Guns, Germs and Steel, Jared Diamond, Lamarckian? Behaviorist?

[Shotosboring1stpick]

I mean look at the southeast Asians. Now they've done the same things that we have done. Places in Africa like Ghana and Niger have infrasctructure, tvs, automobiles, agriculture, etc. I have seen pictures personally from a post grad student or whatever. So, it doesn't seem similar to the New Guinea situation where the people there still didn't know to domesticate pigs.

[Shotosboring1stpick]

Wouldn't the han chinese pick out your physical features as being a malay or aboriginal feature? Anyway, I think environmental views speaks for itself. That the reason you see these differences in intelligence is purely due to environment that lead to different brain development, but that's not to say that we are all not genetically capable of being intelligent, it's just the environment has forced some tribes to use their minds more than others, perhaps. Not that we all came to shore differen

[ConservativeLogic]

I read this book years ago. Cultural Marxism at it's finest. The book stays away from intelligence. and racial differences. It's just BS theory.

[jebus6kryst]

Yes, someone could walk across Africa, because it is one homogeneous landscape. All the same climates and animals are found from Egypt to South Africa.

Give me a break.

[spiritualbully]

@jebus6kryst nope, not homogeneous landscape, they just happen to be one homogeneous skin color and we're supposed to believe all humans are homogeneous.

[TheDarkSagan]

I had so much to say, but I am gonna just watch the doc, and do some research before I jump in. 3 hours long damn.

[spiritualbully]

@TheDarkSagan 3 hours is a lot shorter than the book. when you're done watching it , Please watch my follow up video, or read some comments before leaving them here, because chances are some of them have been said and I've responded.

thanks

[spiritualbully]

@zelos88 so you have no problem saying that SOME individuals possess more intelligence, but are unwilling to say some populations and groups do. You don't have such a reservation if I asked you about skin color, height, physical strength, vulnerability to diseases, life span...etc.

I don't doubt SOME Africans are smarter than me. That doesn't mean if you were to make a random pick out of a hat you can't have some expectation.

[MultiHypocrisy]

I just had to come and check this video again.The like/dislike ratio is not looking too good :(

[spiritualbully]

@MultiHypocrisy that's been true for days :(

[MultiHypocrisy]

I always thought native Americans were Asians from the Bering Strait Land Bridge Theory. Maybe not Eurasians but In recent years, molecular genetics studies have suggested as many as four distinct migrations from Asia. These studies also provide surprising evidence of smaller-scale, contemporaneous migrations from Europe, possibly by peoples who had adopted a lifestyle resembling that of Inuits and Yupiks during the last ice age.How could you still say they have the genetic differences?

[spiritualbully]

@MultiHypocrisy can I say you and a retarded person have genetic differences? Yes, you are similar enough to breed, but are you different enough that you'd live fairly different lives?

[MultiHypocrisy]

@spiritualbully How do you know I'm not retarded?Have you see all my videos?

[spiritualbully]

@MultiHypocrisy you got me there.

[spiritualbully]

@zelos88 what is intellect and do some populations have more?

[spiritualbully]

@zelos88 so you agree that at some point its a waste of resources and not an evolutionary need?

[spiritualbully]

@zelos88 can you explain to me why you have the evolutionary need for a TV or computer? Do we need to be on the moon any more than you need to have a computer? if we did, would it mean we can?

That's my point. Need may help innovation, but it's neither sufficient nor necessary.

[spiritualbully]

@zelos88 no, that would be a good reason to commit suicide (or to kill a person), far from fear of shame. And I acknowledged that escape from torture and suffering are understandable too.

[spiritualbully]

@zelos88 why is your judgment not moronic? Under what non-arbitrary reason makes a one "good" based on his selfishness?

So the fact we don't live on the moon is because we don't need to? The fact you can't fly is because you don't need to? Where is the free speech inhibitor in New Guinea ? do they have censorship laws or wiretapping?

Are you unable to imagine something we NEED but can't get?

[spiritualbully]

@zelos88 why is it OK to judge behavior, what's UNmoronic about that?

[spiritualbully]

@zelos88 if some cultures headhunt, is that "necessary" or can we judge their culture as being SAVAGE, BARBARIC? if it's not wrong, why don't we do it? Isn't it necessary? (By the way, I am not a moral absolutist or moral objectivist, I just want to see if you can say it with a straight face) Or am I just brainwashed to believe headhunting actually occurred, is it just western propaganda to demonize hunting societies?

[spiritualbully]

@zelos88 you don't have everything, you just have what you THINK is enough. Maybe you can tell me who DOESN'T have everything. Obviously anybody who has survived will say "I had what I needed to survive" no matter how hard it was on him. Even if 90% of their people died from starvation, you can still say 10% survived and had everything they "needed"

Can we EVER judge another person's behavior or a culture? Or do we always say "it works for them".



