302. Pseudoerasmus - March 4, 1999 - 6:39 PM PT
Message #299
No, bring in other works all you like, just try to stay with the plan of the book, or talk about the book in generalities.
Message #300
I agree 100%. I don't think anyone has said anything in contradiction to that. In fact, I have said explicitly that the divergence in the fortunes of Europe and Asia is simply not addressed by Diamond's argument, and that cultural and institutional explanations must play a larger role in the rise of Europe.
We're going to return to the subject of Landes's book, and the rise of Europe at the end of the thread.
303. DaveCook - March 4, 1999 - 6:57 PM PT
Many of the geographically based arguments in Diamond's book are compelling but it seems to me that there are actually two (competing but complementary) arguments here.
1. The South Pacific and Western Hemisphere peoples had a lower level of technology because due to a lack of founder crops and livestock, agriculture developed more slowly than in Eurasia.
2. Due to the distance of these areas from other cultures, people in these areas were not able to take advantage of the advances of other cultures, in the same way that Eurasians were able to.
Obviously Diamond believes both arguments are true. But I would like to distinguish between these two ideas, for the opposite of the reason that Diamond would like to conlate them. Diamond essentially wants to show the relative political power in the collisions between Europeans and the non-Eurasians was determined geographically and to the extent that these two arguments complement each other he is satisfied.
304. Pseudoerasmus - March 4, 1999 - 7:05 PM PT
In chapter five, we saw where and when agriculture emerged, whether in isolation or a result of the diffusion of knowledge and domesticates.
For ecological reasons, most corners of the earth are simply unfit for agricultural production. Yet, as already mentioned, many fertile areas of the world remained uncultivated until intruders made their violent appearance between the 18th and 20th centuries and swept away the indigenous hunter-gatherers. But if we went back in time to, say, 4000 BC, there would be even more areas untouched by agriculture, the very areas which today we associate with agrarian societies: all of North America, England, France, Indonesia, and subequatorial Africa. Surprisingly, "when we trace food production back to its beginnings, the earliest sites...include areas ranking today as somewhat dry or ecologically degraded: Iraq and Iran, Mexico, the Andes, parts of China, and Africa's Sahel..."
Indeed, "why did food production develop first in these seemingly rather marginal lands, and only later in today's most fertile farmlands and pasture?" What accounts for the vastly different times when agriculture emerged around the world? Indeed, why did food production emerge in some areas of the globe but not at all in others?
These questions are systematically answered in the next five chapters.
305. Pseudoerasmus - March 4, 1999 - 7:05 PM PT
continued from Message #304
PART TWO
The Rise and Spread of Food Production
CHAPTER SIX
To Farm or Not to Farm
In order to answer the previous questions, it helps to first ask a slightly different one: "all people on earth were [once] hunter-gathers, [so] why did any of them adopt food production at all?"
A few things to keep in mind first:
(1) The emergence of agriculture was a very gradual process, taking "thousands of years to shift from complete dependence on wild foods to a diet with very few wild foods".
(2) The sharp dichotomy of hunter-gatherer and sedendary farmers, while useful in some respects, is false to reality. Some peoples became sedentary without becoming food producers; others became sedentary first and then adopted food production much later; still others planted crops in one season, moved on and hunted & gathered just like nomads during another season, only to return to the site of cultivation later on. To this day there are many nomadic peoples without crops who herd domesticated animals.
(3) Some hunter-gatherers manage wild land just as consciously and intensively as farmers do cultivated land. They clear an area filled with edible plants of competing inedible plants; they burn landscapes to encourage new growth; and, well aware that stems can regrow, they would make sure to replant them after harvesting the edible portions. The transition from being designated "hunter-gatherer" to "farmer" often takes but a few steps.
(4) Modern people are prejudiced to think that a hunting & gathering is nasty, brutish and short. On the contrary, the disincentives to substituting an agricultural life for a hunting-gathering lifestyle can seem formidable. Studies show that agricultural labourers work longer hours per day than hunter-gatherers; and, moreover, farming can mean a shorter, more miserable existence than hunting & foraging.
306. Pseudoerasmus - March 4, 1999 - 7:06 PM PT
continued from Message #305
than hunting & foraging. "Archaeologists have demonstrated that the first farmers in many areas were smaller and less well nourished, suffered from more diseases, and died on the average at a younger age than the hunter-gatherers they replaced". Indeed, throughout the world many hunter-gatherers have coexisted and traded with farmers without in the least bothering to settle down to the supposed blessings of a farming life. Perhaps they just said, "Shit, who wants that?"
So why anyone decided to become a full-fledged farmer is not obvious. Certainly, we cannot say that it was because agricultural civilisations could store food, encourage a division of labour, create powerful war machines, develop writing, and decimate other hunter-gatherer societies. To think so is to engage in a fallacy analogous to the dreaded group selectionist fallacy evolutionary biologists always excoriate: people don't engage in behaviour because it provides unforseeable long-term group benefits.
Rather like a neoclassical economist, Diamond posits that individual human beings (as well as animals) make "effort-allocation decisions, even if only unconsciously". "All other things being equal, people seek to maximise their return of calories, protein or other specific food categorise by foraging in a way that yields the most return with the greatest certainty in the least time for the least effort. Simultaneously, they seek to minimise their risk of starving: moderate but reliable returns are preferable to a fluctuating lifestyle with a high time-averaged rate of return but a substantial likelihood of starving to death". The first rudimentary agriculture may have been a supplement to hunting and foraging during times of scarcity.
Thus, of the late hunter-gatherers, Diamond paints a picture of relatively risk-averse rational agents choosing the optimal survival strategy from among a v
307. Pseudoerasmus - March 4, 1999 - 7:08 PM PT
continued from Message #306
CHAPTER SIX
To Farm or Not to Farm
...from among a variety of alternative strategies, subject to the constraints of the physical environment they found themselves in. The variety of strategies included: pure hunting & gathering; pure agriculture; and the many shades of "mixed economies". So when a large shift did finally take place from hunting & gathering to settled agriculture, it was due to a change in the environment, i.e., the constraints.
What changed?
(1) A decline in the availability of wild food over the last 13,000 years. Many animals became extinct as a result of climate changes, or were hunted to extinction by human beings. It is telling that those Polynesians who turned to agriculture were the very ones who had exterminated indigenous animals and birds such as the moas to the detriment of their own hunting lifestyle.
(2) Climate changes at the end of the Pleistocene era resulted in an explosion of domesticable wild plants.
(3) The "cumulative development of technologies on which food production would eventually depend", including sickles of flint blades cemented into wooden or bone handles; baskets; mortars and pestles; technique of roasting grains.
