"Collapse" by Jared Diamond

[crabapple]

I just finnished this book and all i can say: wow! what an intresting book that really shows , we really need to do something about our enviormental inpact now, or we are doomed.

Anyone else read the book? what do you think`?

wiki site http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collapse:_How_Societies_Choose_to_Fail_or_Succeed

 

[Cutlass]

I read it a while back. So I don't recall all of the details. I'm not sure how much the examples really translate to the world at large.

 

[Neonanocyborgasm]

I just finnished this book and all i can say: wow! what an intresting book that really shows , we really need to do something about our enviormental inpact now, or we are doomed.

Anyone else read the book? what do you think`?

wiki site http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collapse:_How_Societies_Choose_to_Fail_or_Succeed

I enjoyed the book for how it puts together a coherent set of theories on the collapse of civilizations. I like Jared Diamond's style of cutting through BS and addressing the root causes of problems through analysis of evidence. For example, earlier historians discounted environmental destruction as a cause for collapse because they couldn't fathom how a civilization could willfully destroy itself so. But Diamond pointed out examples, such as Easter Island, and the Anasazi, which are clearly so.

Perhaps the next version of Rhye's and Fall of Civilizations will make use of Diamond's theory of collapse. (Hint, Hint!)

 

[crabapple]

I read it a while back. So I don't recall all of the details. I'm not sure how much the examples really translate to the world at large.

huh? the fact that every civilization survives or dies with its enviorment is as true today as it was in the past

 

[Winner]

I just finnished this book and all i can say: wow! what an intresting book that really shows , we really need to do something about our enviormental inpact now, or we are doomed.

Anyone else read the book? what do you think`?

wiki site http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collapse:_How_Societies_Choose_to_Fail_or_Succeed

Can't buy it here in Czech Rep., so I am downloading the audio version. I've read Guns, Germs etc. which was interesting. I don't think he answered all the questions, however. He explained why certain societies developed faster than others, but he didn't explain why some agricultural societies evolved slower. For example, he didn't explain China's or India's stagnation in comparison to European technological boom. He also didn't explain why certain cultures remain narrow-minded and refuse to modernize while others have overcome this problem.

 

[Julian Delphiki]

I think he was wrong on the claim that inhabitants of Greenland didn't eat fish. Interesting book indeed.

 

[crabapple]

I think he was wrong on the claim that inhabitants of Greenland didn't eat fish. Interesting book indeed.

yeah sounds to stupid to be true, maybe they threw the fish bones in the sea or something...

 

[Julian Delphiki]

I read later from some history mag that there were fish findings on Greenland but don't remember exact details. Fish leftovers would have made good fertilizer, for example.

 

[Cutlass]

huh? the fact that every civilization survives or dies with its enviorment is as true today as it was in the past

But most civilizations are not living in as weak and fragile an environment as the examples. Diamond picked out examples where the people were dependent on a local environment that was not sustainable with their lifestyles, and something they could not deliberately seek to overcome once the collapse was certain.

Compare that to the modern world, and we will eventually run out of oil, but will we do so in a way in which we cannot substitute something else? For the first world nations the answer is that with some pain we will go on.

Modern science allows us to adopt our environment to us.

Now while I agree that we should make a concerted effort to preserve and protect the environment to the extent possible, I don't agree with doomsday scenarios.

 

[Winner]

I think he was wrong on the claim that inhabitants of Greenland didn't eat fish. Interesting book indeed.

Wiki says that evidence was found proving that they not only ate fish, but that at the end marine food made up most of their diet.

 

[crabapple]

But most civilizations are not living in as weak and fragile an environment as the examples. Diamond picked out examples where the people were dependent on a local environment that was not sustainable with their lifestyles, and something they could not deliberately seek to overcome once the collapse was certain.

Compare that to the modern world, and we will eventually run out of oil, but will we do so in a way in which we cannot substitute something else? For the first world nations the answer is that with some pain we will go on.

Modern science allows us to adopt our environment to us.

Now while I agree that we should make a concerted effort to preserve and protect the environment to the extent possible, I don't agree with doomsday scenarios.

But the modern world is incresingly connected. what would happen if all these countries that lives in weak enviorment collapses? It would be create floods of people seeking shelter in enivorments that are more stable, with would lead to overpopulation in those areas to, that would lead to more enviorment collapses.

 

[Winner]

But the modern world is incresingly connected. what would happen if all these countries that lives in weak enviorment collapses? It would be create floods of people seeking shelter in enivorments that are more stable, with would lead to overpopulation in those areas to, that would lead to more enviorment collapses.

First world would simply close borders and let the loosers die. Do you really think that Europeans, Americans or ( ) Japanese would allow tens of millions of poor refugees in their countries?

 

[Ayatollah So]

But most civilizations are not living in as weak and fragile an environment as the examples. Diamond picked out examples where the people were dependent on a local environment that was not sustainable with their lifestyles, and something they could not deliberately seek to overcome once the collapse was certain.

Although I agree that the modern world is not so fragile, it still has some limits that technology doesn't promise to bypass. We probably aren't in much danger of total collapse, but we can shoot some really nasty painful holes in our feet, which will take a long time to heal.

 

[Riffraff]

Can't buy it here in Czech Rep., so I am downloading the audio version. I've read Guns, Germs etc. which was interesting. I don't think he answered all the questions, however. He explained why certain societies developed faster than others, but he didn't explain why some agricultural societies evolved slower. For example, he didn't explain China's or India's stagnation in comparison to European technological boom. He also didn't explain why certain cultures remain narrow-minded and refuse to modernize while others have overcome this problem.

