aquamarine05
Official Newbie
Posts: 6
(4/26/05 11:04 pm)I am mostly through the Prologue and I have to agree with everyone in that I enjoy the way Diamond has clearly laid out his five point framework as well as the eight critical (and then later adds four more to make 12) factors that lead to a society's success or failure.
However, I felt as if the author was trying to be too politically correct with some statements, almost apologetic at points. I understand he wants to cover his butt just as much as anyone else in this age of tedious legalities and frivolous lawsuits. It was just a little much when he kept talking about how it is morally wrong to subjugate, dominate or basically take advantage of another group of people, specifically native peoples. (Although, I think he has a good point when he talks about how both native and modern peoples have contributed to deforestation and resource depletion) I guess I just expected that with his matter of fact style, he would treat domination from one group to another as a matter-of-fact point.
Being a minority (whatever that means now-a-days), I used to get very upset about anything that could come across negative about domination, racism, sexism, etc. The more educated I became, I realized that it has been a repeated pattern throughout history, which doesn't make it right, but that is what happened.
So, there I go....I critiqued the author for being too politically correct, then I go and cover my own butt by being politically correct....go figure.
I am enjoying Diamond's points so far and look forward to the rest....
wwdimmitt
Brand Spankin' New
Posts: 3
(4/29/05 7:33 pm)Regarding the exchange between the MadArchitect and Mr.P above, I would offer two observations/comments:
1. I think that there are many, many examples where new species have been imported into an ecosystem which was not adapted to or by them. I would argue that in every case of such a foreign introduction the new species was either wiped out very quickly due to climate, altitude, virulent disease, lack of food supply, or predators, or the new species found no barriers, and multiplied so rapidly that they were a major upset in the new ecosystem.
Obvious examples are the rabbits in Australia, the grass snakes in Hawaii, those marine snails on the Eastern Seaboard, and so forth. The failures are not so well known, but just think about tropical animals or plants in the arctic, or vice versa.
The exception to this rule is homo sapiens, the most adaptable animal on our planet. The only animal that has adapted to live in every lifezone on the planet, although in a few only temporarily, or with great mechanical assistance, as in underwater ecosystems.
When it comes to human beings, we have to be considered in a class by ourselves both as a threat to any environment, and as a possible conservator in any environment. No other species has the flexibilty and the power that we do to either destroy or save any ecosystem.
And no other species has the ability to make a concious decision regarding those actions.
2. The way that I see Diamond's argument is that, so far, there has been a steady, and inevitable progression of human organization from extended family groups, to tribal groups, to village groups, to chiefdom groups, to nations, and finally to multi-national groups that we have today, like the European Union.
If we are to be successful in maximizing scientific and technical progress, we must continue that trend. He argues very persuasivley that it was because Euroasia got an early start on agriculture that led them to bronze and iron, and that fueled the further concentration that led to Renaisance, and the technogical explosion that has occured since that time.
It logically follows that World Government is the next, and inevitable step. The only way to maximize our technology will be to rationalize all the human potential, and utilize all the natural resources in a more efficient manner.
History suggest that that is exactly what we will do, no matter what the cost may be to other species, or even to recalcitrant groups who resist that pressure within our own species.
How's that for a two-edged sword??
WW
MadArchitect
Brand Spankin' New
Posts: 461
(4/30/05 4:21 am)wwdimmitt:
The exception to this rule is homo sapiens, the most adaptable animal on our planet.I wouldn't say that we're an exception at all, and that if you look at various instances, you'll see that we've failed in some attempts to inhabit particular places, and that in all other instances we've overrun whatever environment we've settled in.
2. The way that I see Diamond's argument is that, so far, there has been a steady, and inevitable progression of human organization from extended family groups, to tribal groups, to village groups, to chiefdom groups, to nations, and finally to multi-national groups that we have today, like the European Union.If that's part of Diamond's argument, then I would tend to disagree. The most glaring example of a retrograde progression would be the collapse of the Roman Empire and the return to less developed forms of social organization during the Middle Ages. That is by no means the only example, though. In fact, from what I've read in this forum, Diamond himself deals with the Maya, who went through a similar retrograde step from nations (or a multi-national group) back to the level of dispersed village groups.
