The History Book Club discussion

Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies
This topic is about Guns, Germs, and Steel
66 views
HEALTH- MEDICINE - SCIENCE > 5. GUNS, GERMS AND STEEL ~ CHAPTERS 9 AND 10 (157 - 193) (10/11/10 - 10/17/10) ~ No spoilers, please

Comments (showing 1-38 of 38) (38 new)    post a comment »
dateDown arrow    newest »

message 1: by Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief (last edited Sep 30, 2010 09:17AM) (new) - rated it 4 stars

Bentley | 34078 comments Mod
Hello Everyone,

For the week of October 11th through October 17th, we are reading approximately the next 36 pages of Guns, Germs and Steel.

This thread will discuss the following chapters and pages (it opens up on Oct 11th or the evening of the 10rd):

Week Five - October 11th – October 17th -> Chapters NINE and TEN p. 157 - 193
NINE - Zebras, Unhappy Marriages and the Anna Karenina Principle and TEN – Spacious Skies and Tilted Axes

We will open up a thread for each week's reading. Please make sure to post in the particular thread dedicated to those specific chapters and page numbers to avoid spoilers. We will also open up supplemental threads as we have done for other spotlighted reads.

We kicked everything off on September 12th. We look forward to your participation. Amazon, Barnes and Noble and other noted on line booksellers do have copies of the book and shipment can be expedited. The book can also be obtained easily at your local library, on iTunes for the ipad, etc. However, be careful, some audible formats are abridged and not unabridged.

There is still remaining time to obtain the book and get started.

There is no rush and we are thrilled to have you join us. It is never too late to get started and/or to post.

Welcome,

~Bentley

Week of October 11th - October 17th

Week Five - October 11th – October 17th -> Chapters NINE and TEN p. 157 - 193
NINE - Zebras, Unhappy Marriages and the Anna Karenina Principle and TEN – Spacious Skies and Tilted Axes

This is a link to the complete table of contents and syllabus thread:

http://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/3...


We are off to a good beginning.

TO SEE ALL WEEK'S THREADS SELECT VIEW ALL

Guns, Germs and Steel by Jared Diamond Jared DiamondJared Diamond


Rodney | 83 comments I haven't read ahead any, but it appears these are two chapters where Diamond has started to really put forth his thesis. I thought the chapters on domestication and geography were extremely interesting and thought provoking.

It is an difficult concept to accept on face value that it appears those born to certain areas were going to face a much more difficult life, not because of their government or their intelligence, but simply because of the geography.

I would be further interested to hear from others on if that concept is still true to the modern world.


message 3: by Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief (new) - rated it 4 stars

Bentley | 34078 comments Mod
I agree Rodney; these chapters start moving the ball.


Andrea | 129 comments I read a book this summer that seems to reflect on the thesis being developed here. Power of Place Harm De Blij Power of Place by Harm De Blij

I don't agree with all of De Blij's conclusions, but it does address some of the issues of the basic "determinism" of birthplace Rodney mentions.


message 5: by Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief (new) - rated it 4 stars

Bentley | 34078 comments Mod
And so we begin this week's reading:

Chapter Nine also shows how crops and livestock came in prehistoric times to be domesticated from ancestral wild plants and animals, by incipient farmers and herders who could have had no vision of the outcome.

Geographic differences in the local suites of wild plants and animals available for domestication go a long way toward explaining why only a few areas became independent centers of food production, and why it arose earlier in some of those areas than in others.

From those few centers of origin, food production spread much more rapidly to some areas than to others. A major factor contributing to those differing rates of spread turns out to have been the orientation of the continents' axes: predominantly west-east for Eurasia, predominantly north-south for the Americas and Africa which is where we head for Chapter Ten.

Chapter Nine is called: Zebras, Unhappy Marriages and the Anna Karenina Principle

Jared Diamond discusses how successfully domesticated animal species, like the happy families of Anna Karenina, are all alike in that all requirements--not just some--must be satisfied.

Diamond goes on to point out that all large animals that could be domesticated were domesticated by 2500 BC.

Cultural obstacles do not explain the absence of domesticates at some locales because of the following:

(1) Imported domesticates are typically rapidly accepted when appropriate to the locale,

2) pet keeping is universal,

(3) domestication arose rapidly where appropriate species were available,

(4) independent and parallel domestication occurred at different locales, and

(5) there has been very limited success at modern domestications.

