like Japan and China would never develop because individual initiative is hampered. Now that Japan has grown very fast, people are saying "Asian values" are good economics because it emphasizes dedication to the company. And "ma~nana culture" is keeping Latin America back.

THERE ARE AS MANY CULTURAL EXPLANATIONS AS EXPERTS.

Is there any way we can test any of these theories? No. Why not extend GGS's approach to smaller geographical regions?

[MikeWaters]

Guns, Germs and Steel was on PBS last night. TIVO'd it, haven't watched it yet.

Before that I watched some dildos make a trebouchet (?) which is a sort of catapault. that was pretty cool. of course I was thinking to myself, didn't they make like a thousand of these things in the movie Kingdom of Heaven already? (TIC)

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by ChinoCoug

Some people say that Protestantism was a catalyst for the Enlightenment because the Reformation, as you said, broke the Catholic hammerlock and got people thinking for themselves. Some believe that it was Christianity that produced the Enlightenment because the belief that "reason can conquer all" was a byproduct of the Christian soteriology, as opposed to Platonism, which held that pure reason cannot be attained by mortals.

PWE also held that Confucian societies like Japan and China would never develop because individual initiative is hampered. Now that Japan has grown very fast, people are saying "Asian values" are good economics because it emphasizes dedication to the company. And "ma~nana culture" is keeping Latin America back.

THERE ARE AS MANY CULTURAL EXPLANATIONS AS EXPERTS.

Is there any way we can test any of these theories? No. Why not extend GGS's approach to smaller geographical regions?

And some say an unusual spate of wet but mild winters over a number of years that led to particularly fecund harvests brought on the enlightenment--people were liberated from toiling day in and day out just to eat, and given spare time to think on a more exalted level. Limiting oneself to "natural sciences" to explain everything ignores the fact that such approaches raise as many questions as they answer. Yes, the quest for truth is never ending and requires constant, vigilant adjustment. There are no easy answers, even in the natural sciences. Limiting to explanations found in the "natural sciences" you only get the tip of the iceburg in my opinion. For example, in trying to explain the West's rise beginnining in the Fifteenth Century, what a loss it would be to ignore the "cultural" component of a reawakening to Classical civilization and its best, most important values, largely forgotten during the Middle Ages.

[MikeWaters]

I watched the PBS doc "guns, germs and steel" part I yesterday.

Diamond, himself, appears throughout the documentary. He has a weird way of talking. I couldn't figure out the accent, but having read his wiki biog I assume it is a variation of a Bostonian accent.

Anyway, he of course asserts that the geographical nature of eurasia led to technological superiority. I.e. exchange of ideas and technology were much easier in Eurasia. He talked also about the role of domestic animals.

Interesting that the Mayans had a written language but the Incas did not. If one believes the Book of Mormon that steel was made in the Americas, one wonders about "lost" technologies. I.e. civilizations that were culturally advanced are wiped out by aggressive civilizations.

A counter argument to Diamond's hypothesis is wouldn't variation in climate encourage trade? (i.e. I have something you can't make, and vice versa, let's trade). I don't know...

I set TIVO to record part II where he talks about African conquest. The first part was about Pizarro and the Incas.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

I watched the PBS doc "guns, germs and steel" part I yesterday.

Diamond, himself, appears throughout the documentary. He has a weird way of talking. I couldn't figure out the accent, but having read his wiki biog I assume it is a variation of a Bostonian accent.

Anyway, he of course asserts that the geographical nature of eurasia led to technological superiority. I.e. exchange of ideas and technology were much easier in Eurasia. He talked also about the role of domestic animals.

Interesting that the Mayans had a written language but the Incas did not. If one believes the Book of Mormon that steel was made in the Americas, one wonders about "lost" technologies. I.e. civilizations that were culturally advanced are wiped out by aggressive civilizations.

A counter argument to Diamond's hypothesis is wouldn't variation in climate encourage trade? (i.e. I have something you can't make, and vice versa, let's trade). I don't know...

I set TIVO to record part II where he talks about African conquest. The first part was about Pizarro and the Incas.

Diamond's hypothesis is that a combination of factors affected civilizations' heterogineity: In descending importance, 1) physical proximity to the firtile crescent or the Chinese heartland which possessed hugely disportionate natural abundance of domesticable plants and animals (flora and fauna either are or aren't domesticable because of inherent charactaristics); 2) Geographic barriers (e.g., mountain ranges, water) separating haves and have nots (see 1)), e.g., Greece and Europe not too far from the fertile crescent; 3) degree climactic changes due to differences in a) strata, b) altitude changes, or c) proximity to oceans, etc. which made it physically more difficult to introduce domesticable plants and animals. Facilitation of trade is only of ancillary importance.

BTW, it's well established that civilizations experience golden ages, fall into decline, etc., but has it ever happened that a people, say, forgot about the miracle of the wheel, or completely lost the art and technology of smelting steel? Please let me know if you are aware of any.

Second question: Of course steel or iron weapons and implements thousand of years old have been found throughout Eurasia in graves, other archeological digs etc., and are continuously being found--any such discovery in the Americas yet of steel or iron items produced by the indigenous population?