I think he makes a compelling case for why Eurasia ended up with more cargo than Africa, the Americas or Oceania, but he doesn't really touch the question of how Europe ended up with more cargo than Asia. Why is this?
>>18735110>Highest IQ race in the world: Mongoloid(China)>Lowest IQ race in the world: Mongoloid(Nepal)Indian-Euros did better than chinks at conquering because they had Christianity and were subversive.
>>18735198That’s such a stupid fucking pic, you are mentally ill
>>18735110Macrohistory is always retarded, always.
>>18735110The book is almost as wrong as the IQtards and has done a lot of damage. Pre-modern "Africa" had plenty of "cargo" , Diamond didn't know his history.
>>18735110>Guns, Germs and Steel
>>18735428They had donkeys and cattle too, which everyone seems to forget.
>>18735370He is spiritually ill because he's jewish
>>18735110It's because a country in Europe hit the industrial revolution before one in East Asia did.Why did that happen in England? Basically England had very accessible coal reserves while other European countries, and China too as pertains to your question - did not. Kenneth Pomeranz covers this very thouroughly in The Great Divergence.
>>18735729There's coal in South Africa too.
>>18735770The land in much of that area is incompatible with Bantu agriculture, and the development of the local socieites make for a really shit comparison. What you're describing doesn't change anything at all.
>>18735428https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11350691/TLDR: Zebras are indeed devil horses. According to this paper, it is almost certain that they are more wild (which manifests as suicidally violent behavior) and worse domesticates than their LCA with Horses and Donkeys.
>>18735729The problem with this is it shouldn't have been close enough for that to make the difference.If you look at Britain 1000 years before the industrial revolution (700AD) and compare it to China, China was at the level of 700's Britain back around 500 to 300BC. They were so far ahead they should have industrialized before Charlemagne even accounting for coal availability.Of course China having a better climate, not to mention a native agricultural package that included tea and silk had nothing to do with their relative technological and economic advantage over Europe prior to the industrial revolution.
>>18735775Isn't agriculture the entire point of guns germsnand steel
>>18735783Terrible paper.Although it does disprove the majority of Diamond's arguments particularly related to social structure by acknowledging zebra and horses are identical see screen shot.Their argument relies entirely on a connection between predation and capture myopathy (CM), the tendency of prey animals to have a negative physiological response to captivity.They say that zebra had a higher predator burden in Africa so they were more likely to die from CM after being held captive than horses, but that isn't true. Predator-prey ratios actually decrease as the carrying capacity (total prey population) increases. https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aac6284https://www.cbc.ca/news/science/predator-prey-study-may-reveal-surprising-new-law-of-nature-1.3214839While we can't observe the CM rates of the wild horses that were the ancestors of modern domestic horse, since they are all extinct, based on what we do know and the premise of the paper we should believe that horses were worse candidates for domestication than zebra.
The ironic thing about this book is it is what started me on my path of becoming a race realist. Before then I was in a haze of total ignorance. If they didn't assign this book in college I probably would have remained a normie. The fact that he simply didn't address why europe got ahead of the middle east (where civilization started) is so stupid.
>>18735110Already debunked. https://www.bitchute.com/video/qvaxPH3ftUQhttps://archive.li/qO8QJ
>>18735729>Europe>East AsiaBut what about muh fertile crescent? They were geographically determined to become the world's foremost superpower.
>>18735110Ancestry-adjusted state history explains 55.8% (r ≈ 0.75) of the variance in log per capita income (https://archive.li/gSSdm).Whatever caused civilizations 3000 years ago to be more or less advanced than others has stuck with them even now.
>>18735800I'm not sure if you're right, but it'd certainly be interesting if you were. What archeology there is in Africa makes it kinda obvious that Sub-Saharans knew how to domesticate animals before even bothering with the Guinea Fowl (whose status as a domesticated animal is complicated by some pretty blatant divergent selection); the ancestors of Niger-Congo people literally left paintings showing them managing local animals before foreign domesticates were introduced + proto-Nilotes were very likely working with early domesticated cattle as of 10kya, yet I don't think there's anything indicating that they even considered managing Zebras during any period.
>>18735428Why couldn't Europeans domesticate deers or the European bison?
>>18735385WE
>>18735770The question was specifically why Europe diverged from (outran) East Asia, which was a pretty recent occurrence. It has been covered elsewhere why Europe had much more beneficial conditions for successful civilizations than say Subsaharan Africa, Sibiria, Canada, the Phillipines, etc. But we can cover that again.>>18735784That's obviously due to the fact that Britain was lucky enough to benefit from the fruits of one of the leading world civilizations, which in turn got its start from the Nile being one of the best locations bar none on the world map to start an early civilization in.>>18735806I dont know what you're on about? The English empire is obviously a descendant of the fertile crescent civilization (commonly denoted "Western Civilization). That's e.g. why you have 60 seconds in a minute, 60 minutes in an hour, 24 hours in a day.
>>18735820Basically, it was Portugal and Spain banking heavily on navigation then stumbling into the Americas, then England banking heavily in industry. People forget that almost all of continental Europe was 90+% impoverished agrarian societies up until the 19th century. The average 18th century German lived in a one-room hut and never left his village.