Efforts to domesticate the eland, elk, moose, musk ox, zebra, and bison have met with limited success.

Only fourteen large animals have been domesticated: sheep, goat, cow, pig, horse, Arabian camel, Bactrian camel, llama and alpaca, donkey, reindeer, water buffalo, yak, Bali cattle, and Mithan (gayal, domesticated Gaur).

You will find that this chapter is less concerned with small animals such as guinea pigs and birds, which do not provide transportation, military uses, or load carrying.

The requirements for domestication are:

(1) omnivore or herbivore (exception: dog),

(2) rapid growth (elephants too slow),

(3) breed well in captivity (cheetahs need more room, vicuña's long mating rituals are inhibited),

(4) suitable disposition (grizzly bear, hippo, onager, zebra, and African buffalo cannot be tamed),

(5) accepts penning (deer, gazelle, and antelope panic on penning), and

(6) have a developed social structure and hierarchy so can accept subordinate role and herding (e.g., cats don't herd).

Some species such as zebras, peccaries, etc. have never been domesticated.

Domesticated animals are changed through mutations from their wild progenitors, not just tamed. Many have gotten smaller under domestication and have been otherwise modified for greater milk production, more wool, etc.

Only one large animal, the llama/alpaca, is a New World domesticate (other New World domesticates include the guinea pig, Muscovy duck, turkey, and dog). Eurasia had many more animal candidates for domestication than the New World, giving its inhabitants a competitive advantage.

Summary source:

http://www.mcgoodwin.net/pages/gunger...

Chapter Ten is called: Spacious Skies and Tilted Axes.

The diffusion of food production was facilitated in Eurasia because its predominantly East-West axis presented similar climatic, geographic, and disease conditions to migrants and no insuperable barriers.

In contrast, the diffusion in the predominantly N-S axis in the Americans, Africa, and New Guinea/Australia was slowed by the greater variation in climate, deserts, diseases (e.g., trypanosomes), nonarable lands, jungles (e.g., Panama), etc.

It was Eurasia that had "amber fields of grain and spacious skies", not the New World.

Diffusion rates varied from 0.7 miles/year out of SW Asia to 0.3 mile/year in the eastern US.

The lack of adaptation of the domesticates to these widely ranging climatic and other differences was a major factor in slowing diffusion in the New World.

Summary source:

http://www.mcgoodwin.net/pages/gunger...


message 6: by Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief (new) - rated it 4 stars

Bentley | 34078 comments Mod
These are the questions that should be focused on with this week's reading:

12. How does Diamond refute the argument that the failure to domesticate certain animals arose from cultural differences? What does the modern failure to domesticate, for example, the eland suggest about the reasons why some peoples independently developed domestic animals and others did not?

13. What is the importance of the "Anna Karenina principle"?

14. How does comparing mutations help one trace the spread of agriculture?



message 7: by Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief (last edited Oct 12, 2010 04:34PM) (new) - rated it 4 stars

Bentley | 34078 comments Mod
Jared Diamond begins Chapter Nine with a quote which sounds like it is straight out of Tolstoy's Anna Karenina.

Anna Karenina by Leo Tolstoy Leo TolstoyLeo Tolstoy

Diamond states "Domesticable animals are all alike; every undomesticable animal is undomesticable in its own way.

What does Diamond mean when he states that "success actually requires avoiding many separate possible causes of failure."


message 8: by Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief (last edited Oct 12, 2010 04:38PM) (new) - rated it 4 stars

Bentley | 34078 comments Mod
Diamond reminds us by flashing back to chapter four that "there are many ways that big domestic mammals are crucial to human societies possessing them.

He states: "Most notably, they provided meat, milk products, fertilizer, land transport, leather, military assault vehicles, plow traction, and wool, as well as germs that killed previously unexposed peoples."

How could all of these have been crucial to human societies?


message 9: by Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief (last edited Oct 12, 2010 04:43PM) (new) - rated it 4 stars

Bentley | 34078 comments Mod
It is hard to believe that our sweet dogs were domesticated from wolves: "Wolves were domesticated in Eurasia and North America to become our dogs used as hunting companions, sentinels, pets, and, in some societies food."