It logically follows that World Government is the next, and inevitable step.I think T.S. Eliot presents some very interesting and viable reasons why that idea is unlikely at best, and possibly even detrimental.
wwdimmitt
Official Newbie
Posts: 7
(4/30/05 2:58 pm)that if you look at various instances, you'll see that we've failed in some attempts to inhabit particular places, and that in all other instances we've overrun whatever environment we've settled in.Could you provide us with an example or two of those failures? Not an example of a temporary failure, but examples of any significant portion of the earth that we do not presently inhabit, and dominate??
I just got out my globe, and none are apparent to me. We have permanent facilities in Antarctica, which is surely the most inhospitable area of the earth on land. We live under the ocean for months on end. We traipse up and down Everest in virtual trains of mediocre climbers led by top notch climbers. We produce oil and minerals in the deepest deserts and the bottoms of the seas. We use space to enhance our technical powers and tools. Where are the areas that we have failed, for more than a brief period of time?
The most glaring example of a retrograde progression would be the collapse of the Roman Empire and the return to less developed forms of social organization during the Middle AgesI apologize for being imprecise with my language. I did not mean to state or imply that the progression has smooth, or without some very significant bumps and jumps. I meant to state, that after you smooth out the regressions, the bumps and the jumps, the long run result is a progression to more and more centralized social and political organization for all human groups.
A prime example is what has happened to that former Roman Empire. The most ambitious centralization so far, the European Union now occupies nearly all of the former Empire, plus large areas and populations that were not included in the Roman Empire.
Would you care to articulate the reasons that the idea of world government is unlikely??
I understand many of the philosophical objections to that level of centralization of power, and the obvious dangers that it implies, but do you see any long term trends in human experience that make it unlikely??
misterpessimistic
Enlightened One
Posts: 1383
(4/30/05 3:14 pm)wwdimmitt:
I agree with much of your posts! Thanks for the excellent contributions!
I was going to comment on Mad's Roman Empire example, implying that progression to a world government would/could/may not happen. I saw it as a hiccup as well...a momentary slide backward followed by a quick thrust into the next gear.
Mr. P.
MadArchitect
Brand Spankin' New
Posts: 462
(5/1/05 3:23 am)wwdimmitt:
Not an example of a temporary failure, but examples of any significant portion of the earth that we do not presently inhabit, and dominate??That would, I think, be a false guideline. A proper analogy would deal with populations, and not humanity as an entire species. After all, you could look at the gray squirrel, who have more or less taken over the eastern seaboard after their introduction by European migrant vessels, as a representative of squirreldom as a whole, but it would be rather misleading to do so.
We have permanent facilities in Antarctica, which is surely the most inhospitable area of the earth on land.None of those are permanent habitats, though. They're all scientific research facilities, which means temportary inhabitants, cycled out over time. You could probably count first generation Antarticans on one hand.
Where are the areas that we have failed, for more than a brief period of time?Until we have inhabited the ocean, the Artics, and space for entire generation, I hesitate to consider them conquered territory.
I did not mean to state or imply that the progression has smooth, or without some very significant bumps and jumps.Personally, I don't believe in progress as an unbroken line, and I would say that the progress of the post-Victorian era is substantially and qualitatively different than the progress of the Roman Empire. Any long-term view of history as strictly progressive is likely revisionist
at best.
Would you care to articulate the reasons that the idea of world government is unlikely??Eliot's rationale is that cultural differences are necessary in order to make culture recognizable at all, and that without culture as a conscious part of social integration, we're very likely to fall into a pluralistic political oppostionalism. The gist is that absolute uniformity is not identity at all, but the opposite: non-identity, leading into absolute dissintegration. Personally, I think that difference of opinion is so ubiquitous that the only way to achieve "World Governance" is via either the abstraction of governance to a untenable mediocrit, or through the worst form of totalitarianism imaginable, of the sort that would have given Orwell the heeby-jeebies.
