Jared Diamond

[Pangur Bán]

Have you responded to any of my points though (because you really haven't, you haven't so much as responded to a single piece of evidence or examined his fabricated or distorted scientific data)? [But you really should read Questioning Collapse - if you even want to remotely consider Diamond a good Author, its pretty much required]

Fine I'll ask you a different way -

- How does Diamond say societies in the Americas "collapsed"? Societies like Rwanda in Africa "collapsed"? Societies in China and Australia?

You must have missed my post above:
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=12875332&postcount=232

 

[Gucumatz]

That isn't an answer and how exactly is Questioning Collapse a strawman? All it does is look at the data and historical record behind his claims.

 

[Gucumatz]

But since you seem to be strawmanning presentations of scientific data and historical records that disagree with nearly every point in Collapse... I'll ask the question again using your own analysis:

"Diamond collects together a range of plausible theories relating to the fate of different societies, analyzing them as cultural systems in relation to their environment, and then pulls together plenty of relevant conclusions about human beings and their interactions with the environments."

Can you then write this collection of "plausible theories" and what cultural system and analysis for the aforementioned cultures I mention affects their environments with? Its better to have your position on the written record so we can keep this debate grounded on some facts at least

 

[Pangur Bán]

As far as I am concerned that answers the points that you have made. If you don't think so then that's just tough. Certain people here need to understand that the evidence we have for all the societies under consideration allows some scope for disagreement, and rather than get all red-faced at any explanation that you don't like or doesn't follow the latest local microfad, just have a pause, absorb it and keep it at the back of your mind. The greater picture JD is right that cultural systems often become maladapted to the environment they are in when it changes too rapidly, and that is per se a plausible part of any explanation of such a society's collapse (and in fact Diamond offers enough reliable evidence to support that in his book, but wouldn't need to offer most of the evidence or 'data' he does use).

 

[Gucumatz]

But you haven't answered a single point. You haven't explained a single one of these maladaptions and completely ignore all evidence to the contrary. Theories to be accepted by greater audiences need to be upheld to the rigor of debate. One can do that for Guns Germs and Steel - and to the point you tried to answer some of those criticisms show that. But since you have evaded every criticism for Collapse and haven't answered a point.

I seriously question if you read either "Collapse" or "Questioning Collapse" if you sincerely can't answer these genuine points.

Edit: Seriously how do you think presenting data in Questioning Collapse is strawmanning?

 

[Pangur Bán]

What do you want, a walk through the book you claim to have read? Alright, I'll indulge you with an example. Greenland Norse society disappeared. JD puts it down to cultural maladaption. The Greenland Norse found themselves living in the edge, wouldn't adandon their agricultural practices, integrate with the Inuit and were still devoting some resources to importing liturgical goods for Catholic rituals when they could have been, say, acquiring things that would actually help them survive. Does he have foolproof evidence for this? No. Is it plausible? Yes. Some evidence supports what he is saying, but we don't really have all the detail that would give it fullproof support. Now as I know, some 'experts' in Norse Greenland point out some of these flaws but on even poorer evidence offer less plausible alternative explanations while slagging off JD. Their emotional reactions of course betray the fact that even they think he's actually on to something, but failure to understand the weight of some of the biology-originated reasoning and some kind of offence at JD's detached and leftie explanatory system (that, btw, doesn't mention all the usual chaps in the footnotes) tends to alienate them.

 

[Gucumatz]

Most of which is partially untrue again. Historical records for over a century show heavy fishing practices including practices pretty much the same to some of the inuit practices showing some cultural contact. In fact population density numbers show relatively fruitful numbers in Greenland during the poor seasons as shown by ice cores. Importing of Catholic rituals never hurt the society and instead allowed it to remain further connected. As far as it being an outpost goes, the society lasted for several centuries before political reasons largely caused it to return. Remember, most of Greenlandic Norse society ruins lie under water in this day and age. But there have been remains of Inuit clothes degraded to an extent. Then add to the longevity of the site - despite no more settlers coming in and constant emigration. The site never collapsed truly for environmental reasons according to either scientific or historical data.

Edit: And to add to an example of fabricated data - Diamond cites an example of the razing of a Norse town by Inuits. Something when examining the human remains and remains of the town demonstrate no fire in its history that ever caused it to be razed to the ground.

 

[Pangur Bán]

Most of which is partially untrue again. Historical records for over a century show heavy fishing practices including practices pretty much the same to some of the inuit practices showing some cultural contact. In fact population density numbers show relatively fruitful numbers in Greenland during the poor seasons as shown by ice cores. Importing of Catholic rituals never hurt the society and instead allowed it to remain further connected. As far as it being an outpost goes, the society lasted for several centuries before political reasons largely caused it to return. Remember, most of Greenlandic Norse society ruins lie under water in this day and age. But there have been remains of Inuit clothes degraded to an extent. Then add to the longevity of the site - despite no more settlers coming in and constant emigration. The site never collapsed truly for environmental reasons according to either scientific or historical data.

