Can we all agree it does a decent job explaining why places like

File: 1426613085791.jpg (96KB, 640x630px) Image search: [Google]

96KB, 640x630px

>>1903648

>but it fails to explain why Europe industrialized before China?

It explains that too. The rivalries in Europe promoted a nigh constant arms race that wasn't present in China.

>>1903648
Explain on what you mean on industrialized

Do you mean the industrial revolution or general productivity?

>>1903659
He says that, but it is more of a side note that he would have to write an entire other book about. He gives an explanation, but he doesn't prove it. He "proves" why the New world and Sub-Saharan Africa lagged behind, and uses 90% of the book to explain it.

How many of these threads do we need each day?

File: 5hss.jpg (34KB, 450x452px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 450x452px

>implying Great Man theory doesn't overrule geographical determinism
Have some pride in humanity, you cocksuckers. We created wonders and told the nature to fuck off the moment humans learned how to spark fire and build a shelter. Great medieval plagues was the last time nature stood in the way of Man in any serious way

>>1903648

>>1903659

These

I prefer Pursuit of Power tb-h. Mcneil>Diamond

>>1903676

The purpose of the book isn't to discuss the industrial revolution but rather development way further back. So a more extensive explanation is not needed.

>>1903659
>>1903694
No, it was because the mongols completely eviscerated the chinese and islamic empires, which left a power vacuum that the europeans eventually filled

>>1903746

The mongols did not eradicate chinese culture, they simply reinstated another Dynasty. So no, there was no power vacuum after the mongols came through. Besides, the power vacuum left by the arabs was filled by the turks - not the europeans.

>>1903689
>2016
>still unironically believes the big guy theory

The 19th century is over you can let the romanticism go now.

>>1903840
Only when geographical determinism, the kind Jared Diamond promotes, and historical materialism go too.

>>1903812
This. Mongols were a fucking crazy tidal wave of slaughter in history. They literally killed like 17% of all humans.

>>1903812
The Ottomans were set to dominate the world before Europe discovered the Americas.

>>1903648
>decent job
it was a pretty shitty job, he takes minor things and blows them out of proportion when he should be putting things in order of importance

>>1903648

Since when did this board become infested with reddit? This entire book has been shit on and debunked in painstaking detail by countless sources on both sides of the political spectrum. This book is cancer and does as shit job of representing even it's own views.

>>1903648
Magical success clay theory is fucking retarded. Europe advanced because Christian culture is best culture.

>>1903689
Sorry, Great Men came along and overturned Great Man Theory.

>>1904976

Europe was successful long before Christian Culture become dominant, not trying to deny the contributions the church made but you just think that because islam destroyed the middle east and you can't help but compare the two.

History doesn't begin with Constantine the great.

>>1903648
It isnt inherently wrong but things as complex as the development of human societies can't be accurately described by one factor. There is too much random noise in the world for it to ever be that clean. There has to be some discussion of culture which is greatly influenced by the environment but not completely bound by it. There is also random things like the mongols or the black plague that can randomly set one region back hundreds of years. These are not determined by geography. I mean he is right in saying that people cannot make something out of nothing and if an area doesn't have large animals obviously nothing will be doneaticated. But then again something maize can undergo an enormous transformation by man's actions.

>>1905083

>If an area doesn't have large animals obviously nothing will be doneaticated.

Anything can be domesticated or altered to a suited task given time, do you think horses were just already phiscaly fit and ready to be mounted from the get go? It's just a matter of time preference, the only thing holding you back is age span of the animal.

>>1904927
t. mehmed

>>1905141
So what you are trying to tell me is that people domesticated horses for thousands of year knowing that one they would be ridable. Obviously this is ridulous, horses were fairly large mammals but their primary purpose was that of food source. People don't make plans thousands of years in advance. In many ways it is like evolution. Their had to be a use for the animals at the time of their domestication and it had to have seemed like a good bargain for those who first started the domestication. It is not worth it to try and domesticate deer because people could never keep them contained and thus as soon as you collected some they would run away. The world doesn't bend to the will of man; man is mearly able to see the larger picture generally.

It's an interesting read. The soil/terrain of Africa may hindered agricultural development. But at no point did it address how culture informs evolutionary selective pressures. That's its glaring problem.

>>1903648
Why do you care so much about how bad africa was/is ?

File: nigger 16.jpg (27KB, 635x762px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 635x762px

>>1903648

No it's a terrible piece of shit. Geographical determinism is jewish pseudo science. Africans have an average IQ of 79 this is the only reason they barely progressed past cannibalism over thousands of years. That's it anyone trying to find other reasons is disingenuous and is trying to push an egalitarian agenda

>The average African IQ is estimated at 79.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0191886912003741