"Guns, Germs, and Steel" and Geographic Determinism

[Makalakumu]

Jared Diamond’s book, “Guns, Germs, and Steel: the fate of human societies,” presents a principle called geographic determinism by anthropologists. This theory states that cultures do not rise to dominance because of superior ideas, they rise to dominance because of random geographic factors. Therefore, there are no superior cultural ideas…ie Capitalism, Democracy, and Christianity. The bottom line, according to this theory, is that the environment exerts more power on history then ideas.



What do you think of this argument? Have you read Diamond’s book? What do you think of it?

 

[Makalakumu]

This material by sgtmac_46 was originally found in this thread.

Every time I have this discussion, however, someone invariably brings up Germs, Guns and Steel, an arguably well written book that has become the corner stone of the lefts argument as to how western culture does not possess any real superior characteristics to any other culture. I've read the book several times and, while it's a compelling read, it fails to prove it's ultimate conclusion, and that is that pure circumstance has allowed Western Culture to rise to the top of food chain.

Diamond's book is good, there is no doubt. It won the Pulitzer Prize and the research in it is extremely extensive. Yet, it is not anything new. The underlying principle is geographic determinism. This is a dominant theory among anthropologists. This theory shows that the concept cultural dominance because of superior ideas is fallacious. Is this the product of a bunch of left-wing professors' bias or is this the product of years of thoughtful research? Good question.



Regardless, geographic determinism is a major bummer for those on the right and left who feel that western culture is the best thing since sliced bread. I would be very interested in starting a discussion on this topic. Diamond and others present a very compelling argument and I'm curious about the reasons why you think it fails to show its central premise.

There are far more compelling arguments that it is as much our philosophical heritage as pure happenstance that is responsible for Western Cultures world topping position. The argument actually ends up being a "Which came first, the chicken or the egg" argument.

Could you develop these ideas? I'm curious as to why you do not think the argument is compelling.

 

[Makalakumu]

Here are some websites for members who have not read the book...

1. http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/diamond/diamond_p2.html

2. http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/ht/34.2/mcneill.html

3. http://www.wwnorton.com/catalog/spring99/gunsgerms.htm

4. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guns,_Germs_and_Steel

The last site give the quick nasty on the theories presented.

 

[Phil Elmore]

Certainly the idea that there are no superior ideas -- only random chance and environmental factors -- will appeal to those whose inferior ideas have led them to view the world around them (and the success of those with superior ideas) with the grasping envy and subjectivism that so characterizes life's failures on the individual, national, and international levels.

Why, it could not possibly be the devotion to Enlightenment ideals of liberty that has made the United States a superpower; it must be the environment and the crushing unfairness of random history and geogrophy.

Why, it could not possibly be that devotion to Statism and socialist control over the individual that has mired the world's former powers in the crumbling muck of their own collapsing societies; it must be bad luck.

There are superior ideas and there are inferior ideas. An idea can be evaluated against the degree to which it matches objective reality. Those who believe there is no such thing as objective reality will of course be more comfortable with the notion that their ideas don't matter and that only the environment determines their success or failure.

Such an external locus of control is the salve for countless' failures' bruised senses of self.

 

[The Kai]

Not having read the book (or the websites). Off the top of my head here goes.


It always struck me as odd that the contries in the northern climates would rise to power. After all short growing seasons for the crops, sometimes a lack of natural resources..etc
maybe the climate caused someone who could'nt rely on hunting gathering to undertake a systemized way of farming, cattle raising to increase thier odds.

On the other side maybe the people of up north had to learn to rais to take things from the areas more abundant, so they would be nutured into a more aggressive culture

 

[Makalakumu]

Certainly the idea that there are no superior ideas -- only random chance and environmental factors -- will appeal to those whose inferior ideas have led them to view the world around them (and the success of those with superior ideas) with the grasping envy and subjectivism that so characterizes life's failures on the individual, national, and international levels.

Why, it could not possibly be the devotion to Enlightenment ideals of liberty that has made the United States a superpower; it must be the environment and the crushing unfairness of random history and geogrophy.

