Why does this book get so much hate?

>>135407783
Because it deserves to.

>>135407783
because most people watch the documentary and base their criticism of the book on the movie.

>>135407783
because it's shallow geographic determinism

>>135407973
That's a real shame I think.
The book clearly deseves a read

>>135407875
fpbp

>>135407979
Haven't read this book, but it has a ton of citations.

If the premise is geographic determinism, then yes, it's not even a question anymore , geography has no independent effects on development after controlling for things like institutions.

>>135408290
Do you believe institutions pop up randomly?

>>135408017
Based on what? I had to read this in high school and even then me and my friends knew it was pseudoscientific crap. It gets completely blown out of the water by the easily-observable reality that blacks and other non-whites consistently do just as poorly regardless of where they are born.

>>135408017
>deserves a read
You clearly have not read it then.

>>135408290
>but it has a ton of citations
Truly the state of higher education in the 21st century in a nutshell. Throw in as many citations as possible to look like you have a case. I have read so many fucking papers doing this it's moronic.

Guns, Germs and Steel aka Magic Dirt: A Sour Grapes Story.

>>135408491
>Based on what?
It gives a good theory about why some regions are/were more civilized than others

> It gets completely blown out of the water by the easily-observable reality that blacks and other non-whites consistently do just as poorly regardless of where they are born.
Asians in white countries regularly outperfom native population

Leftists hate it because it implies that the West's position as rulers of the world is natural.

The Right hates it because it also implies all races are genetically equal when this has been proven not to be the case.

File: UltimaRatioRegum.jpg (9KB, 277x182px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 277x182px

>>135407783
Guns, germs, and steel is interesting.
It makes the argument that Europe came to rule the world because Europe had good resources (in terms of climate, domesticable animals, and crop types).
In this sense it is effectively anti-racist: it denies that any of the white man's advantages come from his genes, rather because he happened to live in a good spot.
However, lefties still hate it because the implication remains that whitey's dominion is LEGITIMATE. They had the best resources and they used them: it is natural that they would become masters of the earth. Lefties despise this almost as much as saying "Niggers are subhumans" though, because the only conclusions they will accept is that whitey gained the upper hand by fraud and genocide.

>>135408719
Does right-wing believe that blacks just randomly happend to evolve a lower iq than whites?

It's a giant just-so story:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just-so_story

He takes too many liberties with his logic.
He basically says "racial/cultural superiority is unnecessary for dominance, therefore, race does not exist".

There's also a good number of cases where he is flat out wrong, due partly to his book being obsolete. For instance;
>Fox domestication wasn't revealed until 10 years after this book was published and alone pokes massive holes in his postulates for domestication.
>Humans HAVE bred with hominids/neanderthals, and their prevalence is heavily regional
>Efforts to domesticate bison were halted predominantly by bottleneck effect, not outright inability to modify them

>>135409121
>However, academics such as David Barash state the term "just so story" when applied to a proposed evolutionary adaptation is simply a derogatory term for a hypothesis. Hypotheses, by definition, require further empirical assessment, and are a part of normal science.[5]

>>135409268
Yep. Problem is that the evidence already overwhelmingly points to genetics as the largest explanatory factory between races living in first world countries. Jared's "theory" can only offer meaningful explanatory power in terms of evolution but that's not what he argues.
>is an unverifiable narrative explanation
It's a just-so story.

>>135409522
>factory
factor*

>>135407783

because it's superficial

>>135407783
(((Jared Diamond))) is just another Jewish racial egalitarian hack who thinks that all races equal and are capable of greatness, given the right environment. He thinks Africans weren't capable of building great and innovative empires because of factors that they couldn't control like climate, disease, topography and Africa fauna, most of which weren't suitable for domestication. What he fails to acknowledge is that impressive empires were being built in more hostile and isolated regions like those in Central America . Also, the fact that he's Jewish and probably knows that racial egalitarianism is a flawed ideology given that his own ethnic group is so overrepresented in Nobel prizes and the elite , despite their small population, tells me this book is more about him convincing Goyim to believe in myths he probably doesn't believe in.

