venusunderfire wrote:

DWill wrote:Venus, I'm curious about your user name.

"Venus" is my favorite planet, mythic goddess, and plant (the flytrap, although I'm fascinating by all carnivorous plants). "Under Fire" comes from my love of debate. And I have some pretty out-there views, compared to most people.

What does your username mean, DWill?

Hint: Take a look at the post where he introduces himself - the very first post on this thread.

Saffron wrote: Hint: Take a look at the post where he introduces himself - the very first post on this thread.

Ah! I feel silly now! I need more coffee! Hehe.

Saffron wrote:I am another one in the group who has spent some time in school dabbling with Anthropology. It was my undergrad minor (art major).

That is so wonderful! I rarely get to meet people who have a lot of interest in anthropology. What did you think of the list and order of the "causal" factors I provided above and the way Jared Diamond presents them in his "whirlwind tour" in chapter 1? Are there any missing from the list or ones you think should go in a different order?

I know people might eventually come to think I focus a little too much on the effect alphabetic writing on human culture and human brain, but it's just something I've recently started studying and it fascinates me to no end. I think for Diamond's purposes, he lumps tools/writing all into one big bundle called "technology;" and some groups developed these technologies because their environments provided the opportunity (rich in metal, papyrus, clay, wax) and some didn't for the same reasons. What do you think? Does a group of people need to have a specific kind of environment to develop writing, the same way they need the right environment to develop metallury?

Saffron wrote:I found Colapsed fascinating and enjoyed the read even though it was long. So far, this one is off to a great start.

I still need to read this one. I watched the NatGeo show based off this book a while back and I really enjoyed it.

venusunderfire wrote:

Saffron wrote: Hint: Take a look at the post where he introduces himself - the very first post on this thread.

Ah! I feel silly now! I need more coffee! Hehe.

I think you've got the idea, but the W may surprise you. I'll let him decide if he wants to share that peice of information.

venusunderfire wrote:What did you think of the list and order of the "causal" factors I provided above and the way Jared Diamond presents them in his "whirlwind tour" in chapter 1? Are there any missing from the list or ones you think should go in a different order?

I've been thinking about it since I read your post this morning. It looks right on to me. And don't worry about appearing too stuck on your interest in alphabetic writing. You will soon see that each of us has something we are stuck on. That last question you asked about development of writing is a good one. Off the top of my head, it seems to me that other developments in the culture will have to lead to the need of a written language. In my opinion people are very inventive when the need of something arises. I think there is a lot in the old adage, "were there is a will, there is a way."

With this discussion group well under way, I'd better get through the preliminaries and join in.
My name is Dwight. I'm a recently retired teacher living with my wife, also a teacher, in Gatineau, Quebec, Canada. Most of my teaching was in multicultural schools in low income areas in Toronto, but the last eight years of teaching were in two Inuit communities in Canada's newest territory of Nunavut (established 1999). In the discussions, I expect to be drawing from some of those experiences and talks with Inuit elders, some of whom, in their youth, lived as their ancestors did over the last ten thousand years.

I read the book about 5 years ago, viewed the Nat Geo videos, and enjoyed a few of Diamond's interviews on YouTube. Now, if you'll excuse me, I'll put another log on the fire, settle back with a fresh cup of coffee and try to complete part one of the book.

This is starting off in a very promising way. There might be too many ideas to manage well, but that's perfectly okay. I like the way venusunderfire got us thinking about why alphabetic writing would be dependent on the other material factors Diamond talks about. The typical explanation, I think, is that as agriculture really got going, a class of people called accountants was created. Well, kidding, but there did seem to be a need to keep track of stuff by making marks on whatever could retain an impression. But from there, I'm not really sure how the miraculous development of graphemes came about. I assume that in some cultures, the writing remained entirely pictographic.

It sounds as though we generally agree that Diamond leans a bit too heavily on his experience in New Guinea, and he doesn't convince us. He's probably trying to generate interest by using his own life, which he also did in the beginning of Collapse. It's a good nonfiction technique, but you need to be careful with it.

Edit: For venus, since I started off with disclosure, my first name is Willard. I'm a bit mifffed with the presidential candidate whose first name is also Willard but chooses to call himself Mitt!