[spiritualbully]

@zelos88 are you in such denial that you cannot say "reducing labor so we can sit on our asses and sing, dance, write, read" as a need or incentive?

[zelos88]

@spiritualbully Reading doesnt exist to them since they dont ahve writting or anything

Sing and dance do they have time for and spend time with their families.

Quite frankly if I live in an area like the djungel food is plentiful year around I dont need to stock, I dont need to plant, I dont need to do anything bt go out and pick it and occasionally hunt which I think is fun, why the fuck would I spend time trying to learn how to plant and all? I got all I need and want then <.<

[spiritualbully]

@zelos88 so technology and innovation we have are just a waste of time and resources? I don't disagree that all populations survive just fine, or else they'd be extinct, but you seem to be able to deny every possible saving of time and labor as "unnecessary". Do you only have your internets because "you need it and there's not abundant food"? Or do you blame your parents for teaching you to read, otherwise you'd have much more free time to dance and sing?

[prunt23]

@spiritualbully it's funny to watch you apply your values on another culture then struggle to understand why they don't seem to hold those values. You're a barrel of laughs for the wrong reason.

[spiritualbully]

@prunt23 is it better if I don't try to understand?

[prunt23]

@spiritualbully if you can't understand that then there really is no hope for you, it isn't even complicated; most the people on this comments page have already given you the answer, unfortunately you're either too arrogant or too stupid to listen. on a side note what are your thoughts on Seppuku?

[spiritualbully]

@prunt23 so you have no problem saying that there's no hope for me and I'm too stupid, but it's wrong for me to say that New Guineans might be stupid. I think most forms of suicide, including Seppuku are stupid, why?

[prunt23]

@spiritualbully either that or you're too arrogant (yes i remember giving that as an option to; unless this is your way of claiming that you're not arrogant, and there we have your values at play yet again.) The Seppuku question should've been obvious, I'm surprised you didn't work that one out. Here are your choices: ritually disembowel yourself after losing in battle and being captured (this way you die with some honor at least) or get horrifically tortured for information, chose wisely.

[spiritualbully]

@prunt23 I don't deny I am arrogant, and I don't take that as an insult. But the fact you have an option doesn't change the fact that you have no problem calling somebody stupid, but you have a problem when I do it.

I wasn't aware of the context for Seppuku, I was told at young that the reason people do it is to avoid shame, not torture. If they were avoiding torture and suffering, I can understand it much more, even then, I consider waiting until you are tortured.

[spiritualbully]

@prunt23 but in either case, I do not automatically value honor over life. Do you? And why do you ask?

[prunt23]

@spiritualbully before we continue let just clear this up, your words were "genetically inferior" (there's a big difference between that and stupid). These are the origins of Seppuku, it became a voluntary punishment sometime later. Honor is fairly peripheral really, a better way of looking at this decision is: do you favor choosing a quick relatively painless death over an unknown period of excruciating torture? Western culture used to, ever heard "death before dishonor"?

[spiritualbully]

@prunt23 yes, I've heard of "death before dishonor" and I think it's stupid, you asked for my opinion and I think I answered you.

Is anything ever inferior? If not , genetically inferior would of course be meaningless.

I told you already, if it was to choose between suffering and death, I can possibly choose death (but not automatically and not likely before suffering happens).

Now, will you answer ME?

[prunt23]

@spiritualbully It's a simple exposition of the position from which you approach the questions, having, of course, a purely subjective value system that will not be useful across cultural boundaries and dependent on the situation may even be a detriment to survival (both for you personally and perhaps the society as a whole) do you think it's correct to impose your value on a culture living in conditions you have no experience of? The simple answer is i wanted to see what you would say.

[spiritualbully]

@prunt23 you asked for my opinion and I gave it to you, I guess you're unable or unwilling to tell me why I am wrong about it, because all opinions are equal if they are subjective? No, I don't think its "correct", I was answering the question "what I think about it". am I going to stop a person from doing something stupid? Nope, not if it doesn't hurt me.

So, do you have an opinion or do you believe you aren't allowed to have one? Do you need to be a child molestor to judge one?

[spiritualbully]

@prunt23 explain to me how avoiding suffering or dishonor is helping survival, or helping society.

[jussts]

I'm sorry, but do you seriously think you could even do something as simple as smelting iron for tools with your allegedly superior brain if you were dumped on island with a bunch of indigenous people? How long do you estimate it would take you to reinvent agriculture or domesticate animals?

Also, If you're curious about the genetic differences between populations, wouldn't it be easier to sequence their genomes rather than speculate on those possible differences based solely on their cultures?

[spiritualbully]

@jussts so basically, until I've identified the gay gene or alcoholic gene, I should say they are complete choices? Can genetic contribution ever be the result of "ruling out" other alternative explanations? or as a supplement for that which nurture is inadequate to account for?