(4) The "autocatalytic process" between the rise in population density and the emergence of food production. That is, because better technology for hunting and collecting wild food became available, human population increased; but increasing population required the larger yields that agriculture availed. But, as mentioned in chapter 4, abandoning a nomadic life and becoming sedentary allows one to have children at shorter intervals. Thus, population exploded.
"Taken together, these four factors help us understand why the transition to food production in the Fertile Crescent began around 8500 BC" rather than 18,500 or 28,500.
308. DaveCook - March 4, 1999 - 7:26 PM PT
The reason that I would like to distinguish between the two arguments is the possibility that inventions (including technological inventions, but also including political (read institutional) and cultural innovations) are unique, persistent, non-predetermined events. The difference between the two arguments is between pure geographical determinsim (i.e. given X geographical factors in time 0, the state of technology is predictable infinitely into the future) and something much less deterministic.
For example, what if the invention of the wheel was a unique event that occurred in the Fertile Crescent? Now obviously, if you had a close geographical connection to the Crescent, like Spain, you would adopt the wheel or die (culturally speaking). If you were in Peru, you would have no chance of adopting the wheel. But if the invention of the wheel were unique, the Peruvians might never develop the wheel regardless of how long their civilization existed.
Now, it takes a lot to explain how a band of 200 adventurers could topple a powerful empire with a 100,000 strong army as Pizarro did. Diamond seems most interested in explaining that the Spaniards were not really more manly, more holy, more evolved, etc., so he combines the two above arguments (they came from a better continent, they had more experience with dealing with a wide variety of human behaviors, they had the chance to adopt many technologies, they developed many immunities etc.).
309. Pseudoerasmus - March 4, 1999 - 7:40 PM PT
Message #308
That's ironic, because in the past I once argued that cultural innovations, like the signing of the Magna Carta, were random events, like genetic mutations. The rest of English political history could then be called path dependence from that random event. And I think it was you who called the idea preposterous.
310. DaveCook - March 4, 1999 - 7:43 PM PT
If innovations are unique, non-persistent but persistent, then culture and institutions are quite plausibly important even for long-run outcomes. Further, for any given historical or current event or situation, long-term views like Diamonds are likely to be at best superfluous or at worst misleading.
311. DaveCook - March 4, 1999 - 7:50 PM PT
Really? Maybe your influencing me then.
312. Pseudoerasmus - March 4, 1999 - 8:08 PM PT
I didn't and wouldn't stress the uniqueness of innovation like you are doing. I would say that Magna Carta (or whatever other cultural innovation which might be conducive to producing the "right" institutions) was a random event. If this "cultural mutation" survived, the trait survived not because it conferred some advantage on the innovative society, but because the innovation was not suppressed, whether by an autocratic state or another society. What is the use of having produced the Magna Carta, if the English could be conquered successively by less liberal societies? The English Channel prevented England from being conquered again after 1066.
As for why uniqueness, I would postulate that the difference between England's having a cultural innovation like the Magna Carta and many others' not having one is essentially geographical -- but geographical in a very different sense than Diamond's argument. I once explained what I mean a year and a half ago. (Go past #4 and #5.)
313. AzureNW - March 4, 1999 - 9:36 PM PT
uhoh....
314. Slackjaw - March 4, 1999 - 9:39 PM PT
"the divergence in the fortunes of Europe and Asia is simply not addressed by Diamond's argument"
Haha. I must've said this to myself about a dozen times while reading the book.
315. AzureNW - March 4, 1999 - 9:41 PM PT
I may still have the power to become invisible (smile) What do you think?
316. Slackjaw - March 4, 1999 - 9:46 PM PT
side issue, with apologies to our gracious host...
from Landsburg's latest piece in Slate: It's now intellectually respectable to posit a taste for self control because it would confer advantages in mating. Are the kinds of surpluses required to make self control (wrt food anyway) necessary likely to have arisen in the ancestral environment?
Moreover, some people lack self control. Is Landsburg going to tell us that the evolutionary dynamic has not yet reached equilibrium, or that this mixture of types is in equilibrium!?
Finally, self control is easy to pledge to a mate but difficult to truly enforce when nobody is watching...there's always the extra key to the fridge or what have you. Classic case of outcomes determined by chance + unobservable actions.
317. Pseudoerasmus - March 4, 1999 - 10:06 PM PT
Message #314
The divergence between Europe and Asia, I still assert as I asserted a year and a half ago, is due primarily to geography, but it's different from Diamond's geographic argument. It's the fact that Europe was forced by its geography to exhibit a chronic multiplicity of power centres, while Asia, by its geography, to exhibit a relative paucity of them. Greater political fragmentation in Europe allowed cultural innovation and experimentation, whereas lesser political fragmentation in Asia enabled more powerful and overweening states to suppress cultural innovation and experimentation.
Of course, this argument is cribbed from Eric Jones's The European Miracle. But Landes makes a passing reference to it in the third chapter of his book. Diamond explicitly uses it in the epilogue, though to explain the divergence only between China and Europe [pp. 412-413]. Other books which have used an argument to Eric Jones's, though to explain more limited phenomena, include When China Ruled the Seas and The Rise and Fall of Great Powers.
318. Slackjaw - March 4, 1999 - 10:13 PM PT
But would you not agree that Asia is and since the time Diamond writes about has been more culturally varied than Europe?
"Europe was forced by its geography to exhibit a chronic multiplicity of power centres" Why is this--what about its geography?
Re. Diamond's argument in the epilogue--the one where he argues that the smoothness of China's coast accounts for the differences? Don't mean to get ahead of the plan, but it sounded like a "just so" story to me. Not a satisfying end to the book.
319. Pseudoerasmus - March 4, 1999 - 10:40 PM PT
Message #318
"But would you not agree that Asia is and since the time Diamond writes about has been more culturally varied than Europe?"
Yes, culturally more varied, but nonetheless Asia has contained fewer sovereign political units than post-Roman Europe, despite having a much larger physical area. Perhaps a more precise way to express it is to say that whereas a relatively few empires always controlled a very substantial fraction of Asia's area, no one state ever controlled a very large part of Europe for very long, at least west of Russia and after the fall of the Roman Empire.
"Why is this...?"
Because Europe contains more natural internal barriers relative to its size than Asia does. (Probably there is a more precise way to say this, but it's late.) It's not an accident that the political borders of European states are consistent with Europe's major topographical features. The same with Asia: it's no accident that the Sino-Indian frontier lies where it is.
