Author
|
Topic: Guns, Germs and Steel - Introduction. (Read 4149 times) |
|
Mermaid
Archon
Posts: 770
Reputation: 8.33
Rate Mermaid
Bite me!
|
 |
Guns, Germs and Steel - Introduction.
« on: 2004-02-05 01:59:43 » |
 |
The book begins with a question posed by Yali, a New Guinean politician, to the author in 1972, "Why is it that you white people developed so much cargo and brought it to New Guinea, but we black people had little cargo of our own?"
The author ends the preface to the book with his summary of Guns, Germs and Steel, his answer to Yali's question, in one sentence. "History followed different courses for different peoples because of differences among people's environments, not because of biological differences among people themselves."
Interesting bit to me:
Author's explanation as to why he feels that the New Guineans might as well be smarter than Westerners. He proceeds to explain that for thousands of years, Europeons have been living in densely populated areas with the presence of infectious epidemic diseases acting as a check on the exploding population. Those who escaped death by disease proceeded to procreate and create progeny whose genes ensured another generation until a new strain of disease made an appearance. Disease was the filter and further filters over the course of years made surviving Europeons dependent only on the possession of the genes that were hearty and resistant to disease. Living in highly structured and disciplined societies, Europeons experienced less mortality from war, homicide etc.
Opposed to this are the New Guinean populations which have low numbers. Among such shallow population spread over a large area epidemic diseases do not find much incentive or opportunity to evolve. Death occurs from tribal warfare, accidents, murder and difficulties with finding food for survival. To survive in such an unforgiving and brutal environment, the New Guineans necessarily had to possess mental abilities, knowledge of survival tactics and higher intelligence. Those who possessed the above proceeded to create their next generation resulting in a people whose very existence depended on intelligence as opposed to Europeons whose survival depended on their biological ability to beat one infection after another.
First of all, this reminds me of a discussion I once had with henson who insisted that primitive people are more violent than those from non primitive socities. I now know where he got that idea and am appalled by the corruption of the underlying theory. Secondly, I find the author's reasoning that New Guineans might as well be more intelligent than Westerners to be inadequate. While it might be true that New Guineans have to be more intelligent to fend off the causes of their mortality with the use of their mental capabilities, that doesnt necessarily mean that their mental abilities are superior to those of Europeons. As the author notes, a New Guinean looks just as stupid in an urban setting as a westerner would look in the middle of a dense jungle. I still dont understand why someone who made such an observation would declare that New Guineans are likely more intelligent than Europeons. Surely mental abilities evolve according to the challenges one faces.(I mean after a while, you face the same ferocious creature..the same social minefield...) Regardless of whether your parents are urbanites or jungle dwellers, to survive in either environment requires *some* intellectual edge barring the possibility that one lives in a danger free oasis with ready food and no disease etc. Whether these mental abilities are further honed or left underutilised or left unnourished to develop is what differentiates the intelligent from the unintelligent.
Lately, I am eager to adopt the stance that all of us ought to be intelligent and we will likely be tripping over to deal with more intelligent(or deceptive...is it not a form of intelligence too?), thereby becoming intelligent ourselves. I see our 'intelligence genes' as a static powerhouse. It supplies as it is stimulated. I cannot see how "stupid genes" can survive without any complementary edge that ensures its propogation. Reality shows like Survivor..(or is it Survival Island?) showcases the innate ability of the urban dweller to develop survival strategies in an unfamiliar environment as does real life for thousands of "primitive" people who integrate into the modern world as they migrate to live as the other side does. Yes, alien environment with its diseases does take a toll, but that occurs on both sides...as the spainards erased swatches of the new world population..so does jaundice if you happen to catch an alien strain while on an african safari and seek treatment in Los Angeles.