>>18735820>we wuzing about being BritishDoes Mohamed really?
>>18735825Stop using the 5,000 year old mesopotamian system with base-60 units on your swizz- and japanese-made watches and then you can wewuzz that the origin of your civilization was celtic druids or whatever
>>18735821Only under the ridiculous idea that european countries lived in a bubble. Macro picture is that Portugal Spain and England are all offshoots of the same basic tradition as the "muslim sphere" or "judaism". It's one shared Mediterranean civilization and it has rivaling China for being the richest and most advanced one since day one, basically.
>>18735428Putting a saddle on a thing and sitting on it for 10 seconds for a photo is not the same as domestication.
>>18735913The reason people state for zebras not being domesticated is that they are so damn wild they won't let you get near them. Clearly not the case so you should come up with different explanation
>>18735110Asia centralized first (while reaching a local peak) and the ruling castes DO NOT ever want overall economic development with social mobility that comes with that. China's development was literally stopped by force by its rulers. They were putting restrictions on the size of their business enterprises etc. The "elites" are happy with their lives since the dawn of civilizations.Britain lucked out as a consequence of their constant revolutions since the 14th century which gradually liberated the enterprise spirit of its commoners while reducing the grip of its ruling caste over the society. The agricultural revolution must have happened first to free the labor for industrial applications; and weakening the feudal land system of subservience was a prerequisite for that. It wasn't planned; neither the rulers nor the people were really knowing what they were doing. It - obviously - wasn't due to some inherent qualities of the British people or due to European natural resources either. It's a freaking organization of the society, that is a socio-economic system (which again, didn't emerge in Europe as a result of some deliberate planning but more or less by just happenstance).btw, this stopping of the development by force is LITERALLY what the western rulers are doing right now. The commonly adopted concepts of "social justice" (as opposed to - justice) are highly detrimental to the civilizational development.
there is art from ancient egypt of the Pharaoh running over africans with spear and wooden shields using bronze weapons, composite bow, a chariot and domesticated animals,
>>18735919See my previous point >>18735913
>>18735919Why didnt russia just domesticate bears? They're much stronger than cows or horses. They have more meat than pigs.
>>18735913the white woman does what the black man could never
>>18735110The causality that addresses that is that there was a revolution that was industrial during the 1800s
>>18735966They already had cows for meat. They already had horses for transportation who are taller and faster. If Africans didn't domesticate zebras because they saw no need for it then what other animals did they domesticate that served better purposes than zebras?
>>18735972Bears are much stronger than horses or cows and would obviously be superior to e.g. working horses. They can also walk on their hind legs, multiplying their uses. Also, war bears would clearly be ferocious and superior to war horses for mauling infantry. So why didnt Russians domesticate them?Answer the question.
>>18735972>what other animals did they domesticate that served better purposesDonkeys, cows, goats.>but those originally came from other regionsSo did European livestock.
Theres a conspiracy among liberal scientists to hide how domesticable Zebras are.
>>18735981the russian brown bear weighs around 400 kgs at most, a shire draft horse gets up to 900kgs.
>>18735981What evidence have you seen that convinced you that bears would have military usage?
>>18735991do cows appear natively in sub saharan Africa?
>>18736009At the time of domestication, horses were 300 kg, 400 kg at most. A well bred Russian work-bear would obviously be 900 kg by now, if they'd only gone to work at breeding them, but why didnt they?
>>18736010What they did to grizzly man and his gf.
>>18735110>the problem with economic history is that historians don't understand economics and economists don't know history. `RothbardIf it was only the historians and economists. A biochemist has contributed (Jared Diamond); now wait what the urban planners and cab drivers will have to say.
>>18736061
>>18736141>the purely free society will have a flourishing free market in childrenThank god for capitalism!
Jared Diamond believes that Papua New Guineans are the most intelligent people in the world (or at least more intelligent than westerners).
>>18735981>>18736018Brown bears probably are the apex predator most suitable for domestication, but it's still a fucking apex predator who will kill you if you're not careful. They are not remotely comparable to zebras.
>>18736018bear food is more expensive than horse's, which is grass and hay, a byproduct of grain farming
>>18736180why does he love papua new guinea so much
>>18735991Southern Africa, i.e. the region with zebras, didn't have donkeys.Goats are too weak and small to be used as pack animals.Cows are far inferior to equines for transport.
>>18736018They did, and they decided it wasnt worth it because of various factors.Africans literally cannot do selective breeding because theyre retarded.
>>18735909>People forget that almost all of continental Europe was 90+% impoverished agrarian societies up until the 19th century*up until 1960s.
>>18735913Yet the saddle photo never happened, A zebra which had been tamed and domesticated was saddled.africans couldnt because they score 85 on IQ tests and lack the genes to score 115 on IQ tests as a group, which soft locks them out of certain things like large time horizon projects (domestication).>NOOOO AFRICANS ARENT STUPIDthere is nothing wrong with admitting the objective data, African IQ scores are lower for genetic reasons.