Why, it could not possibly be that devotion to Statism and socialist control over the individual that has mired the world's former powers in the crumbling muck of their own collapsing societies; it must be bad luck.

There are superior ideas and there are inferior ideas. An idea can be evaluated against the degree to which it matches objective reality. Those who believe there is no such thing as objective reality will of course be more comfortable with the notion that their ideas don't matter and that only the environment determines their success or failure.

Such an external locus of control is the salve for countless' failures' bruised senses of self.

Well, there certainly are a lot of assumptions in this post. However, I am bewildered by the writers lack of acknowledgement of environmental factors as part of objective reality. Perhaps this term describes only the realm ideas...which would truly be ironic.

I think a good modern case study of Diamond's work would be the question, "Did the US "win" the Cold War because of our superior culture, or did it "win" because of specific environmental factors?"

 

[Phil Elmore]

No one has denied that environment is a factor. In your original post, however, you essentially declared it the only factor, stating that because of environmental factors "there are no superior ideas." This is obvious tripe.

 

[Makalakumu]

No one has denied that environment is a factor. In your original post, however, you essentially declared it the only factor, stating that because of environmental factors "there are no superior ideas." This is obvious tripe.

Obvious? Mr. Diamond's work is quite clear and so is the work of many other anthropologists who subscribe to geographic determinism. Which has more power in human life? Ideas or the environment? In my opinion, the environmental impact on our lives far outweighs the impact of ideas.

 

[FearlessFreep]

I think first to answer any of this, you need to define 'superior'. There is superior in the sense of 'most likely to survive' and then there is superior in the sense of some other form of measurement, such as morality or quality of life.

I think captilaism and democracy defeated one form of communism because it was a superior idea in the sense of survivability. At the time, capitalism offered high personal reward for high personal effort and that motivated people at a very physical level, and that probably went a long ways toward 'defeating' a system where the motivation was more idealogical. Whether or not that means that capitalism is a more moral idea, for example, is probably subject to personal opinion. Just an example, though

One way to look at it, if you're really curious, is to look at places where the geography has remained constant but the ideas have changed.

 

[Phil Elmore]

In my opinion, the environmental impact on our lives far outweighs the impact of ideas.

Your opinion is disconnected from reality -- but not terribly surprising, given the political and philosophical views you've already expressed. Our ideas make all the difference in adapting to the environmental factors with which we are presented. Our ideas -- our ability to determine ought from is -- are the difference between success and failure. Environmental factors are just that -- factors, not arbiters.

As I said, I can understand how this idea would be very comforting to life's failures, or to those who have difficulty taking responsibility for the content of their philosophies and the logical outcomes of those philosophies.

 

[Makalakumu]

Our ideas make all the difference in adapting to the environmental factors with which we are presented. Our ideas -- our ability to determine ought from is -- are the difference between success and failure. Environmental factors are just that -- factors, not arbiters.

Oh really? I would say the winner of the conflict between the US and Soviet Union was determined because of environmental limiting factors. The Soviet Union was unable to compete with the US not because of its ideology, but simply because of its geography.



Just look at a globe. The below examples are just a few among many others…



1. The 45th parallel - most of the US lies below the 45th allowing for a better environment for food production. The Soviet Union always had a hard time producing food for its population because of this.

2. Climate - the US has an overall warmer and more stable climate then the Soviet Union because of the vast mid-continental weather factors of the Soviet Union. This means that the Soviets had to spend far more of their national wealth just to keep the heat and the lights on so they could remain productive.

3. Size – matters. Infrastructure in the US was much cheaper because it did not have vast surface area of the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union encompassed 1/6th of the world’s land mass! That bite choked them.

4. Viable Coastline – The US has far more coastline that could be used for shipping and trade for most of the year. The Soviets had only a few ports and this bottlenecked their global trade.

5. Isolation – The Soviet’s enemies had direct access to the motherland which caused the them to expend energy to directly defend all of their borders. This spread the Soviets resources thin and required massive supply lines and infrastructure to maintain. It was not possible.