>>135409522
>Problem is that the evidence already overwhelmingly points to genetics as the largest explanatory factory
Which evidence are you talking about?

>>135407783
This book is absolute bluepilled normie shit

File: IMG_20170728_131222.jpg (58KB, 1024x574px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 1024x574px

Didn't the discovery that humans originated in Europe BTFO this book?

>>135409738
>What he fails to acknowledge is that impressive empires were being built in more hostile and isolated regions like those in Central America
I don't think central America was isolated. They hade trade with both North and South America

>>135407783
I'll summarize it for you.
>brown people are smart too guys
>they know things
>they planted some seeds and stuff
>you can't ride a zebra

>>135409738
>factors that they couldn't control like climate, disease, topography and Africa fauna, most of which weren't suitable for domestication
why do whites thrive in apefrica wherever they plant their feet, then?

>>135408290
If you mean academic citations then no it has none since it is not an academic publications. Hell, the author doesn't even have a degree in the field of study of the book.

File: snake come on.jpg (516KB, 1200x833px) Image search: [Google]

516KB, 1200x833px

>>135407783
Because (((Jared Diamond))) sets out with an a priori assertion that race or any innate factors make literally no difference, and that all differences must be do to environment, and then goes around looking specifically for evidence to fit his claim.

It's Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy: The Book. It's complete pseudoscience.

>>135409750
i wish i had my blackrace folder but i am a phoneposting faggot atm. look up the minnesota transracial adoption study, for one

>>135407783
Because it's just another excuse in a long line of excuses.

Niggers aren't to blame. It's the test, the schools, the teachers, the police, the courts, the prisons, the neighborhoods, racism, Jim Crow, slavery, all of society, the undomesticable animals, the uncultivatable plants, the unwritable language, the unmakable wheel.

Now it's the shape of the continents.

This is what happens when you make an unfounded assumption, such as blacks are equal, and refuse to let any evidence change your assumption. You just get into a long line of rationalizing.

>>135410093
So you believe blacks just randomly evolved to be less intelligent than whites?

>>135409102
>Does right-wing believe that blacks just randomly happend to evolve a lower iq than whites?

the right-wing doesn't believe in evolution

>>135409738
> and Africa fauna, most of which weren't suitable for domestication
They were just as suitable for domestication as the species outside the region. Have you ever seen the wild predecessors of things like cows? It takes effort to breed and domesticate these beasts.

Environment has an impact in the sense that the environment selects for different traits via natural selection over long periods of time. You have to be a race creationist to think that all races were the same despite tens of thousands of years of divergent evolution in radically different environments. It'd be a complete miracle.

File: Minnesota Adoption Results.png (145KB, 505x933px) Image search: [Google]

145KB, 505x933px

>>135410093
Here's a table from that study.

>>135409893
They were isolated from regions that were considered the innovation engines of the world for much of human history like China and the Middle East/Asia minor, and were the source of many early inventions that would be the bedrock of most civilisations via cultural exchange and trade . For example,much of the world learnt how to cultivate wheat from those that lived fertile crescent.

>>135409738
>(((Jared Diamond))) is just another Jewish racial egalitarian hack who thinks that all races equal

He's not a racial egalitarian. He has stated that Australian aboriginese are genetically superior to European.

>>135408700
>It gives a good theory about why some regions are/were more civilized than others
no it does not

>Asians in white countries regularly outperfom native population
so a segment of a population that has built the resources to leave their homeland to seek other opportunities is doing well? i am SHOCKED

>>135410179
Do you understand how natural selection works?

>>135407783

Cause it's shit
>Jared
>DIAMOND
Make that jewish shit.

>>135410443
And that's why they never managed to get out of stone age

(((Jared Diamond)))

File: 05 Riding an Ostrich- Cawston Ostrich Farm- South Pasadena- Calif..jpg (272KB, 416x673px) Image search: [Google]

272KB, 416x673px

>>135407783
huh

>>135410459
topkek, is that the part where he says that abbos are smarter than whites because they can live out in the wild, and that since we individually have not learned survival because we haven't needed to, that we are inferior?