I guess it is also unsetting in some cultures they used them for food.

Goodness was anybody upset with that sentence like I was?


message 10: by Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief (new) - rated it 4 stars

Bentley | 34078 comments Mod
Why out of the Ancient Fourteen were the major five the following" cow, sheep, goat, pig and horse?"

What did these five have that the other 9 did not?


message 11: by Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief (new) - rated it 4 stars

Bentley | 34078 comments Mod
I think it is important to remember what Diamond cites as his definition of 'DOMESTICATION".

A "domesticated animal" is defined as an animal selectively bred in captivity and thereby modified from its wild ancestors, for use by humans who control the animals's breeding and food supply.


message 12: by Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief (new) - rated it 4 stars

Bentley | 34078 comments Mod
Diamond goes on to state: "Truly domesticated animals differ in various ways from their wild ancestors. These differences result from two processes: human selection of those individual animals more useful to humans than other individuals of the same species, and automatic evolutionary responses of animals to the altered forces of natural selection operating in human environments as compared to wild environments."

What does this statement mean to you. Did you understand it? And how also did these same statements pertain to plant domestication in Chapter 7?


message 13: by Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief (new) - rated it 4 stars

Bentley | 34078 comments Mod
Diamond goes on to explain how domesticated animals have diverged from their wild ancestors: there is sometimes a change in size (cows, pigs and sheep became smaller under domestication, while guinea pigs became larger)

Does anyone have any idea why this would be the case?


message 14: by Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief (new) - rated it 4 stars

Bentley | 34078 comments Mod
Did anybody else think that it was odd that Saharan Africa did not have any domestic animals indigenous to that part of the globe. So many of us go to Africa to see its abundant and diverse wild mammals.

And North America and Australia were in the same boat!!!!


message 15: by Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief (last edited Oct 12, 2010 05:02PM) (new) - rated it 4 stars

Bentley | 34078 comments Mod
Diamond goes on to make the concluding statement that "seven of the wild ancestors occurred in Southwest Asia." And 13 of the 14 including all of the major 5 were confined to Eurasia.

He states: "This very unequal distribution of wild ancestral species among the continents became an important reason why Eurasians, rather than peoples of other continents, were the ones to end up with guns, germs and steel. How can we explain the concentration of the Ancient Fourteen in Eurasia?

How do folks feel about this statement and how can we explain this concentration?


message 16: by Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief (new) - rated it 4 stars

Bentley | 34078 comments Mod
Mammalian Candidates for Domestication: Diamond defines a "candidate" as a species of terrestrial, herbivorous or omnivorous, wild mammal weighing on the average over 100 pounds.

Why could a candidate not predominantly be a carnivore?


message 17: by Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief (new) - rated it 4 stars

Bentley | 34078 comments Mod
As with most things it seems that Eurasia was the main site of big mammal domestication since it was also the continent with the most candidate species of wild mammals to begin with and lost the fewest candidates to extinction in the last 40,000 years.

What is the theory for extinction of all of America's big mammals becoming extinct about 13,000 years ago?


message 18: by Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief (last edited Oct 12, 2010 05:46PM) (new) - rated it 4 stars

Bentley | 34078 comments Mod
Diamond also asks these questions:

Why were Eurasia's horses domesticated, but not Africa's zebras?

Why Eurasia's pigs, but not American peccaries or Africa's three species of true wild pigs?

Why Eurasia's five species of wild cattle (aurochs, water buffalo, yak, gaur, banteng), but not the African buffalo or American bison?

Why the Asian mouflon sheep (ancestor of our domestic sheep), but not North American bighorn sheep?


message 19: by Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief (last edited Oct 12, 2010 05:51PM) (new) - rated it 4 stars

Bentley | 34078 comments Mod
To tell you the truth I was not familiar with some of these.




American Peccary (a strange looking animal)

Source: Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Col...

