Simply false - please re-read my post. I was implying that it is well possilbe that the plant in question may be 'cultivatable' today, but was not at the time other crops were introduced (e.g. due to different conditions - hu8nter/gatherers have a hard time breeding a new kind of crop, while already-farmers have better chances). And those introduced crops may have limited the interest in developing a new crop - simply said: why bother?
Diamond is addressing the initial development of agriculture, not the competition among crops after agriculture has been developed. Obviously your "why bother?" argument is the direct negation of such reasoning - if the question is "why bother?" then New Guinea is no longer at a disadvantage.
Now, your argument falls flat already from the start as you commit two basic mistakes, both of which Diamond addresses early on:
a) you use one single example to attack a generalization
b) you use one single example to attack the description of a system.
Diamond comments in his introduction that it would be incorrect to attack his idea based on any given example on the grounds that he has others. This is analogous to what some posters have recently done in their OP, arguing that no one can attack their theory except within the bounds of the theory. This makes no sense.
You want other examples? There are plenty, but here's one to start with.
Diamond argues that the physical shape of Eurasia - west to east - made it easier for civilization to develop there because the climatological conditions made it easy for crops to spread. He cites the example of wheat, which he claims flourished from Japan to Spain. This is factually inaccurate as the staple crop of the Far East was rice. Moreover, "west to east" means nothing in terms of climate. Siberia and England lie on the same latitude.
You also make a third mistake I already pointed out:
c) you ignore development over time.
How?
For a): Diamond generalizes. While he says that it is unlikely that opportunities are missed, he doesn't say that it never happenes. In order to show that indignous people in NG are really less ingenious (and thus it is their fault), you'd have to show how they missed much more than one single species of bean - especially givent he fact that they did use so many other plants.
Once again, I am not arguing that the people of New Guinea were less ingenious. I am arguing that a variety of factors affected the (non)development of "advanced" civilization on New Guinea and that geography was not the only one.
Oh, and, given that most ancient societies were monocultures (maize, rice, wheat), one crop is plenty.
For b): one bean does not make an agricultural society - why should nayone be interested in something that has no benefit alone? You would have to show that HAVING the bean would significantly improve the situation, which is unlikely givent he fact that the people in NG were doing wuite well, thank you.
"The people in NG were doing quite well, thank you" isn't Diamond's argument. He claims that civilization there was ******** by lack of viable crops. I showed that they existed. QED.
As for "one bean does not make an agricultural society" - that is exactly my point. Diamond tries to make societal development a mere matter of a plant here or a river there. He ignores the infinitely complicated factors involved. There is no need to posit any deficiency on the part of New Guineans to understand that the development of human civilization there was not simply the inevitable consequence of geography.
For c): as said, please show how the bean could have been developed into a super-crop (one that is obviously much better than all alternatives) even after other crops were present.
Irrelevant. Once again, Diamond is not arguing about the period after other crops became present. He is arguing that the need to wait until other crops were present ******** the development of New Guinean society.