6. Access to resources – The US had far better access to its resources because of its smaller size, lack of geographic boundaries, and superior trade routes.

7. Resources per square mile – the US has an amazing amount of wealth in resources packed into an area much smaller then the Soviet Union. This ease of access and transportation allowed for more efficiency.



With all of this and more stacked against the Soviet Union, it is a wonder they could compete at all. In fact, it may be a testament to their effort that they were able to keep up the conflict for so long. Perhaps the downplaying of these serious environmental limiting factors is ideological? Perhaps we give our culture far too much credit?

upnorthkyosa

 

[Makalakumu]

Just look at a globe. The below examples are just a few among many others…



1. The 45th parallel - most of the US lies below the 45th allowing for a better environment for food production. The Soviet Union always had a hard time producing food for its population because of this.

2. Climate - the US has an overall warmer and more stable climate then the Soviet Union because of the vast mid-continental weather factors of the Soviet Union. This means that the Soviets had to spend far more of their national wealth just to keep the heat and the lights on so they could remain productive.

3. Size – matters. Infrastructure in the US was much cheaper because it did not have vast surface area of the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union encompassed 1/6th of the world’s land mass! That bite choked them.

4. Viable Coastline – The US has far more coastline that could be used for shipping and trade for most of the year. The Soviets had only a few ports and this bottlenecked their global trade.

5. Isolation – The Soviet’s enemies had direct access to the motherland which caused the them to expend energy to directly defend all of their borders. This spread the Soviets resources thin and required massive supply lines and infrastructure to maintain. It was not possible.

6. Access to resources – The US had far better access to its resources because of its smaller size, lack of geographic boundaries, and superior trade routes.

7. Resources per square mile – the US has an amazing amount of wealth in resources packed into an area much smaller then the Soviet Union. This ease of access and transportation allowed for more efficiency.

One can see that the Soviet Union was competing on a vastly uneven playing field. The environmental limiting factors really limited just how much that population of humans could compete and the US’s population of humans. Thus, in order to even stay even with the US, the Soviets may have had no choice but to do the following…

• Enslave the populace to their work.
• Throw all dissenters in gulags.
• Pollute like crazy in order to cut production costs.
• Oppress and terrorize the populace so that they work harder.

Perhaps it was the environment that forced these extreme measures, not the ideology? Perhaps if our places were reversed, we would have had to resort to more totalitarian measures in order to compete with what we had?

 

[FearlessFreep]

Keep in mind that the geography of the area once occupied by the Soviet Union was also populated by people before that time, under different forms of government. How did they fare?

Also keep in mind that ideas do not just inhabit borders. The US and Soviet Uniion did not share common borders, but Western Europe and Eastern Europe did.. for every mile of border that the Soviet Union had to defend against the West, the West had to defend against the Soviet Union, assuming you think of the Soviet Union as really the Warsaw Pact and the US as NATO, because the Soviet Union didn't really have a lot exposed border to defend directly.

For what it's worth...the US had superior trade routes because commerce mattered to the US. The US created a lot of products that people in the world wanted so their was motivation to have good trade routes. The Soviets didn't produce a heck of a lot of exportable products because it didn't matter to them, so it wasn't worth having trade routes.

Japan, Great Britian, Italy, Egypt have all had powerful Empires at one time....geopgraphy hasn't changed.

I think you have a point but I think you are overstretching the usefullness of that point. By your point, Mexico and Brazil should be superpowers as well because they enjoy *many* of the same geopgraphical benefits that you ascribe to the US, but have ahd much different political histories. A people who were more encouraged to strive for personal advancement could've done much better than the Soviet system.

Too easy to say that the Soviets lost the Cold War because they were in the wrong place.

 

[Makalakumu]

Keep in mind that the geography of the area once occupied by the Soviet Union was also populated by people before that time, under different forms of government. How did they fare?

Good question. I don't think the Tsars were much more successful then the soviets.