[spiritualbully]

@jussts Diamond wouldn't be wasting time making the excuse that "New Guineans are too damn busy gathering to feed themselves" if he believed they couldn't do it even if you gave them time. He has to believe it's ALL because they don't have time and if you just gave them a chance, it'll happen.

[BENY0HAMA]

ah christ. You don't have the time or patience to read the book, you watch part of the documentary and you think you can have an informed opinion? Shut the fuck up and either educate yourself or keep quiet.

[spiritualbully]

@BENY0HAMA so im not allowed to have an opinion unless i read everything in the world? I can't criticize the little I know?

[BENY0HAMA]

@spiritualbully not without looking like an idiot

[TheStrangerInTheRye]

Evolution has little to do with intelligence when we look at the world as a whole. Roaches are better evolved than us, and are nowhere near as smart as us.

More intelligent =/= more evolved. The opposite is also true.

[spiritualbully]

@TheStrangerInTheRye nobody said more intelligent means more evolved. but I WOULD say, if intelligence is genetic even by one iota, it's inheritable and selected for over time. You'd have to deny intelligence is genetic completely in order to disagree with me.

[TheStrangerInTheRye]

@spiritualbully I agree to a certain extent. The fact that New Guineans have not had the need to develop animal husbandry may imply that they are less intelligent, but not less evolved. In their case, what you call "intelligence" or the ability to develop animal husbandry, was not selected, even if it is inheritable.

[MultiHypocrisy]

Asian's are genetically inferior to the rest of the world.Can you name a mma Asian champion outside of japan?Probably not because they are genetically inferior.

[spiritualbully]

@MultiHypocrisy did you want me to get mad and argue with you over it?

[MultiHypocrisy]

@spiritualbully there is nothing to argue about.

[DarkMatter2525]

If a newborn was taken out of one of those tribes and adopted by a European or Asian family, do you think that the adopted child would not be able to do as well in school as the other children?

[spiritualbully]

@DarkMatter2525 Depending on how you measure "do well". But yes, I believe there are genetic differences which cannot be overcome by nurture. Nobody argues when it's said that a retarded person can never be made normal no matter who adopts him, so why is it so hard to believe that some people are born dumber, some populations are born better at sports, some are better at math?

If by "do well" you mean the teach loves him and he enjoys school, then there is no argument here.

[disrxt]

Diamond's theory is about memetic, not genetic evolution. It's memes that are developed from culture to culture. What memes a culture develops has nothing to do with genetic makeup. That is why the environment has such a profound effect on cultures. Lamarckism works fine with memes. Memetic evolution can also produce traits that will injure a society, where as such harmful traits are limited by natural selection in biological systems. Look what the Easter Islanders' memes did to their society.

[spiritualbully]

@disrxt I understand that Diamond's book is almost completely Lamarckian. And my criticism is that I don't believe Lamarckian memes, culture, behavior, environment can adequately account for inequalities in wealth, health, civilization amongst nations and populations. I'm not even saying which has a greater contribution, my problem with Diamond is that he wants to discount it altogether.

[dgeypscun]

To domesticate an animal MEANS that you will cater to it's needs. You will pen it, water it, feed it, care for it while it's sick and protect it from predators. LOGICALLY it makes no sense to do these things for a full year for a two day pay off. Only societies that already have a well established farming culture can afford the luxury of raising pigs. Again, your arguments are based on opinion not fact. Read the book or ANY book before you start judging entire groups of people as inferior.

[spiritualbully]

@dgeypscun pigs are better at taking care of themselves than humans are at taking care of them. Who needs to say inferior under this admission?

[dgeypscun]

@spiritualbully Most wild animals are better at taking care of themselves than humans. That statement has no meaning. I suggest that you do SOME sort of research. You solutions to "encirling" pigs with a pen is laughable. Full grown boars are not only fast and strong but also dangerous. What, other than your own opinion, are you basing these theories of your on?

[dgeypscun]

To domesticate an animal MEANS that you will cater to ALL of it's needs. You will pen it, water it, feed it, care for it while it's sick and protect it from predators. LOGICALLY it makes no sense to do all of these things for a full year for a two day pay off. Only societies that already have a well established farming culture can afford the luxury of raising pigs. Again, your arguments are poorly researched and based on opinion not fact,

[dgeypscun]

1. Pigs are an end stage domestic animal. Unlike cows and goats which produce milk until it's time to slaughter or chickens which produce eggs or sheep which produce wool the only things that pigs do until it's time to slaughter is eat. Eat food that could otherwise be consumed by people. In order to raise pigs for food you have to have an over abundance of food to feed them.

2. What cereal crops did the New Guine tribes have available to them? None.

[spiritualbully]

@dgeypscun I agree pigs cost food, but would you rather gather some more food and hunt less or not? Or is there a 3rd option?

