Guns, Germs, and Steel - Geography vs. Culture

[Bastiat's The Law]

What really explains the rise of the west?

Guns, Germs, and Steel is essentially required reading on liberal college campuses today. I found the thesis flawed and unconvincing. It always struck me as a politically correct revisionist history. I would recommend reading Michael H. Harts book "Understanding Human History", since it was written as a response to Jared Diamond's book. And another great book by Victor Davis Hanson, "Carnage and Culture" It's interesting to note how these books and videos actually back up in a historical sense what we do here on Ron Paul forums, namely fighting for the preservation of liberty, is the correct path to be on. Liberty of thought and the individual gave birth to western culture and a by-product of that ideal has been western nations rising to prominence throughout history.

Victor Davis Hanson and Jared Diamond actually had a discussion on this topic; namely, Geography vs. Culture as what gave rise to Western dominance in the world. I score this a 10-8 round for Hanson.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A5AEOztnEag

[Bastiat's The Law]

Here's Historian Niall Ferguson, citing the significant roles that culture, reason, and ideas, play over geographical location.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xpnFeyMGUs8

[Pericles]

The series Triumph of the West by the BBC explians it. (A) the concept that an individual has rights that society can not abrogate (B) Private property and a legal system that protects that property, and (C) Unlimited scientific inquiry unlimited by societal taboos.

One might want to consider the rise and fall of the USA based on those criteria.

[Simple]

Even in my geography classes where they told had us read UN Agenda 21 as the playbook on how to fix the world, Diamond wasn't taken too seriously. Diamond advocates for environmental determinism, which argues the nature of a culture is determined by the geography. Some of the absurd assumptions he makes are that people in warm climates will be environmentally determined to having bad tempers because of their hot blood.

[Pericles]

Even in my geography classes where they told had us read UN Agenda 21 as the playbook on how to fix the world, Diamond wasn't taken too seriously. Diamond advocates for environmental determinism, which argues the nature of a culture is determined by the geography. Some of the absurd assumptions he makes are that people in warm climates will be environmentally determined to having bad tempers because of their hot blood.

Look at the various cultures of the world and compare their state of advancement at say 1 AD, 1001 AD, and 2001 AD. Geography can hardly explain why the Roman Empire was among the highest cultures, along with the far east at 1 AD, yet Europe lags the rest of the world except for Africa at 1001 AD, and is the pre-eminent world culture at 2001 AD.

[Acala]

The series Triumph of the West by the BBC explians it. (A) the concept that an individual has rights that society can not abrogate (B) Private property and a legal system that protects that property, and (C) Unlimited scientific inquiry unlimited by societal taboos.

One might want to consider the rise and fall of the USA based on those criteria.

I would agree, but add a healthy slice of Black Swan meat.

[Aratus]

.................................mmmm............. okaaaaaaaay..........................

[Bastiat's The Law]

The series Triumph of the West by the BBC explains it. (A) the concept that an individual has rights that society can not abrogate (B) Private property and a legal system that protects that property, and (C) Unlimited scientific inquiry unlimited by societal taboos.

One might want to consider the rise and fall of the USA based on those criteria.
You should post the video of that series if you find it. BBC has some great content.

[Xhin]

Guns, Germs, and Steel is an awesome book and I'd highly recommend that anyone reads it. It doesn't refute the necessity of culture and ideas like personal freedom, it just gives an origin story for why they evolved where they did. Any angry criticism I've come across seems to focus on interpretations of how the book should be used rather than the basic ideas of the book. This is probably because it became curriculum at some point, so suddenly it got all of these connotations that weren't actually in there. I read it before it became curriculum.

[Simple]

To be fair, I was taught about this book and didn't actually read it.

[Kade]

The book is not required reading. I would require this or Lucifer's Principle for anyone interesting in diversifying their opinions.

Every time you use the word liberal as a pejorative it weakens any attempt you may one day make towards people you apparently don't understand.