>>18735821>>18736218
>>18736218>impoverished agrarian societies conquered the world and built multiple mega-projectsWow these Europeans sure did a whole lot with very little, are other groups inferior or something??Europeans are short and ugly right, I mean, they cant be world conquerors on a budget AND also tall and attractive right RIGHT?WHITEY CANT HAVE IT ALL RIGHT
>>18736222Fact that world outside Europe and North America much worse doesn't change that most of Europe before the 1960s has been impoverished shithole. It's impoverished shithole even today in comparison to US (and I say this as Russian).
>>18735811The cause of domestication is limited by whether or not a group is clever or daring enough to attempt it and then to succeed.more than likely Africans lacking the robust pioneering nature of Eurasians is why they never tamed let alone domesticated the bigger animals.Cattle you eat, thats obvious, what do you do with a horse if you have no wagons?
>>18736196Then how do you explain this picture though?
Why didnt russians domesticate them? Why?
>>18735428The book has flaws, but anyone who thinks that tame zebras is an argument against it clearly hasn't read it.
>>18736240Looks like its from a music video or something, probably isn't even real. But even if it was, how does it disprove my point? It's still a highly dangerous apex predator, zebras aren't.
>>18736236Horses also provide milk and meat.
>>18736236> more than likely Africans lacking the robust pioneering nature of Eurasians is why they never tamed let alone domesticated the bigger animals.They tamed big cats and apparently local elephants, and I already mentioned how the ancestors of Nilotic people were very clearly trying to domesticate local african aurochs, and very clearly saw some success (with the cause and extent of their eventual failure being completely unknown).
>>18736141It's an observation. What would (likely) happen if people were free.That's (socio-economic) science, tard.
>>18736141He's talking about adoption, retard.
>>18736380>>18736501ok, groomer
>>18736300I'm just asking a simple question why Russians havent domesticated bears and maybe just maybe we have to consider the possibility that the answer is insufficient IQ on behalf of Russian people
>>18736222Europe didn't conquer the world, Britain, Spain, Portugal, and the Dutch did. The rest of Europe had no colonies worth mentioning before the 19th century, and technologically, they weren't more advanced than Asia and North Africa.Where Europe was ahead everyone consistently from the 1400s was naval tech, and pretty much all of that came from Portugal, and was adopted quickly by those 4 countries. Then a really massive divergence happened in wealth in the 19th century with the industrial revolution, which 100% came from Britain.Early 19th century Poland or Italy was as behind Britain as India at the time.
>>18737494I wonder why the people from your country didn't import a few Russian bears and didn't start breeding them to get those super 1-tonne worker-soldiers. Might have been pretty low IQ.
>>18735783>(which manifests as suicidally violent behavior)Yes, they belong to the horse family.
>>18737547>Early 19th century Poland or Italy was as behind Britain as India at the time.At the time, India's per capita GDP was ~548 1990 dollars, whereas Italy's was 1,117 1990 dollars.In GDP for 2011 dollars: 2,404 (Italy) vs. 1,033 (South Asia).https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_history_of_India#GDP_estimateshttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_regions_by_past_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita>Portugal and Britain traded with other Europeans!Okay? Europe still conquered the world.
>>18737741>Okay? Europe still conquered the world.The whole western world combined couldn't conquer China.
>>18735814Because we domesticated the Aurochs instead.
>>18735110>kill every chinkshttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fotwtdeXGos
>>18735611>AIslopmore likely south asian in origin, but still spiritually jewish
>>18737747Oh, okay. Europeans conquered almost the entire world.*
>>18736219>A zebra which had been tamed and domesticatedNo, it was tamed, not domesticated. Domestication is a long term process that requires multiple generations and involves actual genetic changesAlso, even calling it tame is suspect, there are dozens of articles online which discuss how those photos were staged and they were part of an effort to try to tame and domesticate Zebra but it failed horribly and most of the Zebra they attempted to tame caused constant problems, to also respond to >>18735919 and >>18735967See:pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11350691/ (tho >>18735800 argues against this paper with what seems like valid points)youtu.be/wOmjnioNulosmithsonianmag.com/smithsonian-institution/how-dan-zebra-stopped-ill-fated-governent-breeding-program-tracks-180973542/theconversation.com/why-zebra-refused-to-be-saddled-with-domesticity-65018utterlyinteresting.com/post/starting-in-the-1890s-people-tried-to-domesticate-zebrasThat said, most of those articles are poorly sourced. Maybe some anon can dig the actual original source they are all going off of?>>18735801So if Europeans were so smart, why didn't they develop Civilizations themselves?To be clear GG&S is a shit book for overemphasizing geography, but your take is dumb too. The reality is just that history is complicated and in addition to geography, random chance, cultural practices, etc are also factors. Also, re: geography, a possibility is that the regions most likely birth civilizations =/= the regions where civilizations are best able to succeedIE, in places with tons of food, water etc where your needs are met, you don't have an incentive to switch from hunting&gathering to agriculture and building towns/cities: Pressures PUSH people to make that shit.. But those same pressures limit the success of those societies, whereas if civilization spreads to one of those bountiful regions, it can be more successful than the places with the pressures more likely to create civilization