I understand many of the philosophical objections to that level of centralization of power, and the obvious dangers that it implies, but do you see any long term trends in human experience that make it unlikely??A close look at nearly any industrialized nation on the planet is likely to reveal a population that is virulently divided on every major issue (which is more or less how we define the notion of a "major issue"), so yes, I see just as many trends in human experience that would make total centralization unlikely.
misterpessimistic:
I saw it as a hiccup as well...a momentary slide backward followed by a quick thrust into the next gear.Let's bear in mind that this particular hiccup lasted all of about a fourth of recorded history, and that the period of organization prior to the fall was achieved largely by the imperialistic oppression of anyone who was not Roman by birth. Rather than the hiccup that was the Middle Ages, perhaps we should take some time to scrutinize the belch that was Roman progress.
misterpessimistic
Enlightened One
Posts: 1388
(5/1/05 11:15 am)Quote:
A close look at nearly any industrialized nation on the planet is likely to reveal a population that is virulently divided on every major issue (which is more or less how we define the notion of a "major issue"
Yet, they continue to function. There will always be opposing sides, should we give up on national government too by this reasoning?
Quote:
Let's bear in mind that this particular hiccup lasted all of about a fourth of recorded history,
And lets bear in mind that our recorded history is but a hiccup compared to the totality of recorded and unrecorded history combined.
Mr. P.
wwdimmitt
Kinda New Still
Posts: 12
(5/1/05 12:30 pm)A proper analogy would deal with populations, and not humanity as an entire species.A reasonable argument, except that it begs the question. Is the human species unique in its ability to adapt, or not?? In order to answer that question it will be necessary to deal with the whole species, which is what I see Diamond attempting to do.
Until we have inhabited the ocean, the Artics, and space for entire generation, I hesitate to consider them conquered territory.Yes, I agree with your point here, but I find it interesting that you chose to say "conquered territory". I was think in terms of "occupied", or "employed" territory. I'll have to think about that one. But, I still maintain that there has been a trend for several centuries, and at an accelerating rate, that our technology is expanding to employ resources from every corner of the planet, no matter how difficult the local conditions may be.
Any long-term view of history as strictly progressive is likely revisionist at best.I think that that is one of the premises that Diamond is attempting to refute. I would refer you to his chart labeled, "Factors Underlying the Broader Pattern of History", in Chap. 4 of GGS. In my copy it is at page 87.
It is a major part of his argument that an east-west axis, the availability of plants and animals for domestication, and the resulting food surpluses are the ultimate factors leading to human success in dominating the entire planet. So far.
And one of the primary proximate factors growing from those ultimate factors is technology.
The gist is that absolute uniformity is not identity at all, but the opposite: non-identity, leading into absolute disintegration.I think I would tend to agree with that statement, but where do you see the trend toward "absolute uniformity"?
The more technology expands, and diversifies, the less we have uniformity.
I used to be concerned that our media were becoming too uniform, but along comes the Internet and just the opposite happens.
In my youth there were 3 networks on television. Now I receive 300 channels on my satellite, and the range of subject matter and viewpoint seems to grow every year. ( I just wish that the production quality would grow with the variety!)
Personally, I think that difference of opinion is so ubiquitous that the only way to achieve "World Governance" is via either the abstraction of governance to a untenable mediocrit, or through the worst form of totalitarianism imaginable, of the sort that would have given Orwell the heeby-jeebies.Why is it that a very effective model like our Federal Republic, based on the tenets of the Declaration of Independence can work successfully for the largest and most diverse economy on the planet, but that a similar worldwide Republic, based on the same tenets, would not work for the whole planet??
Do you see our government as an "untenable mediocrity"?
A close look at nearly any industrialized nation on the planet is likely to reveal a population that is virulently divided on every major issue (which is more or less how we define the notion of a "major issue" , so yes, I see just as many trends in human experience that would make total centralization unlikely.This statement seems to be directly opposed to your argument in the paragraphs above. We have steadily, but jerkily, for at least 3000 years, been moving to centralize political power, culture and language.