A load of baloney. Importing incense and wine from Europe not to mention skilled stonemasons and books and so forth, is expensive -- astronomically so for a population so distant from Europe and so small in population; and yes the archaeological evidence is very much in line with JD's picture of a stubborn Norse society that failed to appropriately adopt Inuit ways.

But your post further exposes some of the problems I highlighted above. The evidence we have allows for many plausible explanations, and attempting to say JD is 'wrong' on the basis that you think you have comebacks for each specific point (of the type you just offered) takes away all your credibility.

 

[Gucumatz]

Except we have records on Iceland of population influxes from Greenland... And none of what I mentioned is baloney. Yes they imported goods - but the archaeological evidence actually is another thing Diamond blatantly obscures.

There are countless examines on Greenland of heavy fishing and well-managed grazing. Entire pits of fish bones have been preserved in Norse settlements and show similar practices to Inuit fishing.

Another thing look at habitation sites. Considering that the majority of the settlements are now underwater we have to use methods like aquatic archaeology use. Settlement not only never spiked/collapsed at any time but only gradually declined. Iceland sees at the same time as these habitation site declines a concurrently equal increase in immigration... from where-else? The plague had wiped out various settlements in Europe and demand for labor coupled with a lack of focus from Norse Greenland's mother settlements led to the movement of peoples out. Coupled with 0 evidence existing for either starvation, famine, and ample evidence of actually a stable population - there is nothing arguing Diamond's premise.

 

[Pangur Bán]

Except we have records on Iceland of population influxes from Greenland... And none of what I mentioned is baloney. Yes they imported goods - but the archaeological evidence actually is another thing Diamond blatantly obscures.

There are countless examines on Greenland of heavy fishing and well-managed grazing. Entire pits of fish bones have been preserved in Norse settlements and show similar practices to Inuit fishing.

Another thing look at habitation sites. Considering that the majority of the settlements are now underwater we have to use methods like aquatic archaeology use. Settlement not only never spiked/collapsed at any time but only gradually declined. Iceland sees at the same time as these habitation site declines a concurrently equal increase in immigration... from where-else? The plague had wiped out various settlements in Europe and demand for labor coupled with a lack of focus from Norse Greenland's mother settlements led to the movement of peoples out. Coupled with 0 evidence existing for either starvation, famine, and ample evidence of actually a stable population - there is nothing arguing Diamond's premise.

Digging yourself in deeper, Gucumaz, the post just shows you didn't follow JD's argument nor mine. And you know so little about the period that you think it's no big deal to import incense or wine from southern Europe and think we have exhaustive written records, and you understand so little of the nuance of his argument that you think continuing to live in settled farming communities is adapting to Inuit way of life. Those things aren't a big deal of themselves, why should you know or follow those arguments that closely? Well, the problem is that you are still prepared to present such information confidently and as if you had nailed a world-famous professor. And then, in spite of my warnings (e.g. 'point out some of these flaws but on even poorer evidence offer less plausible alternative explanations while slagging off JD'), say something like ' lack of focus from Norse Greenland's mother settlements led to the movement of peoples out' as if 1) it were pure incontrovertible fact or 2) it contradicted JD's explanation. We need to be grown up here. Someone being unconvincing is not the same as someone being wrong. At the very least why not say, 'hey, that JD guy is a pretty learned and well-respected guy, I don't quite have his insights, so maybe everything he says is not wrong and dumb'.

 

[Gucumatz]

I am not sure you understand the argument then - we have written records of population immigration from Greeland corresponding to the population decline. We have records of massive population decline and an end of immigration into Greenland. I never said that the Norse adapted to the Inuit way of life, but like any cultural acculturation - some processes are adopted which is demonstrated on Greenland unlike what Diamond claims.

And you (and Diamond) argue that the agricultural practices of initial Greenland were unsustainable. Diamond even makes the laughable claim that the "Norse didn't eat fish". when pretty much any archaeologist will tell you that is wrong and point to the numerous pits.

I think you need to be a bit more level-headed, the fact there is 0 evidence for either starvation, environmental collapse, etc. and actual evidence of what happened to the population both in historical record, written record, biological records in Greenland and the other Norse sites.
-------

I think you misunderstand the nuance that population never collapsed on Greenland - the archaeological record of habitual population sites shows that. It actually enforces the argument that you misunderstand both Diamond and never read the work or any of the actual data behind it closely.