It's the dumbest, jewiest bullshit I've ever heard.

>>135410476
>so a segment of a population that has built the resources to leave their homeland to seek other opportunities is doing well? i am SHOCKED
According to your logic, we should take refugees then

>>135407783
Because it's literally Blue Pill: The Book.

>Africans are only failures because of their environment, goyim. Nevermind that they've acted like savages everywhere they've gone all throughout history.

>>135410179
>just randomly evolved
no, because i understand evolutionary theory. stop trying to strawman me

>>135410479
I would like to hear your theory why white people were naturally selected for higher IQ, but not black people

not enough pictures.

>>135410179
Nothing evolves "randomly" you fucking retard. As always it is the environment that creates selective pressures. It is very obvious that the different races evolved for tens of thousands of years at least in completely separate environments from one another, the fact that they evolved biological differences in skin color, blood, body fat levels, skull structure, body types, etc, is not even disputed or controversial. But for some reason the brain is off limits, the brain could not have possible evolved some minor differences in these environments with vastly different selective pressures. It is just impossible, right? Everything but the brain!

>>135410692
What's your theory?

>>135410543

It's more do to their society going in decay before Europeans even set foot.

Also honestly a better example of a society coming out of a harsh environment are the mongols. From tribal retards in the middle of nowhere to rulers of half the world.

>>135407783
The theory in this book is that the reason some societies are more successful than others has nothing to do with the groups of people themselves, but rather the geographic environment that they settled in. Its an over simplistic view

>>135410728
can you explain which envorimental factors selected for higher iq in white people? why didn't the same happen to blacks?

>>135410728
You took the b8, m8. He's trying to conflate natural selection with non-heritable environmental factors in the short-term, as Jared Diamondberg says.

>>135410622
no because kikes and cucks are literally shipping them to europe and there is a shit load of gibs for them in europe. when the chinese came hwre, for example, they had to make their own way and had no welfare to leech off of when they got here

>>135410640
Their environment and lack of neanderthal DNA could be blamed for how they evolved to be less intelligent.

>>135410692
winter

>>135410816
or you put too much value to miniscule genetic diferences

>>135410816
You mean you don't subscribe to the Sid Meier's Civilization IV theory of societal development?

>>135410772
civilization
so civilization causes higher iq, and not the other way around

File: african_colonialism.png (996KB, 1871x2650px) Image search: [Google]

996KB, 1871x2650px

>>135407783

Basically because it summarizes all of the advances of Europeans into dumb luck.

They were just lucky enough to be born on the right continent with just the right resources and just the right animals and be exposed to the just the right diseases to give them an advantage over all other races, while completely ignoring the fact that Africa is fucking completely loaded with more natural resources than any other continent and dozens of native African species HAVE been tamed and could be domesticated. It also ingores the fact that niggers had a 200,000 year head start and STILL didn't do anything with it.

It's basically, "Here is everything you want to hear about reality that won't offend your retarded sensibilities" the book.

>>135410692
also niggers split from actual humans earlier on. niggers are the only race that doesn't share a mrca with humans

>>135408017
Read it for the data which is well researched but the conclusions are classic confirmation bias.
The chapters on domestic animals is a good example of him ignoring all evidence that does not agree with muh eurasians had better animals.

>>135410925
That's the most retarded and backwards thing I've ever heard. It's like saying Rocket Scientists are smart because they built space ships.

File: 234534523.jpg (38KB, 1078x516px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 1078x516px

>>135407783
its a dumb book.

Real question is why was such a crappy book pushed so hard on MSM

File: 778ccbb4d0d029cc35758bd987807bd8.jpg (14KB, 256x256px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 256x256px

>>135409522
No, he offers strong argument to back up what's he's saying. It's ot a just-so, it's just inconvenient to you because you want it to be about genetics. Putting your hands on your ears and yelling "niggers are dumb!" only impresses fellow club members.