"Re. Diamond's argument in the epilogue--the one where he argues that the smoothness of China's coast accounts for the differences?"
No, not that one. I agree that the epilogue is utterly unsatisfying.
320. PincherMartin - March 5, 1999 - 1:22 AM PT
PE --
If your argument is correct, what makes the "multiplicity of power centers" so important in the success of Europe for the last five hundred years when there are other periods of empire (and presumably growth) where this principle is absent? Why isn't the same logic of competition as important in explaining the success of Han China or even modern Japan?
Also the argument doesn't work if each one of the multiplicity of power centers aren't genuinely fearful of the prospect of losing. In other words, there must be the balance between geography creating the possibility of multiple power centers while it also creates the fear (or hope) of the possibility of a single power dominating them.
The success of modern Japan is not explainable by geographic arguments without descending into complete silliness.
321. PincherMartin - March 5, 1999 - 1:25 AM PT
Dave Cook --
Insightful comments
322. PincherMartin - March 5, 1999 - 1:35 AM PT
What about the momentum of success (or failure)? Certain societies put together the right elements for success, and these elements reinforce each other. What might have had some geographical explanation to begin with has something of a QWERTY explanation to its continuation.
323. Pseudoerasmus - March 5, 1999 - 5:03 AM PT
Message #320
"If your argument is correct, what makes the 'multiplicity of power centers' so important in the success of Europe for the last five hundred years when there are other periods of empire (and presumably growth) where this principle is absent?"
After the fall of Rome, Europe is chronically disunited, and the principle is absent only for the shortest periods. One of these days, I am going to fully quantity this "multiplicity" in terms that take into account years, area, and the number of sovereign units.
"Why isn't the same logic of competition as important in explaining the success of Han China or even modern Japan?"
You fail to understand my argument. My argument is to explain why a culture auspicious to economic, political and technological innovation first emerged in Western Europe. It is critically important that the Hapsburg bid for the mastery of Europe, and the destruction of the Protestant Reformation, failed, and it failed largely because the geography of Europe makes it impossible for any one power to control the continent for very long. See the link in Message #312.
But once cultural innovations, whether technology or modes of production or even institutions, are free to take root in certain parts of the world, they can be consciously imported. This is what late modernisers like the East Asian countries have done.
"The success of modern Japan is not explainable by geographic arguments without descending into complete silliness."
Nonsense. Japan is a _perfect_ illustration. The Tokugawa isolation for Japan, permitted largely by its geography, is one of the most important and productive periods of Japanese history. Perhaps you're one of those who think Japan slothed in darkness during those 300 years and just sprung into the Meiji period without transition.
Message #322
"What about the momentum of success (or failure)
324. Pseudoerasmus - March 5, 1999 - 5:03 AM PT
Message #322
"What about the momentum of success (or failure)? Certain societies put together the right elements for success, and these elements reinforce each other. What might have had some geographical explanation to begin with has something of a QWERTY explanation to its continuation."
It's called "path dependence", and it was mentioned in Message #309. My "multicipity of power centres" argument must be seen in its light.
"Also the argument doesn't work if each one of the multiplicity of power centers aren't genuinely fearful of the prospect of losing. In other words, there must be the balance between geography creating the possibility of multiple power centers while it also creates the fear (or hope) of the possibility of a single power dominating them."
???
325. Pseudoerasmus - March 5, 1999 - 5:28 AM PT
Later on, I intend to fully synthesise the principles of random "mutation", "path dependence" and the "multiplicity of power centres" into a unified thesis. Suffice it to say for now, it goes like this:
(1) For example, the precedent of Magna Carta -- the limitation of arbitrary power and the assertion of property rights -- is a random event, like a mutation. The English at this stage of their history was no more prone to producing such a cultural innovation than anybody else. The difference between England's originating such an innovation and others' _not_ originating it, is simply that in England the state failed to suppress or inhibit it. I don't want to sound like a libertarian, but whether in China or Italy or Brazil, the state always wants more power than it actually has. Thus, limitations must be forced upon it. But had Europe been more politically unified, the chances that a cultural innovation like Magna Carta might been suppressed, would have been far greater.
(2) Once a cultural innovation like Magna Carta is allowed to stand, it can be the impetus and precedent for other innovations which become mutually reinforcing. Here is path dependence. Cultural innovations of course can involve the evolution of liberal institutions, modes of efficient economic organisation, and the advance of science & technology. Landes explains this well.
(3) Late modernisers like Japan consciously import many if not all of these innovations.
I will elaborate on this later. But back to Diamond.
326. Pseudoerasmus - March 5, 1999 - 5:30 AM PT
Message #323
The Hapsburg bid for Europe is just an example. What's important is that _any_ attempt to unify Europe failed after antiquity.
327. Pseudoerasmus - March 5, 1999 - 5:38 AM PT
"Why isn't the same logic of competition as important in explaining the success of Han China or even modern Japan?"
"Also the argument doesn't work if each one of the multiplicity of power centers aren't genuinely fearful of the prospect of losing. In other words, there must be the balance between geography creating the possibility of multiple power centers while it also creates the fear (or hope) of the possibility of a single power dominating them."
But you're assuming that I've somehow worked a "logic of competition" into my argument. I haven't. Political fragmentation was important not because it allowed competition, but because it allowed cultural experimentation to thrive and survive.
328. Msivorytower - March 5, 1999 - 6:04 AM PT
Here's what I liked about this chapter;
Diamond's discussion of the tradeoffs between hunting-gathering and food production, and how the choice isn't an either or, but one of determining which one maximized survival, as PE laid out in his Message #306 and Message #307. This made eminent sense to me, I understand decisionmaking in these terms.
Here's what bothered me about this chapter:
His implicit gender bias.
I know, I know, he avoids discussing much in terms of he/she throughout the entire book, but his discussion of the evolution of farming SHOULD have mentioned who was likely to be doing the original cultivation, since he automatically assumes it was the men doing the hunting. I refer specifically to the discussion on pgs 107-108, where he tries for gender neutrality wrt the ancient farmer, but then goes on to discuss the hunting decisions in purely male terms.
I suppose this is being picky, but this bothered me greatly. It is entirely possible that women were very involved, if not critically so, in the development of food production, since in modern H-G societies, women engage in the gathering processes, typically. Ehrenberg, in _Women in Prehistory_ , 1990, makes this point, and it is one that I think most archeologists avoid addressing.
I will post more on this later, but I must be off to an appointment now.
329. DaveCook - March 5, 1999 - 6:08 AM PT
My only point on this chapter is to reiterate how unique the industrial revolution was in terms of economic welfare. Diamond points out that even the large structural shift between H&G and agriculture had only the most marginal effects on average human living standards.
