Why does the white man have so much cargo?
Jared Diamond began his quest to discover the roots of inequality when an acquaintance, native to Papua New Guinea, asked why the white men had so much more “cargo” than the people of Papua New Guinea. The theories that arose out of his study were published in the book “Guns, Germs and Steel”.
National Geographic did a documentary series based on Jared Diamonds book, which explores Diamond’s conclusions on why some civilizations have historically enjoyed tremendous prosperity and development while others languished. The three part series is an intriguing study of Diamonds exploration – well worth watching.
Knosha 
I was going to suggest that you read this in the wheat post a few days ago! very comprehensive approach to understanding where we are today.
Jackson
May 11, 2010 at 6:02 pm
You might enjoy some of the critiques of this book as much as the book itself: it makes both cultural anthropologists and geographers go into a tizzy of disagreement.
Here’s an overview of some of the anthro objections:
http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2005/08/03/ggs
Here’s a good geography one:
http://osdir.com/ml/science.economics.progressive-economists/2005-07/msg00332.html
aimeejessica
May 29, 2010 at 6:58 am
And as cultural anthropologists and geographers do so, archaeologists and ancient historians point and laugh…
Both the book and the critiques for that matter contain a number of fundamental flaws and inaccuracies in their approach and methodology, most of which are invariably the result of the wide gap in our archaeological evidence (or the lack of proper training in its subsequent interpretation).
voukie
May 30, 2010 at 9:17 am
Damn! Even Aimee’s DOG, Vouk is smarter than I am.
You’ve got to be one smart puppy to start pointing out fundamental flaws and inaccuracies in other people’s approaches and methodologies.
What are you feeding that dog??
It’s that fresh-off-the-cart karpouzi that they sell via megaphone at 6am, isn’t it? I KNEW there had to be something special about those damn melons that it was legal to sell them at that hour and at that decibel. I didn’t realize “giant melon” for “big head” was yet another greek derivataive.
(Yikes. I couldn’t find any english to greek translation of “I’m joking.” Translate please, Aimee.)
alisap
June 1, 2010 at 5:08 pm
(I hope Yiannis is ‘Voukie.’)
alisap
June 1, 2010 at 5:09 pm
I read today that “the average bushman had a stool weight of two pounds and the “civilized” men had a stool weight of only four ounces – that’s 87.5 percent smaller!” So, they’ve got that on us.
That is some serious cargo.
Even I have a few things to say about the approaches and methodologies used in that study.
alisap
June 1, 2010 at 5:39 pm
Diamond’s book is a little out of date on genetics. Recent studies have shown that there was an increase in genetic change with the development of agriculture and population expansion in eurasia. Some of these changes appear to relate to neurological function (see papers by Benjamin Voight, Bruce Lahn or Scott Williams).
New York Times science writer Nicholas Wade’s book ‘Before the Dawn’ covers some of this, as does the more recent ‘The 10,000 Year Explosion: How Civilization Accelerated Human Evolution’.
chen019
June 11, 2010 at 7:30 pm
I have indeed trained my dog Voukie to follow me closely when I’m on the internets and pee wherever I pee, thus keeping me humble with his superior peeing. He points out the flaws in my methodologies all the time. Usually as a distraction so that he can steal something tasty off of my dinner plate. And I always fall for it.
Speaking of Before the Dawn, has anybody seen this new Sex at Dawn book? I dislike evolutionary explanations about why we do anything in general, but enjoy the fact that this book says the opposite stuff of the rest of them. I am amused.
aimeejessica
July 8, 2010 at 12:09 am
I like the “Before the Dawn” excerpts and podcasts. The women had sex with as many men as they wanted and EVERYONE SHARED responsibility for the children. Sign me up for that society!!
alisap
July 10, 2010 at 6:22 pm
Books like Diamond’s always need to be taken with more than a pinch of salt. Docs like the NATGEO doc need great pillars of salt in the mix. Causal relations are notoriously difficult to demonstrate. Demonstrating cause is one of the great challenges in law and science, but often is glossed over as though post hoc ergo propter hoc is an airtight argument.
That said, a lot can be learned from attempts to find root causes. Very interesting information can be collected, if not always properly connected.
Of the critiques leveled against Diamonds theory, one that is completely irrelevant in the evaluation of the truth of his theory is that of the social (i.e. racial) implications. Whether, as Diamonds advocates claim, his theory dispels racial prejudices, or as the detractors claim it promotes racism the implications of an argument have no relevance in evaluating the soundness of the logic applied or the accuracy of the DATA reasoned from. I believe Henry Farrell is quoted as saying something along these lines in one of the articles Aimmee posted.
Sensitivity to the social impact of a theory being adopted is important, but has no place in the analysis of an argument. The sciences must strive to remain unprejudiced by social bias, including the bias to treat everyone equitably.
Ideas do have consequences, which is all the more reason to make sure the reasoning is sound, both in the formation of the theory and the critical response to the theory.
I should perhaps add, I understand that not all of the race based arguments for or against Diamond’s theories are employing unsound reasoning. Because ideas of race are entwined in Diamond’s argument, evaluating his ideas of race is a necessary part of evaluating the premises and presuppositions he is reasoning from. There is a difference however between judging an argument by the strength of the argument and judging and argument by the desirability or the unpleasantness of its implications – a difference that is often missed.
Aaron Nee
July 18, 2010 at 11:33 am