File: aztecpyr.jpg (34KB, 462x315px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 462x315px

>>135410543

>never heard of the Aztec and Mayans


Central America proved that civilisations can arise from hostile environments. Even if they're spics, it's still quite impressive

>>135410887
how comes indians aren't smart then?
how comes egypt and mesopotamia had civilizations while whites were still living in huts?

>>135410887

It's not just that, Europeans lived in separate tribes and nations that where close together and also developed transportation technology and were in constant warfare and competition with each other. Meaning that a large part of the lower IQ population would get killed in warfare.

File: racist_judge.png (441KB, 1124x900px) Image search: [Google]

441KB, 1124x900px

>>135410692

Winter. It makes perfect sense.

>>135409183

He never says 'race doesnt exist'

you are just repeating talking points you read on pol. again the movie is NOT the book, read the book.

>>135410841
winter

>>135410925
culture arises feom the people. hence why niggers have shit culture everywhere in the world

>>135410341

Muh strawman

>>135409750
http://thealternativehypothesis.org/index.php/race-and-iq/

File: ostrich-ungarn.png (8KB, 200x133px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 200x133px

>>135410585
Ostrich-Ungarn

>>135410179
German education. Do you really believe that certain organisms evolve just for the sake of evolving without any external influence?

>>135410948
>Basically because it summarizes all of the advances of Europeans into dumb luck.
If it wasn't luck, what was it then? Destiny by God?

>>135411011
this.

i dunno what this german is trying to argue. part of me thinks he is trying to troll but even then there are no good arguments for why niggers are so stupid other than nigger biology

>>135410841
How the fuck am I supposed to account for all the specific environmental factors that created IQ differences? You think it was just one thing? The common theory is that it probably had to do with the greater amount of innovation required to survive in the less hospitable parts of europe. It hasnt been determined yet, what the exact causes are, just like the exact causes of many other evolutionary changes have not yet been determined. The fact is they exist and there are many studies published on the fact that racial IQ differences have strong genetic components. If you deny this then you are being willfully ignorant.

>>135411042
It literally is a just-so story. He even admits this in his fucking preface, where he says he specifically set out to find ways to explain differences without admitting genetics are real It's the most unscientific way of ever doing things. Finding and focusing only on data that's convenient to your narrative and ignoring everything else doesn't make for a solid argument.

>>135411059
still, they were in the stone age

>>135410908
So you agree with Jared Diamond?

>>135411042
>he offers strong argument to back up what's he's saying
Why is the white male in this picture >>135410585
able to utilize African fauna while Africans weren't?

>>135411070
>>135411097
>winter

see >>135411063

>>135411070
>dog bites you
>you are afraid of dogs
>you are guilty of dogphobia

>>135411157
no, they evolve due to selective pressure

>>135410913
>we wanna be kangz too

>>135411063

>how comes indians aren't smart then?
Even though they can't poo in loo they did managed to make a civilization, a better one than african's.
>how comes egypt and mesopotamia had civilizations while whites were still living in huts?
Egypt and Mesopotamia had their civilizations built on the flow of their main rivers. In the case of Egypt the Nile would flood so regularly it's an event of similar nature to winter, also you do realize that civilizations like the Minoan's are contemporary to Egypt.

>>135411211
If that was the case, northen europeans would have come up with civilization before egypt and mesopotamia

>>135407783
I think it is actually a useful step on the way to redpill. It was for me

Whatever the author's intent this book leaves with the reader (or viewer of the documentary) with the concept that environment is critical to the development of culture

From there it is only another small step to realize environment is critical to development of biology...

>>135411247
The Diamondbergs will insist that taming != domestication, but they refuse to admit that domestication is a process of taming and selectively breeding tamed animals over and over.

The wild horses that our modern domesticated horses evolved from were not dissimilar to zebras in terms of how wild and "undomesticatable" they were. Same with the wolves and the aurochs and the rest of the things we domesticated.

>>135411349
So we agree that the right geographical conditions are necessary for the development of civilization?

>>135411169
luck? africa is rich in resources but nihgers are too dumb to exploit them.

>>135411450
>So we agree that the right geographical conditions are necessary for the development of civilization?
>necessary
I am not too sure on the necessary bit yet.
But do you agree that Humans are also subject to natural selection?