330. Pseudoerasmus - March 5, 1999 - 6:14 AM PT
Message #329
Diamond actually seems to say that people became worse off under an agricultural lifestyle than under hunter-gatherer lifestyle. After all, people became on average smaller, more malnourished. "Food production, while increasing the quantity of edible calories per acre, left the food producers less well nourished than the hunter-gatherers whom they succeeded...because human population densities rose slightly more steeply than the availability of food." [p. 112]
331. Pseudoerasmus - March 5, 1999 - 6:37 AM PT
Chapter 7
How to Make an Almond
"What caveman ever got the idea of 'domesticating' a plant, and how was it accomplished?"
Domestication from the Plant's Point of View: Just as any other species, plants must reproduce themselves. One of several ways is to make seeds indigestible and passable through the faeces. Hence, the importance of shitting in the disssemination of plant species. "Latrines [along with spittoons and garbage dumps] are merely one of the many places where we accidentally sow the seeds of wild plants that we eat..." You shit, and then you notice some melons couple of months later.
Moreover, humans unconsciously domesticated wild plant species simply by harvesting fruits and the like according to the traits they found most desirable and carrying away their seeds. Early humans must have picked bigger strawberries rather than tiny ones; or sweeter ones rather than bitter ones. There are other details about selecting plants for less visible traits, but they're tedious so I won't summarise them.
Some crops were simply easier, "readier" than others to be domesticated. Those of the Fertile Crescent, such as wheat, barley, and peas, were in their wild state already edible, high-yielding, easily grown and quickly harvested. They were also self-pollinating. All this explains why these got domesticated earlier than other species. "As a result, cereals today account for over half of all calories consumed by humans and include five of the modern world's 12 leadings crops (wheat, corn/maize, rice, barley and sorghum)."
"By Roman times, almost all of today's leadings crops were being cultivated somewhere in the world" and "ancient farmers evidently discovered and domesticated almost all of those worth domesticating". Most of the domesticates since ancient times have involved relatively unimportant crops such as berries.
332. DaveCook - March 5, 1999 - 6:37 AM PT
If you have a lifestyle option that allows you to have more children, you might choose to do so in order to have more support in your old age. H&G children might have been relatively better off than Aggie children and thus smaller; but, I bet Aggie old folks were better off than H&G seniors.
333. Pseudoerasmus - March 5, 1999 - 6:48 AM PT
Message #332
Good point. But if agriculturalists had a shorter life span than hunter-gatherers (not implausible) then perhaps that advantage didn't make much difference.
334. CoralReef - March 5, 1999 - 6:55 AM PT
Actually, I think Cook's 332 can be expanded to say there was just more of a surplus of people in general in a farm society to look after all manner of less advantaged, from elders to babies, to the ill.
335. JaDeGoLd - March 5, 1999 - 7:03 AM PT
I find Chapter Seven pretty weak in explaining plant domestication. Without doubt, the mutation of certain plantlife is the science behind the differences between edible and non-edible plants. Diamond uses the almond example where wild almonds were bitter--and fatal if consumed in quantity. Yet, certain mutations of almonds were sweet and quite edible.
How did early man make the distinction? Trial and error? Remember, also, that many berries and tubers shared this problem--I find it unlikely that trial and error accounts for this crop domestication.
336. Pseudoerasmus - March 5, 1999 - 7:16 AM PT
Message #335
Yes, I should have alluded to the role of mutation in Diamond's account of domestication. Wild almonds are bitter, and could be poisonous if eaten in sufficient quantity, for they are the source of cyanide. But Diamond's contention is that some must have mutated to sweeter kinds and sampled by adventurous humans.
Similarly, wild wheat and barley offered the occasional mutation which was more prone to domestication. In their wild state, wheat and barley "seeds grow at the top of a stalk that spontaneously shatters, dropping the seeds to the ground". But occasionally a mutation would prevent this process, making the seeds available to be harvested by humans.
As a non-geneticist, I don't find the account of almond & cereal domestication pretty plausible. What convinced me was that in those species domesticated early on, the difference between the wild and the domesticated kinds was a single-gene mutation. By contrast, the bitterness of acorns is apparently controlled by many genes, one of the several reasons Diamond adduces to explain why despite its usefulness as a food source the oak tree failed egregiously to get domesticated.
337. Pseudoerasmus - March 5, 1999 - 7:18 AM PT
ERRATA (Message #336)
I don't find....IMPLAUSIBLE.
338. Pseudoerasmus - March 5, 1999 - 7:25 AM PT
I found the story of why strawberries got domesticated so late rather amusing. The principle with other domesticates is that human beings, by picking those fruits they found desirable, managed to accidentally select for those traits. By contrast, with strawberries, human beings could not replicate this selection process. "With billions of European thrushes defecating wild strawberry seeds in every possible place, strawberries remained the the little berries that thrushes wanted, not the big berries that humans wanted". To be balked by mere thrushes!
339. Msivorytower - March 5, 1999 - 7:36 AM PT
DaveCook, PE
reMessage #329, Message #330
I think the main factor influencing the tip toward food production versus H-G was the stability of food sources over the short and medium term. Not only that, food surpluses MUST have been larger at some point in their environment for those H-G communities that finally committed to food production over foraging and hunting, otherwise the tipping process does NOT make sense.
I think Diamond is careful to argue that not everyone is taking the same path either, even in the same regions of the world, but that the decision to go with food production and a fully sedentary lifestyle ended up being the ticket to greater advantages down the road. Like PE, however, I don't think Diamond, or anyone, would suggest that the decisions made by the earliest agriculturists had any clue about the greater advantages in the future.
340. Pseudoerasmus - March 5, 1999 - 7:41 AM PT
Msit (Message #339): I agree. The primary factor was the depletion of wild food sources, which took place at different rates in different places.
341. ScottLoar - March 5, 1999 - 7:46 AM PT
To All - A Modest Proposal
Please stick with the outline and chapter sequence. "Guns, Germs, and Steel", like "Time on the Cross", needs be fully recounted step by step and all the information weighed in to reach a balanced opinion. Some of us do not think the rise of the Roman Empire was an anomaly, but that the failure of the Eastern half to regain the full Empire, or that a strong successor state did not arise to equal it in breadth and might and so maintain the unification of Europe, is the anomaly and not for reasons of geography. But, please, let's address this only after we've finished the book.
342. Msivorytower - March 5, 1999 - 7:48 AM PT
I'm being very good Scott.