Also keep in mind that ideas do not just inhabit borders. The US and Soviet Uniion did not share common borders, but Western Europe and Eastern Europe did.. for every mile of border that the Soviet Union had to defend against the West, the West had to defend against the Soviet Union, assuming you think of the Soviet Union as really the Warsaw Pact and the US as NATO, because the Soviet Union didn't really have a lot exposed border to defend directly.

Each one of those countries were soveriegn nations that set their own agendas against the US. We could provide aid from far away and with little risk. While the Soviets had to deal with dozens of very real geographic threats. This spread their resources very thin and contributed greatly to their collapse. The US strategy was specifically designed to use geography against the Soviets.

For what it's worth...the US had superior trade routes because commerce mattered to the US. The US created a lot of products that people in the world wanted so their was motivation to have good trade routes. The Soviets didn't produce a heck of a lot of exportable products because it didn't matter to them, so it wasn't worth having trade routes..

The Soviets had to move good around and it was very much worth the effort to do so. I think it may be a capitalistic fantasy to believe otherwise.

If you look at a map, you'll see that it was much harder to do in the Soviet Union though. The well established trade routes in the United States are both coasts, the Mississippi River and its large tributaries, and the great lakes. 90% of our nations population lives on these routes. This geography allowed us to prosper and the Soviets do not have anything remotely resembling this.

Japan, Great Britian, Italy, Egypt have all had powerful Empires at one time....geopgraphy hasn't changed.

This list sparked some very interesting thoughts...see below.

I think you have a point but I think you are overstretching the usefullness of that point.

I'm not so sure. The more I think about this, the more I am beginning to see a naturalistic explanation for our current position in the world's hierarchy. I beginning to think that all of our cultural ideas have environmental roots...from religion to freedom.

By your point, Mexico and Brazil should be superpowers as well because they enjoy *many* of the same geopgraphical benefits that you ascribe to the US, but have ahd much different political histories.

The geographic scene shifts in those countries. There is more disease. There are more environmental barriers. There is less usable land for food production and less resources. No, Mexico and Brazil are exactly where they are because of environmental factors.

Too easy to say that the Soviets lost the Cold War because they were in the wrong place.

No country can escape the constraints of its environment. Even our country cannot. Why couldn't the Soviets geography place constraints on their society that prevented them from long term competition with us? The US is still filthy rich in resources despite over two hundred years and massive amounts of industrialization. We are where we are because of these riches. Our ideology is probably nothing more then a response to these riches.

 

[Makalakumu]

Environmental Basis for Freedom



Do empires with more environmental limiting factors have to resort to more despotic measures in order to rise to prominence?



The US is the richest empire the world has ever seen. We have a wealth of resources and many convenient geographic features that make this possible. If we look at other empires the world has seen, the US has more freedom then all of them.



Therefore, I think it fair to posit that empires that have more environmental limiting factors then the US, empires that are far poorer, must resort to increasing amounts of despotism. The extreme measures and atrocity is the only way they can rise to prominence.



Thus we see the environmental and geographic roots of freedom. This, I believe is the real reason that some people are more free the others. The bottom line is that the US enjoys the most freedom because our environment allows it.

 

[Phoenix44]

The discussion seems to have a "static" sense about it. Let's not forget that the world of human culture is still evolving.

The United States USED TO produce a lot of products the rest of the world wanted, which was part of what made us wealthy and successful. Not anymore. Now, we import. We produce very little that the world wants, which is threatening to make our "empire" irrelevant. We can only bully our way around the world for so long.

Don't discount Central and South America. By geographic accident, they have something the rest of the world wants very badly, and will pay for: OIL. This could make Venezuela, Argentina, Ecuador, Mexico, and Columbia very important in the near future. If you read the newspapers closely, you can see this happening already. If countries like Venezuela manage to hold onto their sovereignty in the face of foreign interference, they will become the new successful cultures.

 

[Don Roley]

Let me see if I get this straight.

The communities that Upnorthkyosa held up as examples of selfless communes ground under the heel of capitalism were really small groups of hunter- gathers barely above substance level.