[dgeypscun]

@spiritualbully Your logic makes no sense. Pigs eat as much as a person for little pay off. The average domestic pig must be alive for at least a year before it is large enough to slaughter. Once slaughtered that pig will sustain the group for one to two days depending on the size of the tribe. In that year the pig would have consumed the equivilant of 730 meals. I'm sorry but I can't argue with someone who didn't read the book and only watched one episode of the TV series.

[spiritualbully]

@dgeypscun if there's enough food in the wild for pigs to be hunted, there's enough food for pigs to be contained, I guess you're making an excuse for them that they don't even know how to build pens for pigs.

If pigs can take it upon themselves to eat from the wild, the wise thing to do would be to pen up a area for them to live in, thus cutting off the time necessary to chase them down when you need them.

You also assume pigs eat the same food as humans (somehow there's enough to hunt too)

[spiritualbully]

@dgeypscun seriously now, you're basically saying pigs are smarter than New Guineans, they manage to survive hunting their own food, while humans have to hunt AND gather and can't adjust their food intake. You're very smart at telling me a pig eats 730 meals a year and only gives a tribe 1-2 days in return. Even if I agree with you that pigs only eat and don't help labor, you'd have to still agree they can reduce hunting labor, leaving people free to gather more plants for both pigs and humans.

[cecinestpasunename]

If European viruses were able to cross from Europeans to Native Americans, that alone demonstrates the genetic similarity between the two populations. I'm not sure what your argument is here anyway...

Did you seriously suggest that farmers in northern Africa should have just walked down to southern Africa to spread "civilization?" Why the fuck would they choose to do that?

[disrxt]

The problem with the video is that it's dumbed down for a general audience. Read the book or you have no basis to criticize.

[spiritualbully]

@disrxt I am criticizing the video, not the book. I think I made that explicit. Did the video take Diamond out of context?

[disrxt]

@spiritualbully The book is Jared Diamond's work, an acedemic exercise that puts forth and defends his thesis. The video of his work is the vision of some producer aiming at attracting eyeballs for advertisers. Hardly the same.

[spiritualbully]

@disrxt Diamond did the narration, so if you're going to accuse the video producer for taking him out of context, fine. But if the video is an accurate representation of Diamond's views, I can criticize both. But for the sake of simplicity, I will say I am criticizing the video, not Diamond overall (not even his book, since I admit I haven't read it)

Oh, and am I supposed to believe Diamond wasn't writing his book to attract eyeballs of American consumers? Or to appease New Guineans?

[disrxt]

@spiritualbully I am saying that you do not get all the information that Diamond uses to illustrate his points in the documentary. You get a shorthand version tailored for mass consumption.

[naturalbiologist]

@spiritualbully Yes by not reading the full book. You watched one video and decided to criticize the entire thesis. RTFB.

[spiritualbully]

@naturalbiologist no, I decided to criticize the thesis of the first video.

[watermelonygoodness]

...suggest. Regarding the Mayans, he does explain (admittedly not in as much detail) that they had crops that worked very well for agriculture (corn, squash, beans.) It sounds like you watched the opening segment of the video, thought you already knew what he would say, and then posted this "response." Everything you're saying was addressed in the film.

[spiritualbully]

@watermelonygoodness so the Mayans had good crops, Middle Easterners had both animals and crops, and New Guineans had either. 

[watermelonygoodness]

...Domesticated animals would be used for milk, eggs, or wool or what have you. People still had to hunt. Of course it's possible that they don't want to create metal tools. The ones they have work just fine for them. You're acting like Africa is the size of a shopping mall. "Well they could just walk down from Northern Africa to Southern Africa?" No they couldn't. Also the climate is very different from Northern to Southern Africa. And, Papua New Guinea is not in Africa, as you seem to...

[spiritualbully]

@watermelonygoodness I put in my description that I DID NOT mean to suggest New Guinea is in Africa, I apologize for the poor placement of the sentence. "People still had to hunt. " Not as much , am I wrong?

"The ones they have work just fine for them." So by your logic, we industrialized people are just spoiled, lazy and wasting our resources making luxury items we don't need. Obviously it wasn't enough to allow them to reduce labor, "just fine" may mean survive, but not progress.

[watermelonygoodness]

How is that a contradiction? To say that we are fundamentally the same, but some of us are luckier than others? There's no contradiction in that. You don't need to be stupid to always need to hunt. Factory farming of animals as we do now is a highly industrialized process that is pretty much dependent on state-provided farming subsidies. It didn't make sense to domesticate animals and then eat them in ancient times, there was not technology such as artificial insemination, etc...

[spiritualbully]

@watermelonygoodness "To say that we are fundamentally the same, but some of us are luckier than others?" That is not a contradiction, other than possibly incorrect from reality. "You don't need to be stupid to always need to hunt." Yes you do, or else why don't you? "It didn't make sense to domesticate animals and then eat them in ancient times" It made more sense to hunt every day then to sit on your ass and watch them, got it.