The effect of this centralization has been to greatly increase food production on the whole planet, and through that to make technological progress (change?) possible.
Why would we reverse, or abandon, this long term trend before reaching the ultimate level of having one world government?
Do you think it is possible to maximize our use of Earth's resources and to maximize our technological possibilities if we don't continue the trend toward worldwide centralization??
What if it is the key to developing practical space travel?
MadArchitect
Brand Spankin' New
Posts: 462
(5/1/05 11:14 pm)misterpessimistic:
Yet, they continue to function.Whether or not nations divided on major issues continue to function depends a great deal on the scope of affairs. Look at the history of just about any nation in a large enough time frame and you'll see that they almost invariably fail to continue functioning. If you look only at the nations that are currently in existence, you might come to the conclusion that they're fairly stable entities. But the current roster of functioning nations makes up only a small percentage of total number of nations that have existed throughout history. Even within our own lifetimes we've seen the geo-political landscape change radically in major sections of the global political theater. I won't deny the possibility of consolidated world governance, but the story that history tends to tell is that global and near-global consolidation are usually only made possible by conquest rather than consensus, and that such empire tend not to outlive whatever social or individual genius has facilitated them, cf. the Roman Empire, the empire of Alexander, the empire of Napolean, the Chu and Chin empires, the English empire, etc.
And lets bear in mind that our recorded history is but a hiccup compared to the totality of recorded and unrecorded history combined.And do you propose to analyze social institutions based on inferences drawn from unrecorded history? Recorded history is our best resource for understanding the life-cycle of social institutions. You can dismiss historical analysis if you like, but all that does is set our discussion adrift with no hope of providing a foundation -- unless, of course, you hope to use the ideology of Progress as a basis.
wwdimmitt:
Is the human species unique in its ability to adapt, or not??Adapt in what sense? The entire intellectual foundation of modern science rests on the assumption (corraborated by observation) that all species adapt. But I think the point is somewhat confused by the jargoned uses of the term "adapt". What we observe in human populations is not adaptation in the strictly evolutionary sense. We have seen, in the what you might call the eras of Progress, very little human adaptation. What we have seen is innovation, particularly social and technological innovation, but there are some characteristics which distinguish this innovation from adaptation. An important one is that innovation does not, and may not have to the potential to, individuate species. That underwater breathing apparatus has allowed us to survive in what would otherwise be an environment to hostile to explore is not likely to result in a new evolutionary branch of humanity, whereas the adaptation of land animals to survive underwater would result in a new species, distinct and irrecoverably cut off from the old. Another distinguishing characteristic is that innovations may be shed, not only by the individual but by the society and, conceivably, by the species as a whole. An example of the first would be the removal of SCUBA gear by a diver; of the second, the abandonment by 20th century Europeans of the telegraph; and of the third, the hypothetical abandonment of horseback-riding in the event of an equine extinction.
But, I still maintain that there has been a trend for several centuries, and at an accelerating rate, that our technology is expanding to employ resources from every corner of the planet, no matter how difficult the local conditions may be.This is a trend that I think will eventually prove itself to be untenable as a long-term strategy.
I would refer you to his chart labeled, "Factors Underlying the Broader Pattern of History", in Chap. 4 of GGS. In my copy it is at page 87.I'll see if I can find a copy. If you haven't read elsewhere, I'm conducting this conversation more or less blind to its instigating source. In other words, I'm not reading "Collapse", and don't plan to until I can clear away a good 20-30 books that have a better claim to my time.
It is a major part of his argument that an east-west axis, the availability of plants and animals for domestication, and the resulting food surpluses are the ultimate factors leading to human success in dominating the entire planet.To call that progess seems to me dangerously close to implying a form of design. At the very least, the word "progress" indicated linear direction. That's a problematic notion, particularly in that we are viewing the whole of history from a supposed end-point, or from near that end-point. Any time you speak of historical progress, it's important to ask, at least implicitly, "progress in reference to what?" If the answer is, "in reference to the state of things as they are right now", then of course a general view of history will reveal that events have tended towards this point. But that's a rather facile, circular view of progress, and it is not sufficient, I think, as a basis for charting a cultural trajectory into the future.
