Why is the writing in this book so shabby? It mostly contains the author pointing out a fact, then giving an opinion and assertion to explain it. He never comes up with how the assertion can be quantifiably proven or metrics to test it out. In some parts it seems like it's begging the question. This book has won the pulitzer prize
>>18221048Nobody here read this book. They just heard that Diamond doesn't subscribe to the orthodox view that niggers are simply retarded lesser beings. So they decided it's le bad book.
>>18221055Wrong. I haven't read the book and I think it's great. Both sides seethe hard, which is the first sign of quality. Then you have a good hypothesis, which is all he needs, and a bunch of childish scenarios showing people how to think about his hypothesis. That's the whole book, from what I understand. The resource argument doesn't need to be right, it just needs to be more right than the existing discourse. It's superior to both antiracism and racism as an explanation of civilizational dynamics, so even in being wrong it drags people kicking and screaming into a higher intellectual engagement.
>>18221055I’ve read it, and I think it’s rather good. Sure you can debate stuff like what impact climate has on the development of metallurgical technology, but I think he laid out his points well and I liked the book. It also forms a pretty coherent narrative about why history panned out as it did. As in I’ve not seen a better explanation.
>>18221420>I’ve not seen a better explanation.The premise of civilizational advancement is false. There's no inherent meaning or dignity in being empowered by technology, it's just bigotry from people who are. The only dishonor in living the old way is when technological people come and dishonor you. Most peoples in the world have perfectly serviceable IQ and live in good land, the vast majority just happened to follow a different tradition from relentless technological growth, at the time of European ascendancy. Any one of them could have followed a different path due to various events, even something as random as a shipwreck or eccentric leader. It takes more than one event or generation of course, but the overall movement is toward people doing what they want (a man could seek his fortune in town at almost all times in history, or travel to a more advanced land) and technology acting as an awkward third party. It empowers some but enslaves and kills others. The whole juxtaposition of poverty tribes and wealthy technologists is based on a bad moral judgment.
>>18221055I unfortunately read it because it had a cool name and I was astonished just one or two chapters in at just how moronic it was
>>18221378I have not read the book. I have read at least three times the length of the book in seethe ABOUT the book. It's great.
>>18221494You should read the book, it is actually worse than the seethe makes it out to be.
>>18221496My reading list is colossal and keeps getting longer because I get distracted reading chapters of thesis found in the internet about the modularity of sacrifice and ritual (hint: Hairy men are ideal human sacrifices in Mongolian buddhism, apparently). It's on there but I'll be dead before I get to it.
>>18221048I think you're missing the point. It's presenting a hypothesis, not providing an iron-clad provable answer to why civilizations progress and interact the way they do, and the book never pretends otherwise.>>18221483I think the very beginning is actually the weakest part. The author makes a particularly dumb and baseless assertion early on. A lot of the rest of it is interesting, though.
Regular reminder that putting a saddle on a zebra and riding it long enough to take a photo is not the same as domestication.