[watermelonygoodness]

@spiritualbully You aren't listening to what I'm saying. This is stupid.

[watermelonygoodness]

He illustrates that the crops grown in different areas are botanically and nutritionally different and human beings require the same basic nutrients in order to flourish. Some crops are harder to grow and store, some crops are less nutritive. The animals in one part of the world are different from the animals in another part and some are easier to domesticate than others. He spends the entire first part articulating this and you seem to have missed it completely.

[spiritualbully]

@watermelonygoodness nobody disputes that not all plants and animals are equal, that wouldn't change the fact that if humans were equal by any stretch of imagination, they'd do their best to farm and grow as much as possible, as hunting, gathering is much more wasteful and laborious.

[unclexbob]

Wow. Just read the book. You utterly misunderstand all of his points.

[spiritualbully]

@unclexbob really? Explain please, take your time. PM me if you wish. Also, it's Pwnage Olympics month, I encourage you to make a video response if you find it appropriate (might not be ideal for 90 seconds entry, but I'm sure you'll have an opportunity).

[jemmy141991]

@unclexbob Yes he did, he hasn't read it yet

[UnusualTastes]

Read Darwin. Also, don't attempt to judge individuals based on any findings you may hold to be true about any alleged "subspecies". There are always outliers. In 10,000 years time, outliers existing basically disprove what you're getting at here. In all that time, one of them would have risen up and progressed (and who's to say one didn't to an extent but then fell to traditionalists). But even with great intelligence, the environment and preexisting social constructs kept them down.

[spiritualbully]

@UnusualTastes What were the outliers in New Guinea?

[spiritualbully]

@UnusualTastes What book by Darwin? Descent of Man?

[Salt0fTheEarth]

Read the book genius >.<

[spiritualbully]

@Salt0fTheEarth I'm pretty sure I'd cease to be a genius after I read the book.

[Salt0fTheEarth]

@spiritualbully Let me make something perfectly clear to you: pontificating about a book you haven't read based on watching the first episode of a National Geographic special on the book is outright intellectual dishonesty. Now, if you had read the book, instead of carried away with your first world chauvinism, you'd see that Diamond has covered every single on of your questions. But hey, don't let a little intellectual honesty get in the way of your chauvanism, amirite?

[spiritualbully]

@Salt0fTheEarth I think i was honest enough to admit what I haven't read and not finished watching, i was only judging on what I saw.

[MacabreManifesto]

No I would not be afraid to be racist in that I would acknowledge that one subspecies of human is similar and I am in that subgroup, and others were inferio. If that was scientifically backed up I would not be afraid to say it. I admit that I would be culturally adverse to saying it if science didn't swing either way, since we do, in fact live in a culture that is intolerant of racism of any kind. That is: hatred or believing that one subspecies is genetically superior to another in an...

[spiritualbully]

@MacabreManifesto I don't even like to use the word "superior" but I think if we were to have a defined criteria for measuring, we can say one subspecies or population has a trait which makes them tall, prone to cancer, physically stronger...etc.

[MacabreManifesto]

@MacabreManifesto ...intellectual way. The physical differences that I have heard about are: Native Americans were intolerant to alcohol because their body lacked a certain enzyme. And, Black people can't get sunburned as easily. So far those are the only two racist positions that I hold, but they are supported by science and are pretty minor. I am going to have to confirm how practical the animal husbandry is for myself in relation to the New Guinea Pig, just because it was a pig doesn't...

[MacabreManifesto]

@MacabreManifesto ...indicate easy domesticatability. But engaging in Husbandry as a whole is a double edged sword. Issues with husbandry include: Disease, Oppressive Political Systems, Famines, and a Rise in Instability. And a society isn't going to just see so far into the future that they will be like: Oh: our economy is going to improve and we will discover metal and have the surplus to support metal work. Plus Jared Diamond explains that it is hard to travel North and South because the...

[MacabreManifesto]

@MacabreManifesto ...rules regarding husbandry change as you move southward. So moving in latitude took many generations of adjustment. The rules at different longitudes at the smae latidue however, are the same. This is how Crops that were grown in India, China, And Europe, Could be grown The South of the future US. This is why The South Boomed in the US before the industrial Revolution, but after the Industrial Revolution, The North Held all the chips.

[geodgereturns]

I can't even stop myself from piling on your bullshit.

You name ONE SINGLE THING you count as an achievement you can measure as a genetic benchmark from "ten thousand years ago", and I may stop blechting for long enough to take you seriously.

[spiritualbully]

@geodgereturns I never used achievement and genetic benchmark in the same sentence, have I?

