Differences in civilizations

[UCLAri]

<p>This is basically a continuation of the Guns, Germs, and Steel debate (e.g. non-racial vs. racial arguments explaining why different civilizations succeeded where others failed.)</p>

<p>I tend to align myself with the Diamond camp. I find little evidence that race can explain why the Australian aboriginal peoples didn’t make it past the stone age. I also don’t think that Eurasians were inherently “smarter” in any way.</p>

<p>I really, however, just wanted to move a potential debate to this thread and keep the book list thread from being torn apart by myself or any others.</p>

<p>Anyway, EmanuelGoldstein, here are my responses to your arguments…</p>

<p>

Basically, Diamond denies that humans have adapted to their varied environments via natural selection in the recent human past (up to 50k years ago), while Wade does not, with much evidence at his side.

</p>

<p>No, he does not. If you read Guns, Germs, and Steel, he acknowledges that there are differences in genetic makeup. However, he argues that they are not the most powerful factor explaining civilizational differences. I don’t see why this is so awful an idea, considering that it’s pretty hard to argue that race alone is the dominant factor.</p>

<p>

Excuse my vitriol, but Jared Diamond has forgone the truth for the fortunes that only political correctness can deliver. A lying vain profiteer basically. He basically denies that ‘we are not all equal’ in Guns, Germs and Steel and yet he published a paper titled “Ethnic differences: Variation in human testis Size” with some choice text and pictures, <a href=“http://www.gnxp.com/MT2/archives/jar...1986_page1.pdf[/url]”>http://www.gnxp.com/MT2/archives/jar...1986_page1.pdf&lt;/a&gt; and <a href=“http://www.gnxp.com/MT2/archives/jar...1986_page2.pdf[/url][/quote]”>http://www.gnxp.com/MT2/archives/jar...1986_page2.pdf

</a></p>

<p>I don’t see how testicle size variation tears down the crux of Guns, Germs, and Steel’s base argument. </p>

<p>Besides, the “truth” of history is very hard to define. What Diamond does is attempt to isolate variables in civilizational development in an attempt to take out the ethnic factor. Not terrible science by any means, but certainly not going to win over those who want to cling to the idea that region X is backwards because of region Xers or whatnot.</p>

[UCLAri]

<p>Oh, one question…</p>

<p>EmanuelGoldstein,</p>

<p>Are you saying that the reason that Eurasians succeeded where Africans/Americans failed is genetic? I find it pretty hard to argue that, just based on broad historical reasoning alone.</p>

[Tarhunt]

<p>Well, having seen nothing else in this thread, all I can say is that your approach is pretty much hopeless. Logic won’t work here. There are just too many people who have too much vested in believing that they are genetically superior to others based on surface characteristics. You’ll never get them to agree with you.</p>

[UCLAri]

<p>Tarhunt,</p>

<p>I’m not sure that Goldstein meant that the differences were because of “superiority” or adaptation to different environments, so the jury’s still out I say.</p>