>>135411450
No shit. You can't built a civilization in Antarctica.

But Diamond's narrative is that geography is the ONLY thing that matters. This is patently false. You're also ignoring that the summed effects of environment on a population over time is called EVOLUTION, which is the thing that Diamondberg is trying to completely discount.

>>135411495
can you explain how oil or diamonds will help to switch from hunter-gatherers to farmers?

>>135411359
Your logical conclusion is incorrect.

>>135407783
I dunno but a teacher in highschool loved that book and she was a massive libtard so it's probably fucking stupid

>>135411602
>But do you agree that Humans are also subject to natural selection?
of course

>>135407783
((Diamond)) completely ignores cultural factors. Certain groups couldn't get their act together and he makes excuses for them based on geographical limitations.
>Muh Zebras are too had to domesticate

>>135411654
>Africa's only resources are diamonds and oil

>>135411084
>He never says 'race doesnt exist'
Oh sorry, my bad. He only says that it is arbitrary.

Thanks for showing me the light.

>>135411264
egyptians and mesos weren't niggers.

>>135411613
But evolution is influenced by the enviroment, thus by geography in the broader sense.
What other factors do you believe influenced the rise of civilization?

File: IMG_1173.png (643KB, 1022x731px) Image search: [Google]

643KB, 1022x731px

>>135411729

>>135411683
you are either baiting or fucking stupid. either way i am done with you strawmanning every single argument that comes your way. bye nigger

>>135411683

The thing is Diamond is trying his darnest to say that ain't so.

As for back to the right geographical conditions, Africa does have many places suitable for civilization development, they even had many attempts but constantly failed, what's even more surprising is that they failed constantly even while maintaining contact with other civilizations.

>>135411940
>Africa does have many places suitable for civilization development
which places do you mean? To my knowledge, the only area in Africa suited for kickstarting civilization is Nile River,

>>135407783

He comes to conclusions exactly opposite to what he observes.

The environment living things develop in helps determine what genetic traits are selected to be passed down.

You can literally fly to Africa right now and see people living the same way they've lived for tens, maybe hundreds of thousands of years. They've never had the environmental pressure needed to develop further, thus they've been selected genetically to be as they have always been. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

Those who left the fertile crescent took on dangers risks in new and unknown territories. Winter kills in Europe. You have to plan for it. People who don't plan for it die, leaving behind those who did. Those planning skills get passed down to the next generation.

l'm always fascinated by how much the left used evolution as a blunt object to poorly smash Christianity, but never bothered with it since. Undoubtedly because it destroys almost every egalitarian belief the left loves.

Billions of dollars and a decade of research into unlocking the human genome and all of it basically thrown away the second it disagrees with them.

>>135409858
>discovery that humans originated in Europe
can you share a source on this?

File: ok(7).jpg (191KB, 640x640px) Image search: [Google]

191KB, 640x640px

it was ok, but you can find much deeper interesting books.

>>135411264
>Whites in an area with tons of resources and a favorable climate generate civilization thousands of years before whites in an area with few resources and a harsh climate

Holy shit I love niggers now!

>>135411359
European civilization and Egyptian/Mesopotamian civilizations were not that far apart time wise. The point here is not civilization but IQ. Arabs today also have "civilization", by all defintions. Yet many of their countries have turned into shitholes due to generations of inbreeding which is proven to lower IQ and cause mental issues and a propensity for savagery. By the time Egypt had a civilization, Europeans already had high IQ's, and they had societies, they just hadnt developed the same systems yet. Who invented what system first is not the point. Whites, Asians, certain North Africans and Middle Eastern people were all "capable" of adopting each others civilizational inventions, thats the point. They had the mental capacity to adopt new ideas and make them their own. That is why as you said yourself, asians do well in white nations. On the other hand, much of Africa and the aboroginal areas were and still are inherently incapable of even adopting these civilizational ideas, or creating the same kind of peaceful societies.

>>135410948
Not luck idiot it was inevitable.
The argument is that under the right circumstances a given population would flourish, not because of "luck" but because of cause and effect.