[geodgereturns]

@spiritualbully

Ok. You say the film was very "behaviorist" and "nurturist" -that "people say 'determinist' but you don't like to use that term". Nurturist" is a 180 from "determinist". I doubt Nat'l Geo conflated them. If you had READ the book, you'd realize that the argument made is that other peoples didn't quote "domesticate the pig" due to their environment. Domesticable animals rare. I have wild pigs on my property. Try bringing your genes alone and see how well you domesticate them.

[spiritualbully]

@geodgereturns they used the term in this context "Some criticize Diamond's view as too simplistic, too determinist" , so no, they didn't conflate nurturist with determinist.

[geodgereturns]

@spiritualbully

Who introduced "genetic differences" into the discussion? Nat'l Geographic? Or you?

[spiritualbully]

@geodgereturns myself.

[geodgereturns]

@spiritualbully

Maybe you should ask yourself what's the *true* source of your question. We know it's a) not Guns, Germs etc and b) not Nat'l Geo about Guns, Germs etc. So what pointed you in that direction?

[spiritualbully]

@geodgereturns what pointed me in the direction that I don't buy Diamond's interpretation?

[geodgereturns]

@spiritualbully

What pointed you to underline conclusions that neither Diamond (per my account of a book you haven't read) nor Nat'l Geo (as per your account of a film I haven't seen) came to.

[spiritualbully]

@geodgereturns to be honest, I have long held the beliefs that genetics matter, and all I am saying is Diamond's book and film are not adequate explanations from what I believe. Why I believe genetics matter? There's no short answer.

So it's not that I read Diamond and then read a critique, I watched the film with my biases and beliefs already in place. Does that answer you?

[geodgereturns]

@spiritualbully

kinda.

These "ong held beliefs" aren't genetic, they weren't born in you. You acquired them somewhere. Same way 99.999999% of humans on this planet for all these thousands of years kept pigs. They acquired what they think they know, without troubling themselves much on how come they think they know it.

[geodgereturns]

@geodgereturns

s/b These "long held beliefs" aren't genetic.

[spiritualbully]

@geodgereturns yes, but I didnt learn it in one place. I learned it fairly recently, so I can say it wasnt because I was brainwashed as a kid. But its hard to pinpoint who/what brought me to such conclusions.

[geodgereturns]

@spiritualbully

You-"I learned it fairly recently, so I can say it wasnt because I was brainwashed as a kid. But its hard to pinpoint who/what brought me to such conclusions. "

Me-"Same way 99.999999% of humans on this planet for all these thousands of years kept pigs."

[geodgereturns]

Lemme just ask.

You haven't read Diamond, but have you read Rushton, Lynn, or gnxp dot comeoffitalready?

[spiritualbully]

@geodgereturns no, I have read none of them. what's the last one again?

[geodgereturns]

@spiritualbully

It's a genetics vs environment blog that youtube will block as spam. What's totally weird is nowhere in Guns, Germs and Steel (or my years in university) that "determinist" is used to malign the "environment" or "culture" position. "Determinist" is a political thrust eminating (essentially without exception) from the genetics camp.

[spiritualbully]

@geodgereturns and you PM me the URL? Youtube just doesnt allow URLs in comments, I dont think its anything to do with the site. thanks!

[geodgereturns]

@spiritualbully

No need. gnxp dot blank. Blank = com. I'm not suggesting that there's any conspiracy to block my linking it. All dot.blank=coms are probably spamfiltered by youtube.

[spiritualbully]

@geodgereturns so you'd agree with me that "determinist" is a poor use of the word if it's not genetic. 

[geodgereturns]

@spiritualbully

Determinist is a poor term either way. It's just that genetics leaning "determinists" are slower to get it.

[geodgereturns]

bLEAH!

Read the book. Haven't seen the Nat'l Geo series, so won't give judgment on it but....

But bleah! BleachT spit Blehcht!

Geography vs genetics is the Dummy Science take on Guns Germs Steel. Humans are a CULTURAL species, culture--which is, yes, 1 part genetics, but overwhelmingly, HEAVILY environmental. And culture is what?......Anybody, anybody? It is an astonishingly efficient RESERVOIR of habit--a powerhouse RESERVOIR of learned behaviors--ie handed down Old Ways.

Duh.

[TheMercilessEye]

The fact that Africa has had the FUCK exploited out of it for centuries by other civilizations might also be a determining factor for the fact that it hasn't progressed a whole lot... as well as the fact that the northern part of the continent has been subjected to massive desertification... You need to consider ALL factors, y'know...

[spiritualbully]

@TheMercilessEye yes, I dont claim to know all the factors. thanks for the reminder.

[BoStevoD]

Genetics do not account for intellect. With the coding of both the human and chimpanzee genome, we have discovered only a handful of genetic differences responsible for brain development (most of a human is simply a chimpanzee with a dumbed down olfactory sense). These differences correspond with the amount of cycles a developing brain goes through. Take a chimp and have its brain's cells divide a few more times and you've got all the raw potential for art, literature, science, philosophy, etc.