It seems to me that any group wealthy enough to produce something as simple as chocolate cake must then make the transition out of this culture and into another.

If we want to bring back this utopia, we have to get rid of things like chocolate cake. But once we know of it, how can we turn our backs on it. Instead of an apple casting us out of Eden, we have a chocolate cake. Eden must have sucked if the naughtiest thing there was fruit.

Once you get to the level of having bakers specialized enough to produce chocolate cake, then the whole communal system breaks down. Do capitalistic societies teach us to desire things? I do not think I need any training to desire chocolate cake. As soon as you introduce it to a group, it will be desired. And you can't force the genie back in the bottle.

 

[hardheadjarhead]

Certainly the idea that there are no superior ideas -- only random chance and environmental factors -- will appeal to those whose inferior ideas have led them to view the world around them (and the success of those with superior ideas) with the grasping envy and subjectivism that so characterizes life's failures on the individual, national, and international levels.

Why, it could not possibly be the devotion to Enlightenment ideals of liberty that has made the United States a superpower; it must be the environment and the crushing unfairness of random history and geogrophy.

Why, it could not possibly be that devotion to Statism and socialist control over the individual that has mired the world's former powers in the crumbling muck of their own collapsing societies; it must be bad luck.

There are superior ideas and there are inferior ideas. An idea can be evaluated against the degree to which it matches objective reality. Those who believe there is no such thing as objective reality will of course be more comfortable with the notion that their ideas don't matter and that only the environment determines their success or failure.

Such an external locus of control is the salve for countless' failures' bruised senses of self.

Diamond's book doesn't deal with the effects of "Enlightenment Ideals," Phil. It addresses technological and agricultural advancements made in Eurasia far before Locke ever set pen to parchment.

To go along the lines of your argument, yes, there are good ideas and inferior ideas. Domesticating horses was a good idea. Yet there were no horses on any landmass south of the equator (and zebras can't be domesticated). It was a good idea that couldn't take root.

A good idea that couldn't take root, literally, is the domestication of various grains found in Eurasia. They tend not to grow too many other places.

The issue is one not of superiority of ideas...but the applicability of same. Had we whites lived in South America, Africa, Australia, or New Guinea...we'd be the ones currently known as the "Third World."

Our success...and our formulation of our "good ideas" is a result of an accident of geography that permitted our culture to flourish. The culture itself wasn't necessarily superior...it was simply the lucky one that ended up winning the lottery of location.


Regards,


Steve

 

[FearlessFreep]

The US is the richest empire the world has ever seen.

Relative to what?

Are we really 'richer' than the Roman Empire at it's height, that controlled a heck of a lot of the known world at the time. How do you measure 'richness'? They had a Pax Romana that lasted almost as long as our country has even existed, and we certainly haven't had that kind of stability

The saying was that "The Sun Never Sets On The British Empire" because it was unbelievably huge...are we richer than that? In what way?

The more you post, I must admit the more it sounds like have already accepted a conclusion and are working backwards to try to prove your point.

Rather than saying "What makes a culture successful? Is it ideas? Environment? Luck of being in the right place at the right time?...something else?", which would be an interesting conversation, you seem to be going backwards from "Environment leads to success more than any other factor...so if an idea fails in a given locale...it was the locale and not the idea to blame, now let's talk about (or more likely, let's just all agree on it) how locale determines success", which is not nearly as interesting or useful way to approach the issue.

For what it's worth, there are other nations that are also relatively free, but not nearly as rich, and not in the same enviroment, so I don't think the chain from environment->rich->free is really there like you seem to assume it is

 

[FearlessFreep]

Just as a note but Britian used to have a powerful monarchy and unbelievable amount of geography. Ideas about monarchy. freedom and local self-determination of a populace really changed their geography, and now the British Empire is just and Island with a Parliment and a ceremonial monarchy.

Not just in the US but all over the world.

Geography plays a part, ideas play a part, luck plays a part, technology plays a part...