What, if anything, are Jared Diamond's ideas worth?

[Travis B.]

I'm not speaking of, say, the modern-day homicide rate in Port Moresby (which indeed is very high) but rather in traditional tribal societies in such places, with minimal influence from the outside world.

Do you have information saying that traditional ways of life survive unmodified in parts of New Guinea? Based on what I have read before, there is no such place left in New Guinea.

To my knowledge they largely survived intact in the central highlands of New Guinea well into the 20th century, which for a long time were effectively inaccessible from the coasts, and even after first contact per se for a long time had little contact with their ostensible colonizers (i.e. Australia and the Dutch).

[rotting bones]

The question then is 'why Europe, and not China or India?', which again is something that GGS seeks to answer. Why did Europe develop those series of modes of production, even though at one time China and India were just as economically advanced as Europe, if not more so?

Note that the issue is not that Jared Diamond discusses geography. The issue is that he doesn't discuss other factors. For academics, specifically, factors that can be changed.

[rotting bones]

To my knowledge they largely survived intact in the central highlands of New Guinea well into the 20th century, which for a long time were effectively inaccessible from the coasts, and even after first contact per se for a long time had little contact with their ostensible colonizers (i.e. Australia and the Dutch).

To my knowledge, all that's left untouched in the inner highlands are now quaint cultural practices. The way of life no longer follows traditional forms.

[rotting bones]

Furthermore, aren't the inhabitants of the inner highlands traditional farmers? I was talking about low population hunter-gatherers.

[Travis B.]

The question then is 'why Europe, and not China or India?', which again is something that GGS seeks to answer. Why did Europe develop those series of modes of production, even though at one time China and India were just as economically advanced as Europe, if not more so?

Note that the issue is not that Jared Diamond discusses geography. The issue is that he doesn't discuss other factors. For academics, specifically, factors that can be changed.

Here is an article on a simulation of Diamond's 'fractured land' hypothesis in action which largely confirms that it is the geography of Europe which resulted in its political fragmentation into a variety of states while China ended up as one large empire.

[rotting bones]

The question then is 'why Europe, and not China or India?', which again is something that GGS seeks to answer. Why did Europe develop those series of modes of production, even though at one time China and India were just as economically advanced as Europe, if not more so?

Note that the issue is not that Jared Diamond discusses geography. The issue is that he doesn't discuss other factors. For academics, specifically, factors that can be changed.

Here is an article on a simulation of Diamond's 'fractured land' hypothesis in action which largely confirms that it is the geography of Europe which resulted in its political fragmentation into a variety of states while China ended up as one large empire.

I think a bigger factor is that China didn't have any big enough neighboring civilization to challenge it.

As for India, Hindus weren't even allowed to cross the ocean.

[rotting bones]

Regarding New Guinea: Either way, the murder rate has nothing to do with world domination.

[zompist]

Here is an article on a simulation of Diamond's 'fractured land' hypothesis in action which largely confirms that it is the geography of Europe which resulted in its political fragmentation into a variety of states while China ended up as one large empire.

I think a bigger factor is that China didn't have any big enough neighboring civilization to challenge it.

Woman in meme: They're the same picture.

(If that's too obscure— you are just rephrasing Diamond's hypothesis.)

[rotting bones]

Here is an article on a simulation of Diamond's 'fractured land' hypothesis in action which largely confirms that it is the geography of Europe which resulted in its political fragmentation into a variety of states while China ended up as one large empire.

I think a bigger factor is that China didn't have any big enough neighboring civilization to challenge it.

Woman in meme: They're the same picture.

(If that's too obscure— you are just rephrasing Diamond's hypothesis.)

Is it? In that case, see the post Travis B. is quoting again.

[Travis B.]

I think a bigger factor is that China didn't have any big enough neighboring civilization to challenge it.

Woman in meme: They're the same picture.

(If that's too obscure— you are just rephrasing Diamond's hypothesis.)

Is it? In that case, see the post Travis B. is quoting again.