[spiritualbully]

@BoStevoD potential, sure.

[BoStevoD]

@spiritualbully Well then, doesn't that put a dent in the theory that genetics plays an important role in the shaping of civilizations?

[spiritualbully]

@BoStevoD I don't think I meant it that way. I never denied that environment matters, I just feel that Diamond's theory almost disregards it altogether as if genetics don't matter.

[BoStevoD]

@spiritualbully Exactly, you were proposing that genetics plays an important role, not the sole role, but an important one. I don't think that's true. I really don't think the finer details of one's genetic makeup plays any role at all. Where I depart from Diamond is his enthusiastic disregard for the role played by culture.

[spiritualbully]

@BoStevoD I am sorry if I sounded like that. what I meant was, he seems to ignore genetics and I think it should be taken into account.

[BoStevoD]

@spiritualbully Taken into account how though? Sorry if my point is slipping through the cracks here; I'll try and be succinct as possible. I understand you believe genetics should be taken into account when discussing the reasons one civilization rises while another stagnates, but haven't seen any actual hard evidence in the scientific literature to suggest there has ever been a single genetic component shown to be responsible for any such disparity. I don't agree that genetics plays any role.

[spiritualbully]

@BoStevoD do you believe to make any genetic argument, one must always present POSITIVE evidence for it? Or can it be argued by process of elimination if other alternative explanations fail or are inadequate? Do you believe that homosexuality is a purely culture, nurtured, environment induced,...CHOICE? Last time I checked we didn't identify a gay gene. So according to your logic, we have zero basis for such an argument or possibility.

[spiritualbully]

@BoStevoD "single genetic component shown to be responsible for any such disparity." again, you are saying what I didn't say.

You don't agree genetics plays any role, do you believe genetic differences can arise as a RESULT of such inequality over 10,000 years?

[BoStevoD]

@spiritualbully Of course genetic differences can arise as a result of inequality. You're just talking about epigenetics. But you're still missing my point, that intellect is NOT a genetic attribute. I don't know how else I can say this to get the point across, but perhaps I should just point you in the direction of Stanford's Robert Sapolsky. There is a lecture of his here on YouTube on the ForaTV channel. I strongly encourage you to step out of your reductionist appeals for a moment and watch.

[spiritualbully]

@BoStevoD no, I wasn't talking about epigenetics, & I wasn't saying simply "rise as a result of inequality" as if in a lifetime.

As somebody said here, that environment limits even the outliers, wouldn't that logically mean advantageous traits may not be preserved if competitors weren't selected out? (and vice versa) Thanks for the recommendation, of course I am willing to be wrong, or else I would not ask for your opinion.

[BoStevoD]

@spiritualbully I also do not mean in a single lifetime. I'm talking the accumulative effects of prolonged epigenetic factors.

[pjohn5]

I watch the documentary, and i had much of tha same reaction as you. If you are intrested in this topic i recomend 'carnage an culture' by victor davis hanson i've watch the fora.tv lecture- recomend all his lectures. Niall Ferguson has just released a book called 'civilization', witch deals with the same thing. It will be turned in to a tv seres.

[spiritualbully]

@pjohn5 thanks.

[LithodidMan]

Hey, great topic for discussion and one I am particularly interested in.First of all, I recommend you read the book, the documentary is good, but leaves out shitloads.

One way to think about it is to look at the history of other cultures. What was happening in Briton while the pyramids were being built in Egypt? Did the stone age end there because the people decided to develop metalworking? And later iron, literacy? Or were those technologies brought by conquering nations? (cont'd)

[LithodidMan]

(cont'd) I think it would be entirely possible for a Roman of say 100 AD to ask why the people of the British Isles live in relatively small communities, many nomadic, and have no writing and seem to be 'stuck' in the iron age while mainland Europe was not. They had 10000 years to figure out civilization.... The point being that I think culture is far more important that genetics. What makes 'advanced' cultures unique is an emphasis on change rather than stasis.

[spiritualbully]

@LithodidMan doesn't that still beg the question? WHY do some cultures advocate change and some do not? Sure, environment could afford some, but let's say 10,000 years ago we started out as genetically equal, shouldn't we believe the fact isolated populations haven't changed, developed advancement, that they've resulted in a genetic gap in intelligence, health, expected lifespan....etc?

[LithodidMan]

@spiritualbully I am all for testing the hypothesis of genetic differences, believe me, I think all possibilities should be considered no matter how distasteful they may seem. However, it seems that when raised in a western environment, the people of PNG, or Australia, or Pacific Islands, etc. show no measurable differences in ability. This is pretty strong evidence against a genetic component to their stasis. Evidence from PNG suggests that there was a decrease in technology after settlement.