I haven't forgotten about the book--really. I ran into something called an ethics book for counselors and psychotherapists and have had to devote some time at the kitchen table trying to focus attention on it. It's for work, 'nuff said.

It's a good thumbnail of human species development D. gives in "To the Starting Line." He wants to get us to the launch pad for his theory, so he sets up the human world as it was around 11,000 BC and asks if there are any clues as yet to why the continents developed as they did. He concludes that there wouldn't have been enough clues at that time; if we were to guess based on available information, we would get the 'wrong' conclusions. We might think that Australia/New Guinea would be the first pioneers.

I was impressed again by the ability of the fairly recent homo sapiens to change the environment. D. believes, along with many others, that extinctions of megafauna in the Americas and Australia/New Guinea were the result of humans killing all of these unwary animals. In the case of Australia, every one of the large mammals was driven to extinction, meaning that none would later be available for domestication, which had dramatic consequences for world history. It's ironic that the bounty that the 'American' hunters found meant that they would use up the resource and handicap their later development by leaving them more vulnerable to marauders from across the sea.

There is also evidence of other ecological change brought on by hunter/gatherers, mostly from the strategic use of fire. Parenthetically, the book by Charles Mann titled 1491, comes to mind. A jacket blurb calls it "Provocative...A Jared Diamond-like volley that challenges prevailing thinking about global development." Another blurb goes, "Our concept of pure wilderness untouched by grubby human hands must be jettisoned." I've had the book for some time...maybe I'll now get around to reading it.

I haven't forgotten either - between the beautiful weather here in Virginia and family visiting for the holiday I've been occupied. I promise to be back on track by this evening.

My daughter brought up an interesting piece of information that fits right in with Chap. 1. She told me that one way that biologist search for the geographic origin of an organism is by looking for the location that has the greatest genetic diversity. For humans, apparently, the greatest genetic diversity occurs in Africa. This fact adds support to modern humans originating in Africa. I also wanted to point out Diamond's mention at the bottom of p.40 and onto the top of p.41 Cro-Magnons and Neanderthals as a mini example of his theory. He says there is no evidence of hybridization and indicated that Cro-Magnons out did the Neanderthal. In the past year I've read there is evidence that there are indicators there is genetic evidence of Neanderthal DNA in modern humans. If this is the case, it may not break Diamonds case; I only bring it up so we can keep track of what holds water and what does not. And the question will be do we have we a flood or a drip.

New York Times 7/5/2010
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/07/scien ... rthal.html

Neanderthals mated with some modern humans after all and left their imprint in the human genome, a team of biologists has reported in the first detailed analysis of the Neanderthal genetic sequence. The biologists, led by Svante Paabo of the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig, Germany, have been slowly reconstructing the genome of Neanderthals, the stocky hunters that dominated Europe until 30,000 years ago, by extracting the fragments of DNA that still exist in their fossil bones. Just last year, when the biologists first announced that they had decoded the Neanderthal genome, they reported no significant evidence of interbreeding.
Scientists say they have recovered 60 percent of the genome so far and hope to complete it. By comparing that genome with those of various present day humans, the team concluded that about 1 percent to 4 percent of the genome of non-Africans today is derived from Neanderthals. But the Neanderthal DNA does not seem to have played a great role in human evolution, they said.

Guns, Germs and Steel was published in 1997, fourteen years ago. There have been big advances in human genetic mapping since then.

A book I found immensely illuminating on the human story was Out Of Eden - The Peopling of the World by Professor Stephen Oppenheimer.
A summary is at http://www.bradshawfoundation.com/steph ... eading.php

A few comments by Diamond suggested that some more recent findings were more uncertain when he wrote. Especially the controversy over whether the world was peopled by a single exodus from Africa or by multiple waves of migration.

The website The Bradshaw Foundation contains very simple pictorial explanations at a page called The Journey of Mankind of what the DNA evidence says about the dating of the human departure from Africa and the slow migrations to fill the earth. One intriguing factor here is the 21,000 year precessional cycle of glaciation, with interglacials allowing migration into cold areas, and glacial periods, when the sea was more than 100 meters lower, opening up land bridges such as the Bering Strait, the mouth of the Red Sea, Bass Strait and the English Channel.

Really good website. Thanks. Was amazed to discover that Australia was populated before Northern Europe? Or did I just see it wrong. Think I might dip my toe (carefully) into a non fiction discussion.