In GGS Diamond goes into length about how, because geography allowed China to become a large united empire while for the same reasons Europe never did, lack of competition between states allowed China to stagnate while competition between states in Europe drove states to consistently try to out-do one another, resulting in innovation and continued development, rather than settling into stagnation as China did, while simultaneously not being too divided either, hence being a significant part of 'why Europe and not China'.

[rotting bones]

Woman in meme: They're the same picture.

(If that's too obscure— you are just rephrasing Diamond's hypothesis.)

Is it? In that case, see the post Travis B. is quoting again.

In GGS Diamond goes into length about how, because geography allowed China to become a large united empire while for the same reasons Europe never did, lack of competition between states allowed China to stagnate while competition between states in Europe drove states to consistently try to out-do one another, resulting in innovation and continued development, rather than settling into stagnation as China did, while simultaneously not being too divided either, hence being a significant part of 'why Europe and not China'.

According to Google, the California School of historians say that China's most developed regions matched Europe's until approximately 1750-1800, with divergence resulting from contingent factors like coal location and New World colonies rather than political or cultural differences. This paper mentions Diamond by name: https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... Divergence

[Raphael]

Political and cultural differences might, however, be the reason why China didn't have any New World colonies in the first place.

[rotting bones]

Political and cultural differences might, however, be the reason why China didn't have any New World colonies in the first place.

Europeans were experienced with trade through the Mediterranean sea for millennia. Did China have a reason to keep investing in sophisticated ocean-going capabilities? They did have sea trade, but they didn't need it and had much less of a maritime culture.

[Travis B.]

Political and cultural differences might, however, be the reason why China didn't have any New World colonies in the first place.

And again (I know you probably know this; this is for others' benefit), this is something that GGS points out -- centralization allowed China to halt the treasure ships while that would have never happened with Europe as a whole as if one state stopped colonialism other states would have taken advantage of that.

[Travis B.]

Political and cultural differences might, however, be the reason why China didn't have any New World colonies in the first place.

Europeans were experienced with trade through the Mediterranean sea for millennia. Did China have a reason to keep investing in sophisticated ocean-going capabilities? They did have sea trade, but they didn't need it and had much less of a maritime culture.

You sound like you haven't read the book you are arguing against because it specifically mentions centralization as a significant factor in China's abandoning ocean-going sea trade after it had created the treasure ships.

[rotting bones]

And again (I know you probably know this; this is for others' benefit), this is something that GGS points out -- centralization allowed China to halt the treasure ships while that would have never happened with Europe as a whole as if one state stopped colonialism other states would have taken advantage of that.

Allowing for something is not the same as determining it. Again, the debate is between geography alone vs. geography and institutional factors that can be changed.

[rotting bones]

You sound like you haven't read the book you are arguing against because it specifically mentions centralization as a significant factor in China's abandoning ocean-going sea trade after it had created the treasure ships.

I read it 9 years ago. I have posted extracts from it on the old ZBB. I don't remember it very well.

Could the treasure ships have reached the new world? My understanding is that Chinese vessels generally hugged the coast, whereas European ships could cross the oceans.

Also, the China was so large, it had everything it needed within its borders. It technically didn't need foreign trade.

[Raphael]

Also, the China was so large, it had everything it needed within its borders. It technically didn't need foreign trade.

Which is one of the main points GGS makes on that.

[Travis B.]

And again (I know you probably know this; this is for others' benefit), this is something that GGS points out -- centralization allowed China to halt the treasure ships while that would have never happened with Europe as a whole as if one state stopped colonialism other states would have taken advantage of that.

Allowing for something is not the same as determining it. Again, the debate is between geography alone vs. geography and institutional factors that can be changed.

Again, you bring up institutional factors, but ultimately there must be a reason for those, so in the end we are back at geography -- and this is something that GGS addresses.

[rotting bones]

Again, you bring up institutional factors, but ultimately there must be a reason for those, so in the end we are back at geography -- and this is something that GGS addresses.

Everybody agrees that geography can shape institutions. Academics disagree that geography determines institutions. Here's an analogy:

function Institution(object geography);

Geography is an input to the function Institution, but non-geographic factors can still determine some aspects of the institutions.

Academics are annoyed that Jared Diamond is too geographically reductive.