Any good arguments against Germs, Guns and Steel...

Any good arguments against Germs, Guns and Steel? Basically that geography and isolation caused Africa to be shitty and not Africans?

Attached: 8F6DE0A1-E81F-4A90-B2B2-584B63625D1E.jpg (331x500, 43.22K)

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=qvaxPH3ftUQ
youtu.be/qvaxPH3ftUQ
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

N

Isolation is a two way street. Not only would other have to not visit them, they'd have to not visit others, as well.

Zebra's can be domesticated in a few generations.

Diamond has been BTFOd over this shit book so many times. Anyone who still uses this excrement as some sort of argument is a bottom-tier retard.

>(((Jared Diamond)))

Book discarded

>Basically that geography and isolation caused Africa to be shitty and not Africans?

Why can't you successfully apply that same logic to Australia?

Attached: 1555700587641.jpg (3744x2247, 3.82M)

I wonder what Oswald Spengler would say?

Light reading for brainlet liberals. Heavily biased, pushing narrative in simple words.

>sit upon natural resources
>eat dirt and drink dirty water
>blame white people for not enriching them

Kikes need a fucking name and number again.

The key is horses. Horses allowed higher IQ tribes to completely annihilate lower IQ ones.

Attached: 44743C76-6E35-410D-91E6-76A20C927328.jpg (1024x576, 94.71K)

Niggers living in the western world continue to be niggers despite every opportunity, generation upon generation, they still amount to nothing. Its the niggers.

It's blood libel and here's why:
youtube.com/watch?v=qvaxPH3ftUQ
>inb4 too long
If you read that tripe this isn't long enough

(((diamond))) is retarded, he thinks abbos are more intelligent than whites

I enjoyed this book.

The most mineral rich landmass on the planet? Sure.
Idiot.

Here's the only argument needed: (((Diamond)))

The harsh winter hypothesis doesn't stand up to scrutiny. It's easily refuted by the fact that the smarter modern humans evolved in tropical Africa, compared to their less intelligent Neanderthal counterparts that evolved in the ice age for thousands of years.

>not having the wheel
>not building a single structure
>no significant art to speak of
>same behaviors exist outside of Africa
We've seen the same arguments and have living proof contrary to them

And contrary to popular beliefs, people didn't just start hating niggers cuz their skin was dark and hair too curly.

Attached: niggernuke.jpg (484x436, 107.62K)

If you want a specific debunking of the book, watch Alt Hype's video.
Unless you're an autiste who's really into this stuff, it's not worth your time. Just literally think about environmental determinism for two seconds.
>the environments were so dissimilar that people developed radically different civilizations
>they were different enough for different populations to develop different physical characteristics
>these differences magically stop at the neck and so we all have the same intelligence, time preference, inclination to follow laws, etc.
gg, we know this is literally false. evolution has occurred recently and the brain -- as you would expect -- is where most of the selection has taken place.
there's no need to sperg about the details of corn or whether zebras can be domesticated. the entire premise of the book is so retarded that it doesn't deserve to be analyzed any further.

Based autist absolutely btfos retarded kike

Aztec cavalry would have been a fucking nightmare.

Attached: 1554078402194.jpg (612x612, 152.25K)

>evolved in the ice age
see here's your problem.
Farming creates intelligence
Hunting Creates strength
It's literally common sense.

It may or may not have had an effect on IQ but it may have had effects on social cohesion and more collectivist behaviors that led to the development of better societies. It's somewhat conjecture either way. Not sure if you could ever definitively say one way or the other.

Noice. Saved. Some info there I was unaware of.

Neanderthals contributed significant dna to modern Eurasians, who again, conquered the planet.

Also the out of Africa theory presents a problem for Diamond. A genetic bottle neck. Only the most intelligent niggers left and bred with Neanderthals to create modern Eurasians.

Now with the domestication of the horse, invention of the wheel, and cart, NATURAL SELECTION WAS ACCELERATED IN EURASIA, and especially in Europe because of the seven seas. These horseback and sea raids created intense genetic pressure that selected only the most intelligent to survive.