I am. No peeking ahead.
343. Pseudoerasmus - March 5, 1999 - 8:04 AM PT
Message #341
Actually the inability of the Byzantine state to regain the empire in the West, despite successive major attempts, is best explained by geography.. The same with the steady deterioration of the empire after the Antonines, and its eventual division.
But as you suggest I will let these matters wait, even though the book is irrelevant to them. At least I haven't jumped around the book.
344. Pseudoerasmus - March 5, 1999 - 8:06 AM PT
Just to let those who haven't read or finished the Diamond book know:
None of my remarks about the "multiplicity of power centres" in Europe have in the least to do with Diamond's book.
345. ScottLoar - March 5, 1999 - 8:08 AM PT
I understand your premise, but to continue waylays discussion of the book, so let's finish the book so that all are brought up to speed and can reach a balanced opinion. We can all benefit from the considered comments of the very smart people here.
346. pellenilsson - March 5, 1999 - 11:05 AM PT
PE Message #336
"Wild almonds are
bitter, and could be poisonous if eaten in sufficient
quantity, for they are the source of cyanide. But
Diamond's contention is that some must have mutated to
sweeter kinds and sampled by adventurous humans."
"Similarly, wild wheat and barley offered the occasional
mutation which was more prone to domestication."
I, too, find this utterly unconvincing. The difference in time scale between natural evolution and the development of agriculture is simply to great. And in any case: why should the evolution of plants follow a path which was beneficient to man?
The Internet Bookshop let me down this week. Am now hoping for Monday.
347. Pseudoerasmus - March 5, 1999 - 11:26 AM PT
Message #346
"The difference in time scale between natural evolution and the development of agriculture is simply to great."
What are you talking about???
"And in any case: why should the evolution of plants follow a path which was beneficient to man?"
Who says it did?
348. Pseudoerasmus - March 5, 1999 - 11:34 AM PT
According to Diamond, wild almond trees have occasional mutations in a single gene which prevent them from synthesising the bitter and poisonous chemical called the amygdalin in the seeds. In the absence of human foragers, those trees generally die out without progeny, because birds and other animals end up eating all of the seeds. When human beings ever noticed the mutated kinds, they probably planted some of the seeds.
The earliest archaeological findings of wild almonds date to 8000 BC in Greece; domesticated kinds show up around 3000 BC.
Most wild cereals, already quite fit to eat and easy to plant even in their wild, also produced single-gene mutations. This was already mentioned in Message #336.
349. Pseudoerasmus - March 5, 1999 - 11:36 AM PT
These mutations didn't happen for the benefit of humans. They just happened randomly, as they continue to happen randomly today. Must keep in mind that many of these "beneficial" mutations need have occurred only in the single gene.
350. Pseudoerasmus - March 5, 1999 - 11:38 AM PT
PincherMartin: Please hold off on your responses to my posts on the "multiplicity of power centres" until we have reached the end of the Diamond book, when we will discuss issues from Eurasian history. I promise to reprise that topic.
351. pellenilsson - March 5, 1999 - 12:29 PM PT
PE
I'm handicapped by not having the book. It is not that I don't trust your summaries but it is in nature of summaries that complex issues have to be condensed.
Your (or Diamond's, a little difficult to tell the difference) points about mutations are not credible. Domestication of plants occurred in a time frame of a few thousand years. Evolution operates on a scal of millions of years. Yet you (or Diamond) claim that during those few thousand years mutations favourable to man popped as if ordered from the corner pizza shop. Moreover, they ocurred time and time again, as in the case of the sweet almond tree that would "generally die without progeny".
"When human beings ever noticed the mutated
kinds, they probably planted some of the seeds."
But humans knew, because the sweet variety was very rare, that almonds were bitter and posionous. So why should they spend time almond-tasting? "Hey guys, let's check out if there has been any nice almond mutations lately!" Is this what you (or Diamond) want us to believe?
On a more serious note. Does Diamond have a deterministic view of these early developments or does serendipity enter into it?
352. pellenilsson - March 5, 1999 - 1:06 PM PT
There is a school of thought which purports that those animals that were domesticated allowed themselves to be so because it provided a better chance of long-term survival (of the species) than being hunted for food.
Shall we assume a similar stragey for the almond tree? After all there are probably more almond trees than redwoods or teak trees around.
353. Pseudoerasmus - March 5, 1999 - 1:38 PM PT
Message #351
A genetic mutation takes but a single generation to occur! And, at least according to Diamond, the single-gene mutations he talks about are not exactly rare. This much is supported by the geneticist Luigi Cavalli-Sforza, in his Great Human Diasporas.
Morever, you keep ignoring the repeated assertion that the genetic distance between the wild cereals found in the Fertile Crescent and the later domesticated variety is very very short!
In chapter 8, Diamond does base an important argument about why some parts of the world failed to domesticate wild crops for a long time, or at all, on the different levels of genetic distance between wild & domesticated species available to different peoples around the world.
Message #352
You're talking about a thesis expounded in the book by Stephen Budiasnky, The Covenant of the Wild: How Animals Chose Domestication. I bought this book a couple of months ago, but I haven't read it yet.
354. Pseudoerasmus - March 5, 1999 - 1:40 PM PT
"But humans knew, because the sweet variety was very rare, that almonds were bitter and posionous. So why should they spend time almond-tasting?"
He posits children as curious samplers of wild almonds.
355. Pseudoerasmus - March 5, 1999 - 1:53 PM PT
Diamond has some more information on the mutation of seed coatings and plant reproductive systems which probably benefited farmers, but they're tedious details I won't get into here. Pelle will just have to read the chapter.
356. pellenilsson - March 5, 1999 - 2:07 PM PT
Message #354
"He posits children as curious samplers of wild almonds."
I think we have identified a weak link in Diamond's chain of argument. Too many "inventive" supporting arguments.
Message #353
"you keep ignoring the repeated assertion that
the genetic distance between the wild cereals found in the
Fertile Crescent and the later domesticated variety is very
very short!"
No. The subject prompted my question about determinism versus serendipity in Message #351.
357. Pseudoerasmus - March 5, 1999 - 2:10 PM PT
Well, whatever. Almonds are hardly a critical crop. His story about the domestication of cereals strikes me as very reasonable.
I have no idea what you mean by "determinism or serendipity". Genetic mutations, I thought, were random.
358. uzmakk - March 5, 1999 - 2:11 PM PT
Once man discovered that he could select, once man got his hand into the evolutionary process, I have no trouble imagining that domestication could take place in a very short time. Single gene mutations and all that can be selected for in only one generation. I know Erasmus has already said this, but I am sure that he won't mind me saying it again, throwing in my support.