And if you think I ever said everything Diamond said is wrong, then you haven't read a post I wrote about GGS. But there is no evidence - not one bit that holds up in Collapse under closer scrutiny or his ends and this includes Greenland, "Collapse" is just that - a terrible and nonfactual book.
======

So you claim that its less plausible that Greenland's population only slowly declined [or if that they collapsed it was because of their societal structure - something experts like Tom McGovern who used to be a Diamond fanboy now even easily dismisses]? You claim that the Norse in Greenland didn't eat fish when there is clear evidence [and Diamond shocks a lack of knowledge of how biological degradation occurs when examining something as small as mass as fish]? You claim that the settlement that lasted from 450-500 years under proven data and archaeological record that shows a relatively stable population must have been either destroyed by the Inuit or simply died off from winter? Now to make any claim of sudden decline you can't simply ignore the data that exists that contradicts nearly everything Diamond says.

No I think its pretty clear you ignore inconvertible facts and still don't comprehend Collapse [and you still haven't shown you even looked at Questioning Collapse].

Diamond is respected by literary critics and he offers interesting ideas sure, but that doesn't mean everything he writes is sacred - and pretty much every expert in their field has come out against "Collapse" - yet you try to defend this really universally panned book by relevant experts. This isn't Guns Germs and Steel.

 

[Pangur Bán]

I am not sure you understand the argument then - we have written records of population immigration from Greeland corresponding to the population decline. We have records of massive population decline and an end of immigration into Greenland. I never said that the Norse adapted to the Inuit way of life, but like any cultural acculturation - some processes are adopted which is demonstrated on Greenland unlike what Diamond claims.

And you (and Diamond) argue that the agricultural practices of initial Greenland were unsustainable. Diamond even makes the laughable claim that the "Norse didn't eat fish". when pretty much any archaeologist will tell you that is wrong and point to the numerous pits.

You appear to think that we have exhaustive literary evidence documenting population movement, which of course we do not.

I don't know about JD's fish claim. I don't remember him saying that, and yes it would be daft and we don't need archaeology to prove it. From your posts here, I'm not really inclined to trust you're word on this, so if you could give a reference and quote that'd be great.

I think you need to be a bit more level-headed, the fact there is 0 evidence for either starvation, environmental collapse, etc. and actual evidence of what happened to the population both in historical record, written record, biological records in Greenland and the other Norse sites.
-------

I think you misunderstand the nuance that population never collapsed on Greenland - the archaeological record of habitual population sites shows that. It actually enforces the argument that you misunderstand both Diamond and never read the work or any of the actual data behind it closely.


So you claim that its less plausible that Greenland's population only slowly declined? You claim that the Norse in Greenland didn't eat fish when there is clear evidence [and Diamond shocks a lack of knowledge of how biological degradation occurs when examining something as small as mass as fish]? You claim that the settlement that lasted from 450-500 years under proven data and archaeological record that shows a relatively stable population must have been either destroyed by the Inuit or simply died off from winter? Now to make any claim of sudden decline you can't simply ignore the data that exists that contradicts nearly everything Diamond says.

There's a thing we call the Little Ice Age. It's well documented effect all over Europe was to lead to the abandonment of marginal land, of which Greenland is an isolated example. JD I believe even talks about emigration as part of Greenland's response and as part of the reason for its collapse. I don't know where you get the idea that such a process is exclusive of JD's explanation.

And if you think I ever said everything Diamond said is wrong, then you haven't read a post I wrote about GGS. But there is no evidence - not one bit that holds up in Collapse under closer scrutiny or his ends and this includes Greenland, "Collapse" is just that - a terrible and nonfactual book.

No I think its pretty clear you ignore inconvertible facts and still don't comprehend Collapse [and you still haven't shown you even looked at Questioning Collapse].

Diamond is respected by literary critics and he offers interesting ideas sure, but that doesn't mean everything he writes is sacred - and pretty much every expert in their field has come out against "Collapse" - yet you try to defend this really universally panned book by relevant experts. This isn't Guns Germs and Steel.

In fairness, you pretty much did say that about Collapse in the last page.

If your only contention is that JD's work / Collapse isn't 'sacred', then you have no argument with me ... as you know already from my multiple posts talking about its flaws.

 

[Gucumatz]

But you are upholding it as some sort of general pattern which evidence doesn't support. Anyhow...

some of his quotes about fishing:

" Fishing was abandoned in the earliest years of the colony and Greenlanders did not reconsider that decision during the four and a half centuries of their society"

"Though Greenland Norse originated from a fish eating society they may have developed a taboo against eating fish [and later on]... Taboos involves meat and fish" [He means certain meat though although he includes all fish here]

Then the piece de resistance from Diamond: "Conspicuously absent from Norse Archaeological sites are fish even though the Greenland Norse were descended from Norwegians and Icelanders" "The Greenland Norse didn't eat fish".
=====

I also rechecked the book again and I don't see emigration anywhere in Diamond's "account". I only mentioned a few things wrong too with Diamond's account of Greenland (his account of habitation sites IE is nearly just as egregious)

The Little Ice Age is an interesting aspect of history that Diamond doesn't really go over either though. Plus the fact is that before the Little Ice Age population patterns in Greeland were already emmigrating/declining gradually for the last century and a half. Habitation patterns show that the Ice Age therefore had either little impact on the little population that remained by 1350 but doesn't add anything to the claims that overgrazing, lack of cultural acculturation (which existed to an extent that made the Norse a hardy people on Greenland but its natural that full cultural adoption doesn't occur IE look at any colonization of Europeans of indigenous in the world), or reliance on agriculture were the explanation/factors for the population decline which again are simply untrue.