We evolved genetically as a people because of warfare. We revolved culturally because of warfare.

If our tribe lost, all the men would be annihilated because no one in foot can escape Calvary.

Niggers were picking berries while Eurasians were evolving.

Attached: E2E32646-FAD3-4E83-8CA4-0ACBB70836AA.jpg (225x224, 8.31K)

butthole

I mean niggers and abos hunt. That doesn't mean you're smart. I think there were more selective pressures than just hunting and farming.

To elaborate, both ice age Europe and Africa we're shit farming places, so natural selection favored the strong and fast. not the smart and wise.

No mainstream historians take geographical determinism (the idea that starting location is the defining aspect of a culture or country) seriously. And mainstream historians are a pretty left wing bunch.

Funny enough, the arguments presented in the book were often used as justification for colonialism.

white men tamed zebra and other animals while the nigger could not

Regarding isolation, what about Northern Africa in the Roman Empire, or Greek influence on Egypt, or the colonization of Africa in early modern history? Despite being colonized, Africa is still in very bad shape.

Abbos hunt: yes, and they are good at it.
Whites farm: yes, and they are good at it.

Northern Africa was corrupted by Islam/ Arab sand niggers.

>this entire post
you don't know a damn thing

I

No I don't think neanderthals were separate species from cro magnids
too lazy to do all the sourcing but some anthropologists say it makes more sense that teh "neanderthal dna" is actually a common ancestor to groups outside of africa.

There have been many. This gets posted about once a month. Look through the archive.

the entire book is just a cope to not admit the importance of genetics

see
>249123490

*

My point is that the hunting/farming explanation does not alone explain IQ differences. They clearly are rooted in biology (not sure why this is so controversial to lefties) but it's rather unclear to me what caused it. I should probably read Lynn and Rushton some more desu.

This is the only argument that makes sense to me

>it was geography, not genetics

But in fact geography influenced genes, Naturally.

Always a million and one excuses for Africans being Africans.

It's a nice after-thought. I personally don't care how Europeans evolved to be smarter, I just know that they did.

Please before you post in this thread, start of the paragraph on what YOU have PERSONALLY invented or discovered before you start attacking Africans

My point is different environment caused different evolution thus changing biology.
In Europe you didn't have to run around with a stick all day, you could farm and sell. The best farmers and merchants obviously did better, so their genes moved on.

>implying all Africans are niggers

Fuck off faggot

You can tame anything but you can't domestic zebras from what I understand they are just nigger horses

I've invented the niggerizer 9,000
does that count?

Later colonization and the form of Colonization in Africa and the middle east is to blame. Where as Canada/Australia were largely made up of British nationals, Africa/ME was largely made up of poorly educated people used for labor and small amounts of British/French to extract resources and govern. Canada and Australia peacefully "left" the empire, but are still officially part of it, where as African and Middle East holdings were forcibly decolonized after WWII. Basically the peaceful decolonization left fully formed and well educated populace, where as the forceful decolonization created odd borders, and mostly uneducated people to rule.

LEAF.
Watch the Alternative Hypothesis video on the subject. A thorough debunking.

Explain Africa: the most fertile continent on the fucking planet.

>Farming creates intelligence
Then why was farming invented in the warm Levant, when the ones in the cold are allegedly more intelligent?
How does the cold lead to social cohesion? Some of the only things that lead to social cohesion and cooperation are kin selection, kith selection, and religion.
>Not sure if you could ever definitively say one way or the other.
Then it's unfalsifiable, and therefore nonsense.
>Neanderthals contributed significant dna to modern Eurasians, who again, conquered the planet.
It's only a tiny fraction of the modern DNA of West Eurasians, and varies heavily between individuals.
>Only the most intelligent niggers left and bred with Neanderthals to create modern Eurasians.
Why the fuck would intelligent humans breed with Neanderthals?
>These horseback and sea raids created intense genetic pressure that selected only the most intelligent to survive.
And why exactly would this be the case?
>We evolved genetically as a people because of warfare. We revolved culturally because of warfare.
Warfare is universal. Do you not understand this? Even Pre IE Europe was plagued with warfare.

youtu.be/qvaxPH3ftUQ
Jared Diamond Permanently BTFO

Factually not true. No one has ever domesticated Zebra because they lack the pack structure of Horses. It's easy to domesticate animals that will follow a leader already. Get dunk'd on by years of the academic study of zoology.