I am not discouraged by the introduction altho' it makes me wonder about the very assumptions this author embraces. But I shall bow to age, experience and qualification and adopt his premises as my own assumptions. I invite a discussion on this. My impressions on Chapter 1 will be up in a day or two.
|
|
|
|
|
Mermaid
Archon
Posts: 770
Reputation: 8.33
Rate Mermaid
Bite me!
|
|
Re:Guns, Germs and Steel - Introduction.
« Reply #1 on: 2004-02-09 03:06:56 » |
|
I am deeply disappointed so far with the reading. I am completely and totally lost as to the intention of this author. On further contemplation, I resigned myself to the possibility that I may never see the world as it is portrayed by authors from the west. So far, it seems perverse and illogical. It seems to me as if the author decided what the book's message will be and proceeded to explain his way working backwards. I hope to find the time to explain my chapter-by-chapter objections.
|
|
|
|
|
romanov
Adept
Gender: 
Posts: 112
Reputation: 7.55
Rate romanov
Doctor of Philosophy? What disease is that?
|
|
Re:Guns, Germs and Steel - Introduction.
« Reply #2 on: 2004-02-14 20:27:21 » |
|
On the first chapter:
There are better ways to slay a sacred cow.
Just finished reading the book myself, Mermaid. I have to say, I do have some issues myself with the first chapters theory that people from recently contacted 'hunter-gatherer' societies are liable to be statistically smarter than those from industrialised societies.
Diamond's theory in the first chapter is a simple and compelling (but flawed) evolutionary argument; that there would be a greater emphasis on disease resistance genes for the decendants of industrial communities than for hunter-gatherers, due to higher human population densities leading to endemic disease popluations. Conversely, he says that the hunter-gatherers will consequently have a greater emphasis on intelligence, due to the higher levels of violence and social status competition in the society.
Well, the former is almost certainly true: there are huge amounts of secondary and primary historical evidence to show that non-industrial communities have developed little or no resistance to diseases prevailant in industrialised societies. Genetic studies have backed this up with empirical and statistical data.
But here's the crucial thing: the latter does not follow from the former: just because one is more disease resistant has no bearing on how intelligent one is- there is no proven logical linkage between the two. It may be that the selection for the genes responsible for disease resistance could affect intelligence positively, negatively, or not at all. We don't know.
And not to be pedantic, but how does he define 'intelligence'?- there are many different kinds- social, analytical, mathematical, artistic. All could serve markedly different evolutionary advantages. Some might be better served by the hunter-gatherer lifestyle than others.
In short, where the hell is his evidence for this claim?
If you think I'm over-reacting to what is basically a small aside in the first chapter, keep in mind: without any form of of evidence at all, Diamond made a crude generalisation about groups of people based on anecdote and observation. Given that some sociologists spend a great deal of time attempting to equate sociobiology with racism, the last thing we need is sloppy science giving them ammunition. An academic should know better.
The whole thing is part of the book's general theme: deflating the sense of 'natural' superiority Diamond is assuming that the (western) reader will feel. A laudible aim, I'm sure, but one that he could persue a hell of a lot better in this chapter. Evidence is a must when you are talking about the 'worth' and 'nature' of humans.
More on the rest of the book later. I want to re-read one of the later chapters to check something.
romanov
|
|
|
|
|
David Lucifer
Archon
Posts: 2642
Reputation: 8.75
Rate David Lucifer
Enlighten me.
 
|
|
Re:Guns, Germs and Steel - Introduction.
« Reply #3 on: 2004-02-16 17:46:02 » |
|
Quote from: romanov on 2004-02-14 20:27:21
But here's the crucial thing: the latter does not follow from the former: just because one is more disease resistant has no bearing on how intelligent one is- there is no proven logical linkage between the two. It may be that the selection for the genes responsible for disease resistance could affect intelligence positively, negatively, or not at all. We don't know.
|
From what Mermaid said, Diamond doesn't make that claim. Why do you think he does?
|
|
|
|
|
romanov
Adept
Gender:
Posts: 112
Reputation: 7.55
Rate romanov
Doctor of Philosophy? What disease is that?
|
|
Re:Guns, Germs and Steel - Introduction.
