is what Jared Diamond aims to do, in his books 'Guns, Germs and Steel' and Collapse'. The first, describes the ways that human societies have been shaped - the way their environment has changed them, made some more competitive in the modern world, and others weaker. The other details the broad reasons why societies may collapse : environmental, failure to adapt, failure to predict the future and prepare for it.
These books are particularly interesting, because they look at small societies, and the ways events played out in them, and adapts the pattern to the larger world. Its a very scientific way of doing things- a small pilot test, and apply the results to a broader framework. However, especially with the environmental arguments there seem to be many caveats that one could apply. For example, there are various small societies desscribed, such as the settlers of Greenland at one time, who failed to adapt their lifestyles to the changing environment, and therefore collapsed, and this could lead one to speculate on the results of us failing to adapt - or prevent- global warming (for example), and yet I find it hard to believe that barring alien invasion, our collapse would be as complete or impossible to recover from.
In Guns, Germs and Steel also, he raises the idea of agriculture being the base on which all society is built- and how in places where agriculture was impossible - or not as productive - societies- villages, towns, cities, trade, commerce, large scale government etc. did not grow. But I find some of his arguments a little difficult to believe. It may be true that many of the current food crops that we use had their origins in a particular part of the world. But they have taken many millenia to reach their current form, and wild wheat, and rice and barley are not nearly as productive. It is the result of generations of human farming and genetic selection that has made them so. If agriculture had started elsewhere, we might be praising some other crop for its incredible bounty - and crediting it for being the base of human civilizations. You could make similar arguments with regards the point about horses and others.
In general, he presents a very politically correct view of the world, which is leaves me a little skeptical.
Having said that, they're both excellently written books. They bring up (at least for me) a new dimension of looking at the world. The books prove that it is not true that the problems we face today are like none faced ever before. Strip away the specifics, and you can see that the same causes that led some societies to fail, and some to succeed are still true today.
These books are particularly interesting, because they look at small societies, and the ways events played out in them, and adapts the pattern to the larger world. Its a very scientific way of doing things- a small pilot test, and apply the results to a broader framework. However, especially with the environmental arguments there seem to be many caveats that one could apply. For example, there are various small societies desscribed, such as the settlers of Greenland at one time, who failed to adapt their lifestyles to the changing environment, and therefore collapsed, and this could lead one to speculate on the results of us failing to adapt - or prevent- global warming (for example), and yet I find it hard to believe that barring alien invasion, our collapse would be as complete or impossible to recover from.
In Guns, Germs and Steel also, he raises the idea of agriculture being the base on which all society is built- and how in places where agriculture was impossible - or not as productive - societies- villages, towns, cities, trade, commerce, large scale government etc. did not grow. But I find some of his arguments a little difficult to believe. It may be true that many of the current food crops that we use had their origins in a particular part of the world. But they have taken many millenia to reach their current form, and wild wheat, and rice and barley are not nearly as productive. It is the result of generations of human farming and genetic selection that has made them so. If agriculture had started elsewhere, we might be praising some other crop for its incredible bounty - and crediting it for being the base of human civilizations. You could make similar arguments with regards the point about horses and others.
In general, he presents a very politically correct view of the world, which is leaves me a little skeptical.
Having said that, they're both excellently written books. They bring up (at least for me) a new dimension of looking at the world. The books prove that it is not true that the problems we face today are like none faced ever before. Strip away the specifics, and you can see that the same causes that led some societies to fail, and some to succeed are still true today.
I also went on to read a third book of his, 'The Third Chimpanzee'. It wasn't as compelling as the others - but close to the premiere of the new Planet of the Apes movie, it seemed like a good idea. Again, a very well written book. It describes man as maybe aliens would see us - a slightly evolved ape - and compares us with our closest animal cousins. It draws comparisons between the social structures of apes and humans. One of the most interesting chapters was the one on human sexuality, but other very interesting topics covered were the fact that technology is not the only cause of environmental damage and prehistoric humans had a role in the environmental catastrophes of their time as well - this point is one that comes up in all three books - which should put an end to the wistful looking back on civilizations that lived at one with nature - apparently, there were none.
No comments:
Post a Comment