| |
 |
|
| Science Forum Index » Economy Forum » Critiquing Jared Diamond's pop-science TV program "Guns, ger |
|
Page 1 of 1 |
|
| Author |
Message |
| eliannalg@gmail.com |
 Posted: Mon Dec 19, 2005 12:31 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Don't knock string theory. Just because it is not proveable does not
make it impossible. Check out Alan Lightman's _The Discoveries: Great
Breakthroughs in 20th Century Science, and A Sense of the Mysterious:
Science and the Human Spirit_ |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Nathan |
| Posted: Mon Dec 19, 2005 2:37 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
You argue that energy, and thus science and technology, or invention
was the driving force of history. However, politics and wars have
driven this process, the inventions to come out of world war two were
inumerable, including nuclear power. Yes the Greeks and Romans
conquered with superior technology, but to acquire that they had to
form and maintain a stable society capable of supporting specialization
and thus the development of and improvement on their technology. Wars
and battles are the turning points that determine wether or not
progress can be continued. That is why history focuses on the politics
and battles, they are the background that allows for technology. The
two are paired and grow off of eachother but without need technology
stagnates. The desire for spices, by the upper classes of Europe,
after the crusades led to a race to find a sea route, and thus
improvements in sea faring technology. Mass desire for change leads to
technological improvement. That is why History focuses on history and
battles, they are what fuel this desire and unite entire peoples behind
a common cause. To get to the scientific revolution of Newton and
Galileo man first had to pass through the agricultural and commercial
revolution, and it was polititics and states that pushed these. Yes,
the victorious ones had them, initialy by pot luck but later because of
a receptive enviroment. History is at best 75/50 war/science. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Bob |
| Posted: Mon Dec 19, 2005 11:53 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On 17 Dec 2005 00:01:06 -0800, a_plutonium@hotmail.com wrote:
[quote:e26a8525d2]
The major flaw of Diamond is that it is "energy" that is the basis of
the evolution of one culture advancing ahead of another culture.
Diamond seems to think it is geography. If Diamond were correct, he
would have had to answer why the latitude lines from the Fertile
Crescent advanced Europe and very little in India, China.
[/quote:e26a8525d2]
Sounds like you got quite a wrong (oversimplified) impression of his
views, not surprising for a 1 hr show (which I did not see). Suggest
you read the book. He is a good communicator, and the book is
(mostly)a good read. You can critique it better after reading it. But
his views are much richer, more complex than what you have seen so
far. He is a good scientist, and addresses many of the complexities.
(I'm not suggesting that you should agree with him completely at that
point, or that all he wrote is well accepted. But it will give you a
better view than just a TV show.)
bob |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Guest |
| Posted: Tue Dec 20, 2005 2:36 pm |
|
|
|
|
Jim Blair writes:
The question by the New Guinean started Diamond thinking about the
question.
Guns, Germs and Steel opens with an account of how Pizarro and less
than 200
Spaniards defeated the Inca empire (larger than the Roman one), and
continues to explain how the superiority of Eurasia over the Americas
in
1500 AD could have been predicted 12,000 years ago. It all derives from
geography: the shape and size of the continents.
A.P. writes:
No, Jim fails in logic just as badly as Jared fails in logic. The
reason 200 Spaniards conquered an entire empire is because of the
"advanced Energy technology" embodied by the Spaniards where the
Americas had all low energy technology.
Geography is not the lowest common denominator, Energy-technology is
the lowest common denominator. Those that are not schooled in
mathematics well enough would have a difficult time of understanding
that the lowest parameter is Energy and not geography.
Archimedes Plutonium
www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Guest |
| Posted: Tue Dec 20, 2005 3:01 pm |
|
|
|
|
Maybe I should elaborate to show how silly is the Jared Diamond
argument.
Was it geography that prompted some apelike creature some 8 million
years ago to pick up rocks and stones and throw them? Of course it is
geography that some places have more rocks and stones lying around but
rocks and stones are abundant most everywhere. And this Stonethrowing
prehuman would become the human species because of Throwing. That is an
Energy technology development, not a geography development. And that
Energy would become permanently branded into our DNA that we would
become the Stonethrowing species. So geography had little to do with
it.