« Reply #4 on: 2004-02-18 12:44:03 » |
|
Quote from: Mermaid on 2004-02-05 01:59:43
Author's explanation as to why he feels that the New Guineans might as well be smarter than Westerners. He proceeds to explain that for thousands of years, Europeons have been living in densely populated areas with the presence of infectious epidemic diseases acting as a check on the exploding population. Those who escaped death by disease proceeded to procreate and create progeny whose genes ensured another generation until a new strain of disease made an appearance. Disease was the filter and further filters over the course of years made surviving Europeons dependent only on the possession of the genes that were hearty and resistant to disease. Living in highly structured and disciplined societies, Europeons experienced less mortality from war, homicide etc.
Opposed to this are the New Guinean populations which have low numbers. Among such shallow population spread over a large area epidemic diseases do not find much incentive or opportunity to evolve. Death occurs from tribal warfare, accidents, murder and difficulties with finding food for survival. To survive in such an unforgiving and brutal environment, the New Guineans necessarily had to possess mental abilities, knowledge of survival tactics and higher intelligence. Those who possessed the above proceeded to create their next generation resulting in a people whose very existence depended on intelligence as opposed to Europeons whose survival depended on their biological ability to beat one infection after another.
|
romanov
|
|
|
|
|
David Lucifer
Archon
Posts: 2642
Reputation: 8.75
Rate David Lucifer
Enlighten me.
|
|
Re:Guns, Germs and Steel - Introduction.
« Reply #5 on: 2004-02-18 14:49:34 » |
|
Quote from: Mermaid on 2004-02-05 01:59:43
Living in highly structured and disciplined societies, Europeons experienced less mortality from war, homicide etc.
Death occurs from tribal warfare, accidents, murder and difficulties with finding food for survival. To survive in such an unforgiving and brutal environment, the New Guineans necessarily had to possess mental abilities, knowledge of survival tactics and higher intelligence.
|
So Diamond is saying that it would not be surprising if it turns out that New Guineans have higher average intelligence than Europeans given then different environments. He does not say that they do have higher intelligence and he does not say that genes for disease resistance has any bearing on intelligence.
|
|
|
|
|
Mermaid
Archon
Posts: 770
Reputation: 8.33
Rate Mermaid
Bite me!
|
|
Re:Guns, Germs and Steel - Introduction.
« Reply #6 on: 2004-02-19 10:30:10 » |
|
[romonov]But here's the crucial thing: the latter does not follow from the former: just because one is more disease resistant has no bearing on how intelligent one is- there is no proven logical linkage between the two. It may be that the selection for the genes responsible for disease resistance could affect intelligence positively, negatively, or not at all. We don't know.
[Lucifer]From what Mermaid said, Diamond doesn't make that claim. Why do you think he does?
[Mermaid]It seems to me that the author is saying that the existing Europeans come from a stock that had to survive vicious germs and hence are healthier...while the New Guineans had to come from a stock that had to rely heavily on intellect to survive...two different issues...whether this is true or not, we dont know...Diamond sounds condescending and seems to make a blanket disclaimer that his book isnt 'racist' and ends up throwing some brown stuff on Europeons...and some left handed complements...incredibly, he does the same for the primitive peoples....to me, it seems to be based on shoddy "science"...one without any evidence, as i see it...later on in the book, he does make certain believable and valid claims(about domestication of animals and plants and its effect on the worlds of the primitive and non primitive people)...which are more soothing to me than the other gross generalisations..still..i am left to wonder..is it his own 'reasoning'(which may or may not be logical..depending on who is arguing for him) or is his book based on 'evidence' or if there is any scientific basis at all...i am rather disillusioned by this whole set of 'knowledge' that goes on to dissect the nature and origins of different kinds of peoples and vomits itself in a variety of similiar sounding books...i am liking fiction better these days...gahh...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