359. uzmakk - March 5, 1999 - 2:17 PM PT
Goodness sakes, look how we have twisted the dog for our fancy. And the great variety of outstanding marijuana that is available has appeared within a period of 20 years by using the same techniques that our primitive ancestors would have used.
360. pellenilsson - March 5, 1999 - 2:20 PM PT
Message #358
"I have no idea what you mean by "determinism or
serendipity". Genetic mutations, I thought, were random."
Precisely. So to put the question simply: does Diamond acknowledge random events (aka luck) a prominent place in his view of history?
361. Pseudoerasmus - March 5, 1999 - 2:24 PM PT
"Evolution operates on a scale of millions of years."
This is not even true! You have a vulgarised understanding of evolution.
Ever heard of The Beak of the Finch? How about those moths which changed colour in response to the Industrial Revolution? How about viruses and bacteria which mutate -- evolve -- within just a few years? Even the physical differences among human beings, which range from pygmy to Swedes, from Mongols to Australian aborigines, are examples of evolution which happened in much less than "millions of years".
Evolution can actually be observed.
362. Pseudoerasmus - March 5, 1999 - 2:26 PM PT
Viruses and bacteria evolve in a matter of weeks, actually.
Message #360
"...does Diamond acknowledge random events (aka luck) a prominent place in his view of history?"
I thought that was obvious by now. What is geographical determinism but dumb good luck for some people, and dumb bad luck for others? Anyway, if it hasn't been obvious so far, it will get even more obvious soon enough. Wait till chapter 9, when we start talking about the axes of the earth.
363. uzmakk - March 5, 1999 - 2:31 PM PT
Quite, Erasmus. And then there is that theory of "evolution" where a great deal of planet wide change takes place in a brief time. I forget what it is called. Punctuated equilibrium.
364. ScottLoar - March 5, 1999 - 2:32 PM PT
Yes, evolution can be observed, as every student schooled in US high school may recall from his basic science text, and as recounted by J. Diamond on pg. 123 -
"A classic example is the development of industrial melanism in British moths: darker moth individuals became relatively commoner than paler individuals as the environment became dirtier during the 19th century, because dark months resting on a dark, dirty tree were more likely than contrasting pale moths to escape the attention of predators."
365. pellenilsson - March 5, 1999 - 2:41 PM PT
PE
You think I'm a bit stupid. I think you're a bit shallow. Let's stop here and hope for more constructive things later on.
366. Pseudoerasmus - March 5, 1999 - 2:42 PM PT
By the way, I love the explanation for why pygmies are the size they are, so I will recount it, and it should appeal to the engineer in Pelle.
In very humid environments, where pygmies live, the human body's normal ability to cool down through perspiration is impeded, or even deactivated completely, for the sweat does not evaporate. Therefore, in humid environments, small stature is an advantageous physical adaptation.
Why? Because smaller the body, greater the ratio of the body's surface area to the body's volume. You can verify this arithmetically by comparing the ratios for two cubes, one with 1 cm on each side, the other with 2 cm on each side.
367. Pseudoerasmus - March 5, 1999 - 2:43 PM PT
Message #365
I don't think you're stupid, just WRONG about how evolution requires millions of years.
368. pellenilsson - March 5, 1999 - 2:46 PM PT
So why don't pygmies dominate all hot humid areas? There are such in the US I understand and evolution, being, as you observe quite rapid, one would expect them to be numerous over there.
369. Pseudoerasmus - March 5, 1999 - 2:52 PM PT
Message #368
Well, according to Luigi Cavalli Sforza, the smallest people in the world inhabit tropical environemnts where the humidity is at or near 100%.
"There are such in the US I understand and evolution, being, as you observe quite rapid, one would expect them to be numerous over there."
Is this a serious question? Surely you are not saying that just because moths can adapt to the Industrial Revolution, or that viruses can mutate in a few weeks, such rapidity is possible for people?
I don't think the Americas have been inhabited long enough. I don't know about the stature of Amazon rainforest dwellers.
370. uzmakk - March 5, 1999 - 3:10 PM PT
I think rainforest people are quite small.
371. uzmakk - March 5, 1999 - 3:11 PM PT
Pellenillson:
I don't see the problem.
372. Msivorytower - March 5, 1999 - 4:24 PM PT
I have to admit, I don't see the problem with Diamond's basic hypotheses in this chapter as well. They seem very reasonable, and frankly, closer to his area of specialty than many of the other areas he touches on.
He specifically notes that the grains and plants domesticated first were plentiful AND quite edible even in their wild state. Domestication can be easily imagined from this beginning, particularly if we assume that gatherers were very good at finding the best, identifying the ones most palatable and then beginning to experiment with small scale growing of them. I found the discussion of plant domestication to be one of the most solid in this section.
As I consider Pincher Martins objections Diamond's lack of discussion of why the bison were not domesticated in North America, I think the next chapter is not as well developed as I'd previously thought.
373. Pseudoerasmus - March 5, 1999 - 4:27 PM PT
Pellenilsson: In rereading my summary of chapter 7, I did a very poor job of it. So the fracas was my fault. I apologise terribly if you felt insulted by my comments on evolution.
374. chloel - March 5, 1999 - 4:27 PM PT
"The smallest tooth sizes are found in those areas where food-processing techniques have been used for the longest time. This is a probable example of natural selection which has occurred within the last 10,000 years (Brace, 1983)." (from a summary of hominid fossils)
I like that one for a probable example of natural selection interacting with the human-altered environment, too.
I can't find the link, but a few weeks ago Scientists Reported that the rate of mutations in human conceptions is much higher than previously thought - 3 per gamete? can't remember exactly. This isn't obvious to us partly because many of the drastic changes aren't successful enough to carry to term, and other changes may be invisible.
375. PincherMartin - March 5, 1999 - 5:06 PM PT
PE -- Message #350
Will do.
376. AuNaturel - March 5, 1999 - 5:14 PM PT
Cereal grains can have the chracteristic of polyploidy. That is they frequently carry more than two complete gene sets. This makes for a high degree of genetic variability. You don't even need mutations. two closely related grains can combine into a third strain with the complete genetic complement of both ancestors. That's how most modern ceral crops are developed.
377. AuNaturel - March 5, 1999 - 5:19 PM PT
"So why don't pygmies dominate all hot humid areas? "
Statistically you can correlate body size and lattitude. Obviously it is not a pefect fit. Pygmies are a local subgroup and would not be expected to dominate beyond their local area. But as a general rule hot climates tend to produce smaller people, regardless of humidity.