You race realists are so fucking stupid, even if there are biological differences between different races on things like iq, ultimately they are relatively small considering, and most likely reflect our environment which is the whole argument in the first place.

Unless you're a creationist this is pretty basic shit

>>135412181
So north africans and arabs are white?

>>135410848
then replace refuguees with economic migrants. He has a point.

>>135412097
You seem to agree that raise of civilization is dependant on geographic factors.
I am not sure where you and Jared disagree

>>135412262
Just how many memes have you fallen for?

>>135412094

West Africa is fertile enough, had resources like Iron and Copper, contact with the north via Berber caravans and even civilizational start ups, is that they never got anywhere. The Kingdom of Mali was the best they ever got and even then it was because of a lot of Gold and once that dried up they got nothing.

>>135412191
egypt never had civilization. making big piles of rocks does not make you civilized. it makes you a shit tier idiot.

>>135407783
I have never read this but for what I'm gathering it focuses on description of what happened and not on why it happened, and in case they try to explain why they completely forget about race in relation to social and technological development. We must take into account certain societies didn't even have the wheel and yet built buildings comparable to the pyramids which is quite an achievement. The point should be every race can into social organisation but not into civilisation.

File: AAAB.png (701KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

701KB, 1920x1080px

>>135410016
Culture, the way people interact and the social laws that they follow allow for societies based upon mutual trust to thrive.

The Samurai was a formidable fighting force that could not be replicated. The Chinese tried to replicate their strategies in war, and failed. The failed not because they couldn't replicate their weaponry or movements on the battle field, but because the didn't have the cultural advantages ingrained at a young age into the mind of a Samurai.

>>135412191
how do explain countries like Namibia beeing more prosperos and peaceful than some middle eastern shitholes. Even more prosperos than Ukraine.
It does seem to me like blacks are capable of adapting civilization under right conditions

>>135411821
Just research evolution. That'll answer most of your questions. Populations diverge when they are isolated geographically. The divergence can be almost immediate, due to founding population often having very different genetic variation to the parent population (who's going to decide to make a long journey across a desert or a sea? Who is going to survive that journey?). The environments don't even have to be very different for there to be further divergence, just genetic drift will cause the two populations to become increasingly different. Add mutation and different selection pressures, in the case of Europeans and north eastern Asians harsh winters, in the case of Indians monsoons. The introduction of crops from the middle east and the rise of large urban centres are also a factor - living for 10,000 years in groups much larger than the couple dozen that African and other tribal groups lived in drove evolution, increasing brain size in order to manage more complex societies.

>>135412495
What do you mean by civilization anyway? According to Spengler they most certainly did.

>>135412477
Their problem was that they were pretty isolated and it was hard to transport a lot of goods with caravanes through sahara.
Once portugese came by ships and started trading iron, they did develop civilization

>>135412409

Genetics are heavily based on geographical factors.

Jared just assumes Africa was a terrible place where nobody could live or prosper well. This is non-sense, it's literally the opposite.

How many places on Earth can you live in a mud hut for 10,000 years with no real effort?

>>135412230
>and most likely reflect our environment which is the whole argument in the first place.
If we're talking in terms of evolution over a period of several hundred thousand years, then genetics is more of a reflection of environment, which creates the precedence to say that intelligence is a reflection of genetics.

>ultimately they are relatively small
Humans place a higher emphasis on intelligence than any other animal. Both it and social magnanimity have been some of the biggest selective factors on human development for at least 200,000 years.

Even a minor difference in IQ is a massive difference.

>>135408700
>Asians in white countries regularly outperfom native population

RACIST!

>>135412609
>Add mutation and different selection pressures, in the case of Europeans and north eastern Asians harsh winters, in the case of Indians monsoons.
Then what was the selective pressure in Egypt and Mesopotamia?

File: Refutal of Guns, germs, and steel by Jared Diamond.jpg (265KB, 1551x805px) Image search: [Google]

265KB, 1551x805px

>>135407783
This is why

>>135412477
And consider it happened partly thanks to Arab influence. Indo-Europeans are far more advanced regarding the capacity to develop basic civilisation than the rest of the world and this is what everybody tries to dodge.