[spiritualbully]

@LithodidMan is there actually such a study? Or is it just a brief mention of immigration results when a big picture?

Even if there isn't evidence for the genetic contribution to their stasis, could we say there's a genetic RESULT from their stasis?

[x86freak]

@spiritualbully

By genetic result do you mean that people of certain culture adapt to that culture and this adaptation has an imprint in the genes? Like say Irish drink a lot, body adapts over time and becomes more tolerant and off-springs due to higher tolerance AND cultural conditioning can and do drink even more?

[spiritualbully]

@x86freak yes, something like that, or lack thereof. If there is not selective pressure, or a preservation, propagation of advantageous traits vs if a population had a constant population explosion, implosion, and along the way, developed permanent traits.

By the way, are Irish less likely to be drunk? Or just more likely to drink? I could be entirely cultural.

[x86freak]

Does culture count as an environment? I think whatever their starting point was it created a certain culture that now breeds and prevents further development. It seems that they reached a dead-end which they will not overcome unless outside forces will push this 'rock of development' and they can start rolling down the hill of progress.

[spiritualbully]

@x86freak on an individual basis, culture, media, family, politics are all considered "external" and "nurture". Your personal achievements and memory would be another category. But as a society, culture would be somewhat internal, though not genetic, and not considered "environment" as it is not a physically limiting factor unique to a region or time.

[Haengma]

I'm not very knowledgeable about anthropology particularly, but, anatomically modern tribes of humans doing hunting and gathering have been around ~200,000 years or so, whereas most of modern civilization happened in the last 10,000 years or so. It seems to me that differences in intelligence are not a good explanation when similar sorts of people spent the previous 190,000 years accomplishing very little.

[spiritualbully]

@Haengma is it possible that it was exactly because people for 200,000 years lacked the intelligence?

[Haengma]

@spiritualbully Its possible. There are other possibilities though - its also possible that it had to do with the growth in the human population, and the expansion of trade networks. It seems striking to me that a lot of the centers of rapid technological growth were also centers of empire, where they could afford to import thinkers and ideas. Papa New Guinea was relatively isolated for a while, like you mentioned in support of the iq argument. That would apply to communication as well.

[spiritualbully]

@Haengma I do not dispute their isolation has prevented technology from being imported to them. But to tell me they couldn't even domesticate pigs to feed themselves, and scrape up some time to create metal tools, makes it very hard for me to accept that they, after 10,000 years, are still near the intelligence of Eurasians.

[Haengma]

@spiritualbully Well, another thing I think is underappreciated is the bootstrapping effect of these ideas. When you start using ideas to think about other ideas with there's something of an exponential expansion of potential there - iq may be rising a standard deviation every generation with the flynn effect, but technological improvements are happening at a much faster rate than intelligence increases alone can explain. I think civilization is made up of these bootstrapped ideas.

[Haengma]

*cont'd* (at least, iq as measured by standardized tests. Some have pointed out the flynn effect may be due to increasing use of standardized testing in schools).

[spiritualbully]

@Haengma sure, technology is rising faster than intelligence can explain....UNLESS YOU'RE IN NEW GUINEA.

[Haengma]

@spiritualbully Heehee. Well, up until they got into contact with the rest of civilization, at least. Although their economy is crap and their literacy rate like a lot of countries is a little low, they still turn out their share of engineers and scientists.

[spiritualbully]

@Haengma no, EVEN after they became in contact with civilization. Why are they still so far behind for the bulk of thier population? Do they choose to?

[Haengma]

@spiritualbully The intelligence model also doesn't explain very well the periods where technology regressed, due to the collapse of these same empires, and due to religious repression of new ideas. It may be that there are cultural reasons Papa New Guineans lag behind as well. Perhaps resistance to or disagreement with certain modern notions of progress. It certainly cannot be a complete explanation in itself.

[spiritualbully]

@Haengma even smart people do very stupid things, but those who do it tend to learn (definitely from a societal level). Have New Guineans TRIED building an airplane to break their bones? Or are they too smart to play risky games? Civilized empires get knocked down, but they get up again.

I hope i don't sound like I am blaming genetics and IQ as the sole or even primary cause. But i think many behaviorists ignore it completely.

[Haengma]

@spiritualbully I agree. Well that's the thing, I think in seeking these explanations we get locked down in this quest to find like, THE solution to explain something that's clearly like a lot of factors interacting at various strengths. I dunno if they've got an avionics school, but for instance eltech engineering services in papa new guinea has electrical engineers, electricians, mechanical engineers, draftsman, etc, all papa new guineans.. They have a low literacy rate in the boonies though.

[spiritualbully]

@Haengma no, we should NEVER try to find a ONE answer. Though, if we were focusing on one factor, we should stick to it and see how far it can take us.

[Haengma]

Anyways, nice chatting with you, I've got to do that 'sleep' thing I've heard so much about.