I think I would tend to agree with that statement, but where do you see the trend toward "absolute uniformity"?A centralized world government would be an absolute uniformity of governance, even if smaller geo-political units were allowed to retain certain aspects of governance on a local level. Even then, in order to sustain itself, a global government would have to dictate that certain
forms of local governance were untenable because of their incompatability with the global governance. The result would be a tendency towards absolute uniformity, where local governance is determined by decisions made in reference to the superior body rather than to the conditions unique to the smaller geopolitical region.
I used to be concerned that our media were becoming too uniform, but along comes the Internet and just the opposite happens.My experience suggests that the internet is become more and more uniform as it ages, and that the peripheral technologies that have been added to it allow increasingly sophisticated presentation and method, but are directed to fewer and fewer forms of content. To cast it in a biological metaphor, the population may be getting larger, but the adaptations and variations are growing more and more cosmetic.
Why is it that a very effective model like our Federal Republic, based on the tenets of the Declaration of Independence can work successfully for the largest and most diverse economy on the planet, but that a similar worldwide Republic, based on the same tenets, would not work for the whole planet??Quite frankly, I would say that the problems encountered in the American federal republic are due in very large part to the application of its methods to a population that is only just small enough to sustain order. The larger our population grows, the more strain is put on the governmental form. I hesitate to put it in a time frame, but it seems clear to me that our present form of governance is ultimately unsustainable, and will either undergo heavy alteration or total collapse in the foreseeable future.
We have steadily, but jerkily, for at least 3000 years, been moving to centralize political power, culture and language.I don't know that you can really attribute that tendency to a span as large as 3000 years. After all, during that time we've seen the breakdown of Latin into the Romance languages, and prior to that the proliferation of Indo-European languages from proto-Indo European. Political power hasn't so much consolidated or centralized as it has tended towards expression in larger forms, but even there we find that centralization and consolidation tend as often to occur in artificial circumstances, as with the binding of the Russian regions under the Soviet regime and their eventual dissolution into the so-called Soviet states. The centralizations in culture, language and politics in evendence now are all largely the result of the popularization of the nationalist ideal during the 17th century, but there's no garuntee that the forces which mobilized that ideal will still be effective in the centuries to come, just as the present and intervening centuries have given lie to the idea that the democratic city-state was the eternal form of the highest possible state. Personally, I think there are compelling reasons to believe that the structures that seem to most in the first world to be an obviously progressive step are sturcturally dependent on certain cultural mores and preconceptions that are as likely to change as the mores and preconceptions of previous centuries.
Why would we reverse, or abandon, this long term trend before reaching the ultimate level of having one world government?The short form answer is: because we feel some incentive to do so. The long form answer will have to be the subject of a longer discussion. But then, I don't think it's patently obvious that a single global government is the ideal scenario, and there are very likely a great number of people who would agree.
Do you think it is possible to maximize our use of Earth's resources and to maximize our technological possibilities if we don't continue the trend toward worldwide centralization??That depends on what you mean by maximize. To maximize without conservable limits, or merely to maximize regardless? And maximize towards what end? That's a crucial question when it comes to the matter of total centralization, because the fact of our condition is that our centralization requires a center. So when you speak of worldwide centralization, it seems clear to me that such discourse implies a center, very likely one premised on a given ideology, even if that discourse fails to name a center.
What if it is the key to developing practical space travel?Then I'd say we'd better damn well make it to space before we exhaust our resources, and hope that our entrance into space rewards us with further resources. I wouldn't say that's a very good plan, though. Imagine feudal China running clean out of resources, then setting out across the Gobi to find more resources. It wouldn't have been a very promising venture, to say the least.
Tweet This Topic