Now look at Greece and it becoming a superpower, was it geography? No,
it was mostly Energy technology with just a tiny bit of geography. The
Energy technology was seafaring and the improvements of ships under the
Greeks. Now let us look at Rome and why it became a superpower. Was it
geography? Only a tad little bit of geography. But the key parameter
was Energy technology of building aqueducts, building watermills and
waterwheels and building roads. Now why did England exceed France and
Germany in the 1800s? Was it geography? Not really for it was Energy
technology of coal mostly and ship technology.
The Spaniards conquered the Americas not because geography drove them
there but because they had shipbuilding Energy technology to get to the
Americas in the first place and then once there, their horse, steel
technology allowed them to conquer.
To make Science Concepts of history, you have to be very bright about
getting the correct parameters. Geography is a factor but not the most
important factor. The most important factor is Energy technology and
the history of human civilization is mostly a tracing of the most
advanced Energy technology.
Archimedes Plutonium
www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Jim Blair |
| Posted: Tue Dec 20, 2005 3:37 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
<a_plutonium@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1135108871.424228.273140@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
[quote:14027c6e5a]Maybe I should elaborate to show how silly is the Jared Diamond
argument.
Was it geography that prompted some apelike creature some 8 million
years ago to pick up rocks and stones and throw them? Of course it is
geography that some places have more rocks and stones lying around but
rocks and stones are abundant most everywhere. And this Stonethrowing
prehuman would become the human species because of Throwing. That is an
Energy technology development, not a geography development. And that
Energy would become permanently branded into our DNA that we would
become the Stonethrowing species. So geography had little to do with
it.
[/quote:14027c6e5a]
Hi,
Diamond did not claim that geography caused humans to develop ahead of pigs
or bears. Humans appear to have started in Africa and later spread to
Eurasia and the Americas and Pacific islands.
[quote:14027c6e5a]
Now look at Greece and it becoming a superpower, was it geography? No,
it was mostly Energy technology with just a tiny bit of geography. The
Energy technology was seafaring and the improvements of ships under the
Greeks. Now let us look at Rome and why it became a superpower. Was it
geography? Only a tad little bit of geography. But the key parameter
was Energy technology of building aqueducts, building watermills and
waterwheels and building roads. Now why did England exceed France and
Germany in the 1800s? Was it geography? Not really for it was Energy
technology of coal mostly and ship technology.
[/quote:14027c6e5a]
Rome and Greece were in Eurasia and had the benefit of grains, animals and
ideas from Mesopotamia and other parts of the Eurasian land mass.
(Your other examples, England, France and Germany don't enter this
discussion since they are after the contact of Europeans with the rest of
the world)
[quote:14027c6e5a]
The Spaniards conquered the Americas not because geography drove them
there but because they had shipbuilding Energy technology to get to the
Americas in the first place and then once there, their horse, steel
technology allowed them to conquer.
[/quote:14027c6e5a]
But why did they have the technology ahead of the Americans? Were horses
native to Spain? Was ship building and steel making first discovered there?
No. They had the advantage of the Eurasian land mass to draw from. Wheat
from Iraq, gunpowder from China, cows and horses and pigs and ideas from
other places. And perhaps most important of all, resistance to small pox and
other diseases that come with the use of domesticated animals.
[quote:14027c6e5a]
To make Science Concepts of history, you have to be very bright about
getting the correct parameters. Geography is a factor but not the most
important factor. The most important factor is Energy technology and
the history of human civilization is mostly a tracing of the most
advanced Energy technology.
[/quote:14027c6e5a]
I don't understand your term "energy technology" as opposed to just
"technology", but the Eurasians had more advanced technology than existed in
the Americas or Africa or Australia or the Pacific because of the geography
of the continents. Or so says Diamond ;-)
,,,,,,,
_______________ooo___(_O O_)___ooo_______________
(_)
jim blair (jeblair@wisc.edu) Madison Wisconsin USA.
This message was brought to you using biodegradable
binary bits, and 100% recycled bandwidth. For a good
time call: http://www.geocities.com/capitolhill/4834 |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Nathan |
| Posted: Wed Dec 21, 2005 9:38 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
What it all boils down to is that the society with "guns, germs, and
steel" wins. Call it energy technology or what you will but we are
talking about the same thing. Geography is used to explain why who had
what; and to show the spread of technology from where it was developed,
which is why technology is referenced so frequently by Diamond.
Whithin a shared technology area, who did what when is inconsequential,
it boils down to politics and war which you have been so quick to
disregard. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Sun Nov 22, 2009 11:59 am
|
|