About them:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peccary


message 20: by Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief (new) - rated it 4 stars

Bentley | 34078 comments Mod
African Pig (Warthog)

[image error]


message 21: by Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief (new) - rated it 4 stars

Bentley | 34078 comments Mod
Why do you think that Diamond made this statement:

"Thus, among the thousands of culturally diverse native peoples of Australia, the Americas, and Africa, no universal cultural taboo stood in the way of animal domestication."


message 22: by Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief (new) - rated it 4 stars

Bentley | 34078 comments Mod
Why wasn't there at least one African hunter-gatherer tribe that domesticated those zebras and buffalo and that thereby gained sway over other Africans, without having to await the arrival of Eurasian horses and cattle?


message 23: by Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief (last edited Oct 12, 2010 07:58PM) (new) - rated it 4 stars

Bentley | 34078 comments Mod
Diamond mentioned a British scientist Francis Galton and for those of you unfamiliar with him:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_...

Source: Wikipedia

Galton's view was that early herding peoples quickly domesticated all big mammal species suitable for domestication.

In all, of the world's 148 big wild terrestrial herbivorous mammals - the candidates for domestication - only 14 passed the test. Why did the other 134 species fail? To which conditions was Francis Galton referring when he spoke of those other species as "destined to perpetual wildness"?


message 24: by Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief (new) - rated it 4 stars

Bentley | 34078 comments Mod
I was trying to picture Lord Walter Rothschild driving though the streets of London in a carriage pulled by zebras.

Also I did not know that Zebras injure even more American zookeepers than do tigers!

And here they are:



Lionel Walter Rothschild (1868-1937), 2nd Baron Rothschild, with his famed zebra (en:Equus burchelli) carriage, which he frequently drove through en:London.

He must have been pretty wacky. Although the zebras look fairly well behaved.


message 25: by Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief (new) - rated it 4 stars

Bentley | 34078 comments Mod
Diamond comes to the conclusion that "Humans and most animal species make an unhappy marriage, for one or more of many possible reasons; the animal's diet, growth rate, mating habits, disposition, tendency to panic, and several distinct features of social organization." This is what he calls his Anna Karenina principle.

Many are called, but few are chosen.

What did you think of Diamond's Anna Karenina analogy?


Patrick Sprunger Bentley, you've put a lot out there for discussion. Until I have my book on hand (to see what I highlighted in this chapter that was interesting to me), I can comment on message 9. You wrote:

'"It is hard to believe that our sweet dogs were domesticated from wolves: "Wolves were domesticated in Eurasia and North America to become our dogs used as hunting companions, sentinels, pets, and, in some societies food."

'I guess it is also unsetting in some cultures they used them for food.

'Goodness was anybody upset with that sentence like I was?'


I've heard some anthropologists think the initial human migration into North America was made possible by domesticated dogs. Their assistance in hunting is obvious, but the brutal truth is that, in times of crisis, the dogs could be eaten.

Anyone who's ever had a neighbor who refuses to spay his or her dog knows how good the universe is at making dogs. It is easy to imagine early humans' dog packs rapidly exceeding viable levels. Again, brutal truth, but excess dog stock forces an extreme decision in the animal husbandry department. To control the size of a domestic pack, which is the most efficient way to dispatch surplus: Kill/abandon inutile animals or butcher and eat them?

We think of eating dogs as a prehistoric or occasionally Asian thing to do, but some westerners have incorporated dog eating in their strategies well into the modern era. The example that comes immediately to mind is the Norwegian adventurers Fridjof Nansen and Roald Amundsen. The latter is the better known - for beating the Englishman Scott to the South Pole in 1911. To do so, Amundsen utilized dogs to pull sledges until the sledges' provisions had been exhausted. Then, with no other purpose, the dog became provisions itself. The portable supply of fresh meat safeguarded against scurvy as well as fortified the group against malnutrition and starvation.* The dog has historically been viewed as a multi-tool.

Please don't misunderstand me. I am affected by the same sentimentalism as everyone else. Something deep and instinctual in me repulses at the idea of eating dogs. But the dog is in our dietary past, regardless of the fact that our species has since undergone a radical sentimental reformation.

*The Englishman Sir Ernest Shackleton, in his doomed 1915 Antarctic expedition, also resorted to eating his expedition's dogs. Shackleton, by this point, was knowledgeable of Amundsen's strategy in beating Scott. Shackleton recognized the strategy's crisis application and overcame cultural mores to survive. Interestingly, he did not choose to eat the ship's cat.


message 27: by Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief (new) - rated it 4 stars

Bentley | 34078 comments Mod
First, yes - these are all of the questions and comments that I had for chapter nine. I was going to start posting for chapter 10 today.


message 28: by Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief (new) - rated it 4 stars

Bentley | 34078 comments Mod
Yes, Patrick, sad as that might be to me and others in the group...dogs were eaten at some point in the past and probably in crisis. It is difficult to realize that Amundsen did this. And as far as Shackleton I have no comment except maybe that was his pet (smile).