>>135408700

>Asians...
You just gave evidence of your shockingly low IQ. You need more vaccines to be on 4chan. BANNED

>>135412711
>Jared just assumes Africa was a terrible place where nobody could live or prosper well.
I think he assumes the opposite. Africa was a place were you could live pretty well without civilization, so there simply wasn't enough pressure to kickstart it

>>135412661

>Their problem was that they were pretty isolated and it was hard to transport a lot of goods with caravanes through sahara.
Not so isolated that trade was impossible or that ideas couldn't travel. Which is my point, had African's not been retarded they could have done so on their own. If they didn't develop better plows and agricultural methods on their own they could have gotten them from the north, but they didn't.

>Once portugese came by ships and started trading iron, they did develop civilization
You mean colonization happened, what didn't get colonized became a dependency on the Portuguese than later English and French.

>>135412799
>>135412889
those are tamed, not domesticated

>>135412784
>The introduction of crops from the middle east and the rise of large urban centres are also a factor
Does this not count as part of his explanation?

It is literally the point immediately after what you quoted.

>>135411683
Then why would evolution by natural selection stop at the neck?

>>135412867
>Africa was a place were you could live pretty well without civilization, so there simply wasn't enough pressure to kickstart it

That is correct, but that's the opposite of what he believes. If not, I don't know where he's coming to these conclusions from.

>>135412553
I dont know much about Namibia. Africa is a huge place and not all africans are the same. North africans cannot be comprard to subsaharans for example, and were always vastly more intelligent. You are focusing on civilization too much, the more important factor is IQ. IQ is the basis for greater things. You can have a primitive but peaceful and stable society if your people have high IQ. Not so with low IQ.

>>135412784
Disease and the climate mostly. Consider it's a bloody desert even nowadays. They nevertheless managed to build irrigation systems out of rivers and adapt nature to their needs. Compare this to what happened in other desertic areas with nearby rivers in Central and Southern Africa.

well something happen, cause Europe beat the world like it owned it.

>>135409102
Not randomly. Sub Saharan Africa was blessed with so many resources and weather that did not require long term planning that they never needed those skills and never evolved them.
Read this:
https://www.amren.com/ar/2009/02/index.html
This person worked in sub-Saharan Africa as linguist.

Basically they never evolved the concept of future or past only present. What can I have now. In Africa the land of abundance all year never required it. Eurasia need this as winter would kill everyone.

>>135412928
>Which is my point, had African's not been retarded they could have done so on their own. If they didn't develop better plows and agricultural methods on their own they could have gotten them from the north, but they didn't.

But whites didn't develop this on their own. They got agriculture from mesopotamia and egypt

>You mean colonization happened, what didn't get colonized became a dependency on the Portuguese than later English and French.
Portugese didn't colonize much, they were more into trade with natives.

>>135412661
West Africa is chalk full of trees and wood. They had simple boats, it doesn't take a genius to extrapolate the benefits of building a fleet to transport raw goods. They probably lacked the cultural cohesion that would motivate expansion based on foresight.

>>135412932
Did you just look at the picture of the zebra and stop there?

It still firmly establishes that even without riding them, zebras could be used for labor purposes.

>>135407783
My
Biggest criticism is that he's trying to say that race and genetics don't play a factor, and then tells you about how neaderthal was genetically inferior and that's why he was btfo.

>>135412962
so we agree that the rise of large urban centers increase the evolutionary pressure for high IQ?

>>135413014
it doesn't stop at the neck

>>135413117
Labor for what though? What use is there to raise crops when you can just feast on Ox pussy and mud pies?

>>135413084
>They got agriculture from mesopotamia and egypt
I think you missed the point he was making;

Even if europeans didn't invent agriculture, they still vastly improved it.

>>135412932
Animals are domesticated over a couple generations of selective breading. Any animal can be tamed..

>>135412932
What happens when you have 2 tamed zebras fuck, anon?