378. AuNaturel - March 5, 1999 - 5:22 PM PT
"There are such in the US I understand and evolution, being, as you observe quite rapid, one would expect them to be numerous over there."
Human mobility plus air conditioning is such that such evolution would be unlikely today. However it is well known that larger people are more comfortable in cooler climates.
379. CalGal - March 5, 1999 - 5:24 PM PT
"I apologise terribly if you felt insulted by my comments on evolution."
Well, no, actually you apologize very well.
380. thoughtful - March 5, 1999 - 6:11 PM PT
Re Message #178, glad you're seeking "thougthful" posts. I've been traveling but managed to read the book a couple of weeks ago. Don't have it here so can't make references. In light of the strict rules on keeping on topic, I've been reluctant to post lest I break the rules. I will also be doing a lot of travelling through the end of this month, so will only be able to visit occasionally. Still I have enjoyed the posts and discussion very much. Glad to see that others have raise points and concerns that I had -- though much more eloquently than I.
I agree that it is the synthesis of the wide variety of studies brought together that make the book so intriguing. It covers a lot of topics with which I am only marginally familiar, which also makes it a great learning experience for me.
One criticism that I believe no one has mentioned yet is its redundancy. While, "tell 'em what you're going to tell 'em; tell 'em; then tell 'em what you told 'em" works well in speaking or lecture format, I find it tiresome and unnecessary in writing. Either he's too used to lecturing, or he felt insecure about his thesis and felt his ideas needed reinforcing.
Re Message #267, "I intend to discuss this at grater length...". My grater is about 10" long.
381. thoughtful - March 5, 1999 - 6:23 PM PT
At the risk of jumping ahead:
I especially liked his story about answering Yuri's question as an introduction to the book. Something this broad in scope needs a device like that to prepare you for the long and winding journey you are about to take.
I like his use of tying something as farflung as Anna Karenina to animal domestication to illustrate his point.
I was amazed at the stats he showed as to the limited number of crops that continue to account for the vast majority of calories consumed (as well as the small number of domesticated animals) despite how far we like to think we've come in agriculture -- clearly one of our most productive industries.
I'm glad to see others found the final chapters as unsatisfactory as I, and anxiously await the discussion at that point.
PseuE, one area that I found dissatisfying which I think you've explained far better is the role natural geographic boundaries played in Europe's history. It will be most curious to see whether today's attempted unification of Europe will succeed as technology now makes those boundaries irrelevant.
382. thoughtful - March 5, 1999 - 6:34 PM PT
Re seeing natural selection in process, dogs that "go wild" -- I'm vaguely recalling something that had to do with feral dogs in India -- lose the characteristic traits of their individual breeds and become medium sized, medium hair length dogs -- large enough to defend themselves, small enough to be self-supporting in terms of scavenging. (I don't remember if it was just a dominant trait that they all had tails that curled over their backs.)
Re religion/culture/environment, I believe it was in the interview Bill Moyers did with Joseph Campbell that Campbell pointed out that agrarian societies tended to worship female gods (fertility, mother earth, cycles, etc.) Nomadic cultures which were more likely to come in contact with other tribes leading to conflict, tended to worship male gods (power, strength, defenders, warriors, etc.)
383. uzmakk - March 5, 1999 - 6:52 PM PT
Thoughtful:
I am sure that I will be bringing up that God-Goddess relationship when Religious Homoiousia morphs into Witchcraft and the Occult.
384. pellenilsson - March 5, 1999 - 11:05 PM PT
PE
No problem.
385. thoughtful - March 6, 1999 - 4:16 AM PT
I just received this a.m.'s NY Times and in tomorrow's book review section is a review of a book, "Throwim Way Leg: Tree-Kangaroos, Possums, and Penis Gourds -- On the Track of Unknown Mammals in Wildest New Guinea" by Tim Flannery. They probably won't have it on the internet until tomorrow though.
386. ptboya - March 6, 1999 - 6:19 AM PT
There seems to be a generalized misuse of the term "evolution" floating around here. There is a big difference between the emergence of new _species_ and new _traits_ within the same species. The dog is a good example of a species that exhibits an extreme range of traits. But all dogs are of one species: or by the normally accepted definition, reproduction is possible amongst all the varieties.
Evolution, in the sense of speciation, the creation of new species, _can_ take millions of years. This depends on both the complexity of the species' DNA, and the term of the reproductive cycle. So, a virus can mutate so swiftly both because its DNA is comparatively tiny and it regenerates so swiftly. Plantlife, though its DNA is in many cases more complex than is ours (the lowly potato has more chromosomes than we) have a relatively short reproduction cycle, thus the creation of new species is comparatively more rapid than amongst, say, large mammals.
But by contrast to the process of speciation, the emergence of new traits can take place in as short a time span as one generation.
387. ptboya - March 6, 1999 - 6:31 AM PT
"But as a general rule hot climates tend to produce smaller people, regardless of humidity."
In fact, it's theorized that the opposite is true. The smallest surface area of any solid is a sphere, so a creature which conserves its heat store most efficiently in a cold climate tends to the spherical. The converse applies to hot areas (restricted to those where humidity is low enough to allow evaporation of sweat). The most efficient body type for purposes of shedding heat would be an elongated one. The classic comparison is between Eskimos and Watusis.
However, relative size of peoples is more subject to diet than to climate. This can be inferred from the fact that recent US immigrants' offspring rapidly become average US size, regardless of the average body size in the country of origin or the (dis)similarity of the climate of both.
388. IrvingSnodgrass - March 6, 1999 - 7:24 AM PT
PE:
Sorry I haven't been participating. Although I don't have the book here, I've read all the comments in this thread and it's been fascinating. I find all Diamond's ideas make a great deal of sense to me, and fit in nicely with both the evidence you and others have provided and my own knowledge of history and the world.
I would have jumped in with Socko's silly statement in Message #192:
"Also, at least some of the original Maoris probably came not from Hawaii but Taiwan..."
and his "clarifications" in Message #214 and Message #217, but your answer in Message #218 was as good as any I could give (a fact Pincher seems to have missed altogether in his odd Message #255).
Socko:
The Austronesian peoples likely started their migrations from Taiwan (I can go into exactly *why* Taiwan is the most likely homeland, but not in *this* thread). But the Maoris themselves never existed in Taiwan, nor did the Polynesian peoples. The Polynesian homeland is east of New Guinea, and the people island-hopped across the Pacific rather haphazardly. The path of their migrations can be traced through linguistic evidence alone, although there is plenty of other corroborative evidence. But I assure you, the Maoris did *not* migrate to New Zealand from Hawaii, nor were the Maoris a mix of different peoples when they arrived. Hawaii was the last stop on the Polynesian migrations. Again, if you'd like to debate this, meet me in the Language thread.