But a good informative post even though the subject matter was a bit hard for some of us dog lovers.


message 29: by Patrick (last edited Oct 13, 2010 08:47AM) (new) - rated it 4 stars

Patrick Sprunger "And as far as Shackleton I have no comment except maybe that was his pet (smile)."*

In the zebra chapter, Diamond acknowledges animals have long been kept as pets. Taming wild animals certainly preceded domestication. Besides, the world provides a wider selection of tamable animals than it does domesticable ones.

As a small animal, the cat isn't the focus of chapter 9 (but Diamond puts cats and pets in the same paragraph nevertheless). It was domsticated ostensibly to control rodents (which is why Shackleton's ship, the Endurance, had a cat on board). But mousing is hardly a full time job in the way herding, hunting, plowing, and pulling is. And it isn't a caloric or materials investment the way grazing stock is. This gives the cat an uncommon amount of leisure time with which to ingratiate itself to its human handlers.

In my admittedly offputting tendency to state matters in brutal terms, the universe is as good (if not better) at making cats than it is as dogs. Despite their small size, it isn't inconceivable that people would eat them. Large civilizations deemed the guinea pig worthy of raising for food production. And the idea that carnivores don't make good meat is disputed in this chapter. So there must be something special about the way we perceive cats that keeps them shielded behind a powerful taboo.

My guess is that the cat, for whatever reason, has uniquely capitalized on the I am a pet, not food image. The only other animals commonly kept in the west that I can say the same about are exotic birds, ferrets, terrarium reptiles, and aquarium fish. Who knows how cats did it? Perhaps because non-food specialists that kept cats confirmed their ability to maintain superflous possessions - quickly elevating the cat to something like a status symbol (this is the origin of keeping songbirds). That status elevation may have spread into the cultural fabric, essentially disqualifying the cat from the available dietary options.

That, at least, is my best guess. Regardless, as cat people will tell you, their connection with a cat is entirely different than their connections with dogs. I can attest that, being a devoted cat and dog owner myself, I have a completely different set of expections regarding the cats and the dogs. I do not expect to give non-vocal commands to the cats. I do not expect them to retrieve a frisbee. I understand they don't want to "work" - and thus do not ask them to walk with me to the park or the library. The fact that they are thoroughly decoupled from the idea of doing any kind of cooperative work may suggest that they are decoupled from associations as a "multi-tool" the way dogs are. If so, our subconscious has assigned one role - and one role only - to the cat: Companionship.

*The cat, whose name was either "Mrs. Chippy" or "Mrs. McNish" (or both) did not belong to Shackleton, but to the ship's carpenter Henry "Chippy" McNish (hence the cat's name). McNish rescued the cat from the sinking Endurance and was not faulted for it. Anyone would have done the same. However, the cat was subsidized from McNish's food ration. As the Endurance refugees were placed on increasingly decreased rations, the cat threatened to divert scarce calories from a human needed to assist the crisis situation. Shackleton ordered the cat shot (a humane measure when ammunition was also finite), but spared McNish the sight. To place the cat on the menu would have both violated the western taboo and been insensitive to a key crew member during an unfathomably tense time when morale was fragile.

Endurance Shackleton's Incredible Voyage by Alfred LansingAlfred Lansing


message 30: by Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief (new) - rated it 4 stars

Bentley | 34078 comments Mod
Sad story about ole Mrs. Chippy. Good post for the strong of heart.