Wasn't the theory of China's stagnation the long conistent rule compared with the continual coming and going of states in Europe?

While the first made it possible to supress innovation, the latter would be forced to by competition.

 

[crabapple]

First world would simply close borders and let the loosers die. Do you really think that Europeans, Americans or ( ) Japanese would allow tens of millions of poor refugees in their countries?

I guess your right, but the magnitude of such human suffering such situation would cause is enough reason to do something about the enviorment

 

[Cutlass]

But the modern world is incresingly connected. what would happen if all these countries that lives in weak enviorment collapses? It would be create floods of people seeking shelter in enivorments that are more stable, with would lead to overpopulation in those areas to, that would lead to more enviorment collapses.

No, it means those people will mostly die. They won't be able to get in to the places that will survive if it gets that bad where they come from. There's famine in the world all the time. We don't just grab those people up and take them in. We send what aid we can (or are willing to), and when it's not enough, they die.

So broad areas of Africa cannot support the local populations. That's the core reason behind those genocides. Other areas, if they develop, then the birthrate will fall. So "Collapse" in the future can refer to some, but not all. Most will make it, because most have the resources to adapt.

The cultures that collapsed in Diamonds book, first they didn't have the knowledge to overcome, then they didn't have resources that could have been used as substitutes, and lastly they didn't have a good shot at relocating.

 

[Winner]

Wasn't the theory of China's stagnation the long conistent rule compared with the continual coming and going of states in Europe?

While the first made it possible to supress innovation, the latter would be forced to by competition.

I didn't find anything like that in that book. There is a chapter about China, but it only deals with how it became "Chinese", not why it lost in the technological/cultural race with Europe.

Diamond mostly focuses on disproving the racist claims that the native Australians, Africans and Americans haven't developed as much as Eurasian cultures because they were biologically inferior, and he did a great job there - all true racists must really hate him

However when it comes to explaining cultural differences between cultures which have had equal opportunities, he fails to be as convincing.

 

[crabapple]

No, it means those people will mostly die. They won't be able to get in to the places that will survive if it gets that bad where they come from. There's famine in the world all the time. We don't just grab those people up and take them in. We send what aid we can (or are willing to), and when it's not enough, they die.

So broad areas of Africa cannot support the local populations. That's the core reason behind those genocides. Other areas, if they develop, then the birthrate will fall. So "Collapse" in the future can refer to some, but not all. Most will make it, because most have the resources to adapt.

The cultures that collapsed in Diamonds book, first they didn't have the knowledge to overcome, then they didn't have resources that could have been used as substitutes, and lastly they didn't have a good shot at relocating.

Well some people do make it to the first world, they are called illegal immigrants

 

[Winner]

I guess your right, but the magnitude of such human suffering such situation would cause is enough reason to do something about the enviorment

Of course, but I think most people grieve at the wrong grave.

First world (developed countries in Europe, North America and some others) is actually trying to do something about the enviroment, because they realize that they need healthy enviroment to keep healthy growth.

Developing and third world countries often ignore this; they simply think of the enviroment as a natural resource to be exploited as much as possible in order to get rich. Look at China, they are practically destroying their country. Brazil doesn't care about the rainforests, Africans don't care about the riches of the fauna they have and Indians are probably trying to break a record in overpopulation.

We told them they're wrong, they ignore us. What else can we do? If it brings them a collapse, they'll have to deal with the consequences.

 

[Arwon]

Can't buy it here in Czech Rep., so I am downloading the audio version. I've read Guns, Germs etc. which was interesting. I don't think he answered all the questions, however. He explained why certain societies developed faster than others, but he didn't explain why some agricultural societies evolved slower. For example, he didn't explain China's or India's stagnation in comparison to European technological boom. He also didn't explain why certain cultures remain narrow-minded and refuse to modernize while others have overcome this problem.

I agree with the first criticism, except to point out that he did mention the fact that 500 years ago Europe was a backwater and China and especially the Islamic world were the most advanced, before going on to attribute the shift in fortunes to random historical chance and pointing out how China might end up more dominant in the future.

He could have spent more time exploring those two issues, but they weren't really on the level of analysis he's shooting for as they're too narrow and specific. The second criticism in particular is basically something he assumes as a natural variable and therefore discounts as a highest-level explanation for inequality: Some cultures are more open to change than others (remember he illustrated this with the contrasting attitudes of different New Guinean tribes to new technology diffusion), so what matters is how many cultures you have in a location, to maximise the chances of progressive ones to diffuse change once an innovation happens, which means population size and density are important factors as are the ease of diffusion.

I think you can apply the same thing to the other criticism about Europe, China and India. He does regurgitate several old post facto geographical explanations for differences within Eurasia, such as the ecological fragility of the Fertile Crescent being a long term disadvantage, and the old idea that a unified China was at a disadvantage compared to moderately fragmented Europe using the burning of the Navy as an example of how progression could be shut off easily (China was controllable by one government which could reject change, Europe was too competitive for that).

But honestly, those explanations are of a different nature than his more sophisticated analyses of ecological factors at a continent-wide level - when he gets more specific, they're simplistic geographical determinism, and they're old ideas, and they're made better elsewhere. I think the whole "once you get more specific than Eurasia, ecological determinism ceases to be absolute" argument implicit in his work and occasionally specifically stated, is more effective than when he tries to get more specific.

Besides which, a long view of history reveals that Europe wasn't eternally and naturally dominant, it has just been so for a couple of hundred years. In the long view the centres of domination have moved all over Eurasia.