PE Message #200:
"PART TWO
The Rise and Spread of Food Production"
Where is Hystock1 when we need him?
[continued]
389. IrvingSnodgrass - March 6, 1999 - 7:28 AM PT
A few notes on food from the earlier discussions: someone asked why fertile places in the tropics such as Java (which has been called the most fertile soil on the planet) did not support greater technological development. I posit the simple fact that tropical climates may be ideal for *growing* food, but are hell on *storing* food. And food storage, as you have pointed out, is essential. Anyone who has lived in the tropics realizes how difficult the climate (especially a hot, humid one) is on food storage.
As for the American civilizations which developed in tropical areas (Aztec, Inca), I think it is noteworthy that both developed in cooler, drier, mountain regions, and perhaps are not good examples of tropical civilizations.
Wombat Message #207:
"This should not be suprising: Today's Greeks and Turks are essentially the same genetically, although one wouldn't know it to hear them go on about their differences."
Not according to Cavalli-Sforza. The European and Turkic groups are quite distant on his genetic chart.
pellenilsson Message #269:
"Proto-Indo-Europeans? Please clarify. Who? Where? When? What criterion for advancing from Proto to the real thing?"
See the Language thread archives for extensive discussion of the Proto-Indo-Europeans.
PE Message #354:
"But humans knew, because the sweet variety was very rare, that almonds were bitter and posionous. So why should they spend time almond-tasting?"
PE: "He posits children as curious samplers of wild almonds."
Another possibility is that humans observed birds and animals consuming the better-tasting almonds.
Anyway, thanks for the great thread. I look forward to the next parts!
390. ScottLoar - March 6, 1999 - 7:39 AM PT
"(T)ropical climates may be ideal for 'growing' food, but are hell on 'storing' food", a notable exception being rice which is easily preserved against all hell save saturating dampness. Rice grains can be left out in the open or or cached underground for a long, long while without misadventure if it only be kept from saturating damp.
391. ScottLoar - March 6, 1999 - 7:45 AM PT
Offhand, I cannot think of any bacterium or blight attracted to harvested and dry rice grains except rats and locusts. The stuff is almost indestructible unless throughly wetted. As the grains are heaped even fire only chars the outside of the pile leaving the inner grains untouched.
392. ScottLoar - March 6, 1999 - 7:54 AM PT
You have to admit, the steps in wet rice cultivation are tiring, and if an alternative grain staple could be had in early eastern Eurasian culture I'm sure it would have gained common use. Perhaps the very disincentive was spoilage.
393. pellenilsson - March 6, 1999 - 8:01 AM PT
A final note on the very silly idea that pygmies are better adapted to humid heat.
The ability to loose heat is obviously vital. The important parameter is the relation between body mass and body surface. If you have ever met any Nubians, Hausas or Masais you will know what I mean. Stature as such has nothing to do with it.
394. Msivorytower - March 6, 1999 - 9:39 AM PT
Irving
"Another possibility is that humans observed birds and animals consuming the better-tasting almonds."
Yes, exactly. Diamond discusses the quite phenomenal knowledge Yali's People displayed repeatedly in the forest when foraging for food, and points out that these skills were likely even more acute when communities relied exclusively on such techniques to feed themselves.
This goes back to my earlier point about the lack of gender talk in Diamond's book. By avoiding discussing the issues of specialization of labor that has been observed in recent h-g communities, he really misses an opportunity to richly describe how foraging could have occurred in pre-history, and the familiarity these groups had with their food sources. Bossrup (Women in Economic Development) and Ehrenberg (Women in Pre-History), among others, write of the detailed knowledge and skills women have (had) in feeding their families, and in controlling food production.
I think the move to plant domestication by trial and error, by experimentation, and by observation of the foods animals were eating is quite plausible. The intensity by which foragers observe their food sources, and the value they probably placed on finding the best tasting plants can be quickly transferred to the growing process as well. Culling these plants for the traits they most desired (taste, size, etc) could have occurred very quickly, IMO.
395. Pseudoerasmus - March 6, 1999 - 9:48 AM PT
Message #386
No one was misusing the term "evolution". Of course there is a difference between the evolution of traits and the evolutio of species. But a good working definition of "evolution" is really just a mutation which survives.
Message #393
It's not silly at all. As you say, the important parameter is the relation between body mass and body surface, which was mentioned. The right ratio could be achieved by varying the body mass or body surface.
By the way, aren't the Hausas, Masais, and Nubians relative newcomers to the area where they live?
396. ScottLoar - March 6, 1999 - 9:52 AM PT
The paradox can be explained by saying small pygmies but short Innuits.
397. Pseudoerasmus - March 6, 1999 - 9:57 AM PT
Message #387
"The smallest surface area of any solid is a sphere..."
This is a meaningless statement.
I can come up with any cube whose surface area is smaller than any sphere you choose.
Moreover, the important variable is not the surface area, but the ratio of the surface area to the volume (body mass).
398. joezan - March 6, 1999 - 9:57 AM PT
Message #389 (1st paragraph):
Wouldn't peoples of super-fertile regions be naturally disinclined to technological development, simply because everything needed for their survival is immediately at hand?
399. IrvingSnodgrass - March 6, 1999 - 10:04 AM PT
PE:
"By the way, aren't the Hausas, Masais, and Nubians relative newcomers to the area where they live?"
And what area is that? The Hausa live in Northern Nigeria, and are genetically and linguistically a part of the Afro-Asiatic (Semitic) peoples. The Maasai live in East Africa and are a Nilo-Saharan people, quite distantly related on the genetic/linguistic tree. They pre-date the Niger-Kordofanian (Bantu) peoples who settled much of Africa in fairly recent times.
"Nubian" is a term for Africans which has no linguistic or ethnic relevance. It does, however, have a long and uncertain historical provenance. It usually refers to an East African of dark skin.
400. Msivorytower - March 6, 1999 - 10:07 AM PT
re Message #398
Huh? This doesn't make sense to me at all. Being in a rich ecological environment would likely promote greater survival of individuals at all age ranges, population pressures alone could cause significant variation in well being (intergenerationally). Then there is the fact that a fertile environment is one in which the variety of growing things could spur the exact kind of plant experimentation discussed by Diamond and others here.
I don't see a rich environment as being a deterent to technical knowledge development at all.