Andrea | 129 comments I keep wondering about one of Diamond's central claims here. Certainly, some of these not chosen animals seem unsuitable. But wouldn't that be a feature of them being undomesticated? Wolves, for example, even when raised in captivity do not make safe pets. So, in domesticating animals, lots of their personality traits are altered. Couldn't this have happened with wild horses and cows too? How does Diamond know that zebras' personality couldn't be significantly altered over a few decades? But then, in the 19th century, why bother when people already had domestic horses, mules and donkeys? I know that Rothschild was not the only person to have trained zebras. I remember hearing about a doctor in colonial Kenya who rode one. So, what I'm wondering is whether Diamond's theory about why various animals were unsuitable could be an explanation after the fact that is sort of circular i.e. we didn't domesticate them because they were unsuitable. We only domesticated suitable animals and we know they are suitable because we domesticated them.


message 32: by Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief (last edited Oct 15, 2010 01:31AM) (new) - rated it 4 stars

Bentley | 34078 comments Mod
Yes, I was just watching a National Geographic documentary on the Science of Dogs and they showed even domesticated wolves who would still not do the human's bidding in terms of where food was and which bowl to eat. They still retain that strain of wildness even when raised in captivity and retain their wolves' instincts.

Maybe it was easier to domesticate some over others and maybe some still turned on their owners after they thought they were domesticated while other chosen animals did not. If zebras kill more zoo keepers in a year than tigers; then you could understand the case against zebras for example (their unpredictability) and their ability to inflict fatal bodily harm.

Face to Face With Wolves (Face to Face with Animals) by Jim BrandenburgJim Brandenburg

National Geographic My First Pocket Guides Dogs & Wild Dogs (NG My First Pocket Guides) by National Geographic SocietyNational Geographic Society


Rodney | 83 comments
Diamond goes on to state: "Truly domesticated animals differ in various ways from their wild ancestors. These differences result from two processes: human selection of those individual animals more useful to humans than other individuals of the same species, and automatic evolutionary responses of animals to the altered forces of natural selection operating in human environments as compared to wild environments."

What does this statement mean to you. Did you understand it?


I have been wondering about this question all week when I think about the writing. The key part of the section is the "automatic evolutionary response" I'm not sure that is exactly what is happening.

It would appear, as the author tries to explain, that domestication goes against evolutionary responses. I am not a biological expert, but as I have understood the process, there is nothing "automatic" about it.

Regarding domestication of animals, I am not entirely convinced that process is imprinted as the author is implying. Having grown up near my Grandparents farm, I've seen situations where certain animals, cats especially, can quickly resort to non-domesticated behaviors. In these cases I would argue against any automatic evolutionary process. In fact, I would suggest the level of domestication is much weaker and it calls into question the authors definition.

I would probably also argue that man, as an animal species, isn't all that domesticated as well.


message 34: by Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief (new) - rated it 4 stars

Bentley | 34078 comments Mod
Rodney, an interesting response. I for one could not tell where the author was going with this. You raise some interesting points.


message 35: by Ray (new) - rated it 3 stars

Ray (Gorlith) | 5 comments Rodney, Bentley,

I think what he is saying here is that choose the most likely useful candidates out of a wild group of animals. By doing so now you have a separate community of this species that is living in human conditions and has characteristics that humans find useful. By virtue of being in this separated community these animals are the beginning of a separate evolutionary path since they will breed. Even as time moves forward most of new DNA added to this community will be from human picked candidates.

Meanwhile the original species is still functioning in a completely wild environment without human 'guidance' of their evolution.

I hope I was able to explain my interpretation well, it's pretty early and I haven't had coffee yet.


message 36: by Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief (new) - rated it 4 stars

Bentley | 34078 comments Mod
Hey Ray. - I think you did a good job - it was a difficult concept to understand based upon what Diamond stated. One thing that I have seen is that JD over explains some things and then goes and under explains others.


message 37: by Ray (new) - rated it 3 stars

Ray (Gorlith) | 5 comments Yeah JD's topic in this book is so vast that it can be tough for him to hit the right pacing and depth.


message 38: by Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief (new) - rated it 4 stars

Bentley | 34078 comments Mod
Yes you are probably right in your assessment; there is a lot to tackle in this book.


back to top

unread topics | mark unread


Books mentioned in this topic

Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies (other topics)
Power of Place (other topics)
Anna Karenina (other topics)
Endurance: Shackleton's Incredible Voyage (other topics)
Face to Face With Wolves (other topics)
More...

Authors mentioned in this topic

Jared Diamond (other topics)
H.J. de Blij (other topics)
Leo Tolstoy (other topics)
Alfred Lansing (other topics)
National Geographic Society (other topics)
More...