Yes this is true, but you cannot deny that their biology is based on hunting. Just look at all the black basketball players.
They didn't need to be smart they needed to be FAST.

Africa is a shit hole because of the world and their genetics.

we should make better arguments though. in the long run (((this))) will only become known to a small group of international and rootless 4channers

/thread

Focusing on the Africans doesn't do justice to Diamond's idea... But the resources available to you do determine at least some of your culture.

The Industrial revolution could have never started in Hawaii, Not because Hawaiians are stupid, but because Hawaiian has no coal or iron deposits...

The warm levant was literally the best place for farming, and big surprise those people got smart.
>writing
>art
>boats
>channels
>cities

Soil in Africa is some of the most fragile in the world, where it can easily be exhausted.
>Alternative Hypothesis
Why would I watch that moron?

No but it proves your a racist fuck

>>Alternative Hypothesis
>Why would I watch that moron?
He makes good arguments. You haven't made any beyond nuh uh.

Pre colonization South America had empires and complex societies while North America had savages smoking the pipe.
Post colonization North America is the strongest region in the world and South America is dysfunctional

I'm not saying that farming automatically makes you smart, just that agricultural societies allowed intelligence to prosper.

Dude it just makes you really fast, and the fuel is watermelon.
I see nothing wrong with that.

Attached: 1584563211928.jpg (540x540, 26K)

Because he utterly destroys guns, germs and steel

It's an almost breathtakingly dishonest book, which is what you'd expect from a (((Diamond)))

It just overlooks the little tiny matter of the jewel in the crown of the British Empire and arguably the most important conquest ever, India.

Which had comparable technology to Britain, and no plague accompanied the British, but yet a couple tens of thousands of British soldiers effortlessly subjugated the entire subcontinent.

Any history graduate could tell you this. It's impossible Diamond didn't know it, which is why he doesn't mention it at all, because it disproves his entire loxist premise.

Attached: 1584588678672.png (1000x955, 111K)

>How does the cold lead to social cohesion? Some of the only things that lead to social cohesion and cooperation are kin selection, kith selection, and religion.
A harsher climate forces people to work together and develop more complex social interactions like monogamy for example. The fact that Europe has had very limited polygamy in comparison to africa is a point of note.

>Then it's unfalsifiable, and therefore nonsense.
It's not nonsense. Speculation is important in developing a theory. I don't know a mechanism to add evidence for it, but it's still an idea to be considered.

ok zoomer

Shut the fuck up you worthless ape.
Your kind are nothing but violent retarded animals. You shouldn't have been enslaved. You should have been exterminated like the pests you are.
You provide nothing of value and the world would be much better off without your dead weight holding everyone else down.
Kill yourself.

That most of the sources are shite? Seriously tried reading it and looking for the evidence of his claims and its all just nonsense.

I don't buy that colonization is the cause of all of Africa's ills. The least colonized areas today are some of the worst off.

Attached: gondola benis.jpg (325x350, 23.27K)

That’s incorrect, they have been domesticated

>Canada and Australia
white
>Africa/ME
non-white

Did America leave colonization peacefully?

His dishonesty is so apparent to anyone familiar with the subjects he produces videos on. In fact, you don't even have to be well informed on the subject; in the odd case when Ryan does cite a source, nine times out of ten it's some crank, who has repeatedly been refuted and discredited.
Art, boats, channels, cities, and writing are found in almost every continent — including Africa. Moreover, some of these have even been invented in a vacuum multiple times.
>A harsher climate forces people to work together and develop more complex social interactions like monogamy for example.
Firstly, we are tight knit prehistoric foragers in every corner of the world. And secondly, why does the cold force people to work together? As I've already discussed, kin selection is what leads to cooperation within hunter gatherer groups.
>It's not nonsense. Speculation is important in developing a theory
Speculation is important when it's actually supported by evidence and carries empirical content.