Heck even the archaeologist McGovern who Diamond cites for most of his narrative disagrees with Diamond's characterizations and analysis of his work even though he was initially a fan of Diamond [hence usage of his evidence rather than more contradictory evidence regarding middens] and McGovern himself argues that the Norse were probably more prepared for the Little Ice Age than their Inuit counterparts.

 

[Pangur Bán]

What JD's saying there is not quite how you represented it. I'll need to check this out to see what his evidence is before I condemn it.

The Little Ice Age is an interesting aspect of history that Diamond doesn't really go over either though. Plus the fact is that before the Little Ice Age population patterns in Greeland were already emmigrating/declining gradually for the last century and a half. Habitation patterns show that the Ice Age therefore had either little impact on the little population that remained by 1350 but doesn't add anything to the claims that overgrazing, lack of cultural acculturation (which existed to an extent that made the Norse a hardy people on Greenland but its natural that full cultural adoption doesn't occur IE look at any colonization of Europeans of indigenous in the world), or reliance on agriculture were the explanation/factors for the population decline which again are simply untrue.

The LIA, Greenland's decline in suitability for agriculture, is central to JD's explanation. And we don't have figures for population beyond speculation. Diamond does the same thing as you in fairness, acts like we have reliable population data. I found that annoying and it's an annoying feature of a lot of careless historical writing, esp. in regard to Native Americans when you can gauge the writer's hostility to Europeans pretty accurately on how astronomically high a number he invents for the pre-European population.

 

[Gucumatz]

Actually I think we have as astronomically low number for pre-European population in the Americas (and slightly in the North-east of the Americas/Greenland too...)- we have to examine habitual settlements which is why European sites tend to be a bit more accurate than Native American sites . Not that has any bearing on what I am saying

As for the LIA - it really isn't central to his argument regarding the factors, more part of his "final blow" concept. Remember the LIA happened in ~ 1380ish I believe in Greenland.
====

As for the fish he tries to justify his argument by saying the few fish bones that remain show that the Norse didn't eat fish (which when you examine the isotopes of human remains on Greenland you see that maritime food made up actually 50-90% of a person's diet meaning a rather small proportion of food was from land animal sources, further contradicting Diamond)

 

[Pangur Bán]

As for the LIA - it really isn't central to his argument regarding the factors, more part of his "final blow" concept. Remember the LIA happened in ~ 1380ish I believe in Greenland.

Of course it is. He's saying that Greenlanders could cope with some maladaptive stuff when they had breathing room, but temperature change removed that.

And LIA isn't an event that happens one year, it is a process of gradual temperature change that some argue began in the 13th century.

 

[Gucumatz]

Of course it isn't a one year event - but his focus is more so on the overgrazing of land, overfocus on hunting of seal, over-use of animal husbandry, etc. and the conjunction of the environmental effects during the little ice age.

But to examine the Little Ice Age's effect on Greenland... you sort of have to look at the Inuit populations of Greenland during the LIA which Diamond doesn't even examine. He assumes mass starvation, freezing, and even conflict ended the Norse abruptly [while ignoring the gradual decline prior]. Of course it isn't a one time event, but then again Diamond ignores the fact that Greenland had actually gone through nearly similar events to the LIA locally in the 11th and 12th centuries and population remained relatively stable throughout Norse Greenland [meaning not only had the Norse survived throughout actually at times worse eras of freezing in Greenland during their settlement, but they thrived then] and makes him view the LIA in particular as a one time final catastrophic final blow event, further detracting from his "5 factors".

 

[Crezth]

JD isn't 'wrong' on every point, or even on most points. Before repeating such claims, ask yourself how plausible it is that a tenured American professor would go into print being 'wrong on every point'. Surely if some guys on a gamer forum, most of whom haven't read his work, can 'see' the 'wrongness', he would ... no?

Arguments from authority. Yawn. You might try responding to the many unaddressed points in this very thread before persisting in this doomed argument.

 

[Lord Baal]

delete

 

[Crezth]

There's nothing wrong with argument from authority when it's an authority that is accepted by consensus.

Well, as that hasn't been established, I maintain that Pangur Ban's point remains pitiably weak.