>Basically that geography and isolation caused Africa to be shitty and not Africans?
Africans had the same population of trading network as any other equivalent region,

Attached: wat only hundreds.webm (582x600, 1.4M)

I read "Guns, Germs and Steel" some years ago, and provided many "aha" moments. Diamond's explanations are extremely compelling, even to someone with more than a passing education in history, geography and historiography. Of course, they are all a "just so" story, rather than an accurate representation of how things turned out. Geography *of course* is important in the historical development of different nations and civilizations. Is geography (along with associated factors of agricultural technology, domesticated animals and his pained explanation about why Europeans were better with guns than the Chinese who invented them) the only factor in why Western Civilization grew to dominate others? Of course it isn't. Europe had no unique access to these things: Asian civilizations had arguably superior such advantages.

Victor Davis Hanson makes a similar "one factor" argument in his book "Carnage and Culture." Hanson's argument is that Westerners are simply better at war than other civilizations, because most Westerners were influenced by the Ancient Greeks, who developed a superior method of combat and of developing innovations than other nations did. Is Hanson's theory 100% the One True Answer? No, the rise of Japan and the invincibility of Mongol raiders rather puts his theory to fault, but it's at least as important as geography. There are all kinds of "one factor" arguments possible, all of which could make for as convincing a book as this one.

Victorian historians thought it was the vigor of "Nordic" civilizations which made Western world domination inevitable: also convincing if that was the only book you had read on that particular day, and also ultimately deeply silly (basically, this means the West dominates because it is dominant). Other Victorian historians made out human history to be the product of great battles, all of which had a huge element of random chance.

Yeah and lemme guess, all those African things you listed were made in a non nomadic civilization.

Attached: 5d4dd19d6e028.image.jpg (400x301, 9.76K)

> Basically that geography and isolation caused Africa to be shitty and not Africans?
it may very well be that africans played a part, as in that they did not wish to develop or could not because they were too dumb themselves.

However to say that geography and isolation did not play a huge part in this is some bs you don't believe in your life. Of course it did. It is a universal phenomenon though it knows exceptions, that in rough climates and sorrounded by deserts or oceans without much exchange with other cultures, you will not develop very much. Of course that is true. Heat is an enemy to hard work and a cool head to think with try living in those regions and see how well it is working out for you.

The mesopotamian areas had cultural exchange despite the deserts and the heats, I believe the vast african wilderness offered less opportunity.

But the character of the people plays a large part. Africans are tribal and nature bound, they developed athletic bodies to perform well in their environment but not the brains to develop great civilizations.

Spengler also famously thought of civilizations as "cultural organisms" which eventually get old, become frail and die, just like any other organism whose telemeres have gotten shorter. I would imagine, like in, say, finance, the actual explanation for history is kind of complicated. I bet the Greek way of war has something to do with it, along with geography, culture, the Catholic Church, language and a whole lot of random chance. It's nice to think we know exactly why something happened, but a lot of what happens in the world, especially the world of human beings, is just plain random noise. Putting one factor explanations on history as Diamond does is not particularly helpful.

There is also the matter of historical perspective. Diamond writes as if everything leading up to the present time of European world cultural domination were some kind of historical inevitability, and that *of course* -thus it will always be. This is the sheerest nonsense. At various times in human history, "Western Civilization" consisted of illiterate barbarians living in mud huts. In very recent times in human history (like, say, the 1930s), it kind of looked like that's where the West was heading again. Other civilizations culturally and physically eclipsed or dominated the West through history: the Japanese, the Chinese, the Islamic civilizations, Egyptian, Assyrian, Mongolian, Persian or Russian (if you count them as different, which I do) civilizations made Western civilization irrelevant through vast swathes of human history. Such civilizations may again eclipse Western civilization. Just to take one example, the Zoroastrian Persian civilization lasted longer than Rome, covered more territory and was in many ways more advanced: they even generally beat the Romans in warfare in the middle east.