>>135413036
>You can have a primitive but peaceful and stable society if your people have high IQ. Not so with low IQ.
High IQ Europeans were busy killing each other for most of their history. I do not believe that high IQ makes you automatically more peaceful

>>135413084
>whites didn't develop this on their own. They got agriculture from mesopotamia and egypt
bullshit. nobody "invented" agriculture. most certainly not any camel fuckers.

your science is just as stupid as the bible. claiming that everyone is descended from jews who invented everything.

File: Guns Germs and Steel is bullshit.jpg (454KB, 1551x805px) Image search: [Google]

454KB, 1551x805px

>>135408017

>>135413063
but diseases are an effect of living close to animals and trade networks.
So epidemic diseases only happened after civilization began and those diseases could travel over a large area

>>135413084

>But whites didn't develop this on their own. They got agriculture from mesopotamia and egypt
Civilization isn't just wheat and barely m8. For example the Indo European migrations brought Iron to Egypt and Mesopotamia, also the terrain in most of Europe at the time was more suited for herding than crop growing as ancient wheat was not as hardy as what we have now. Not to mention that plow as we know it was developed in medieval Europe.

>they were more into trade with natives.
That's why I said what was not colonized became a dependancy.

>>135412784
The discovery of agriculture and the rise of urban centres, as well as the necessity to manage river water sources, including the annual flood of the Nile. The region could only sustain a large number of people if they were intelligent to irrigate the surrounding land and organise into city states.

Like I said, large connurbations of people are itself a selection pressure. The people who are successful, the ones who have large harems and many children, are the ones able to profit from that situation.

The introduction of welfare and the removal of the costs of raising a child have largely destroyed this selection pressure in the west.

>>135413212
There you go then.

If one man can be more intelligent genetically than another, then so can aggregates, abstraction doesn't change this.

>>135413080
so could one argue that the abundance of resources removed the pressure from blacks to develop civilization?

>>135408700
Exactly, so it must not be geographical environment if Asians do well regardless of location.
Maybe the sub saharans really are just dumb.

>>135412932
tamed animals selectively bred over time leads to domestication, retard.

>>135413299
The IQ differences between current Europe and Medieval or Modern Europe are remarcable. Nevertheless WW1 and WW2 are proof average IQ has nothing to do with politics since usually the ruling classes are far more clever than the people they rule over. War, no matter the IQ, will always happen when the interests of two people's are opposed.

>>135413494
Except that's the literal opposite argument as to why whites developed civilization.

>>135413116
you need a pretty organized society to have the means to build and maintain a fleet

>>135413615
We handed them one. They still messed it up.

>>135413232
Yes, but the point is that europeans greatly benefited from trade networks, going all the way to china.
Meanwhile, sub-saharan africans were isolated through the desert and didn't have such opportunity

>>135413263
but not any animal can be bred in captivity

>>135413212
>so we agree that the rise of large urban centers increase the evolutionary pressure for high IQ?
It increases the pressure, but it doesn't guarantee the result.

What's your larger point?

>>135413396
And sub-saharan africans couldn't trade in the same way as europeans, since they were isolated by desert

>>135413615
Exactly, he presupposes that culture, among other things, have no impact on determining outcomes of a group of people.

>>135408964
Interesting interpretation.
>How does the book account for Africa having the most resource rich land in the world?

>>135413486
sure, but it doesn't happen randomly
there must be a selective pressure for higher IQ

>>135413736

Only one we have trouble with is Pandas because they are a retarded animal.

>>135413390
>epidemic diseases only happened after civilization
Not even close. Take as an example some disease that has wiped out wild goats in my country. They are not civilised but they live in group and are in contact with eachother meaning disease transmission will always happen. Obviously the kind of disease may not be the same but the consequences are: the survival of the fittest for the demanding circumstances.

File: dnfwwp.png (137KB, 1492x495px) Image search: [Google]

137KB, 1492x495px

>>135411063

>how comes indians aren't smart then?

Ever been to India? It can get below freezing in large parts of the country.

>how comes egypt and mesopotamia had civilizations while whites were still living in huts?

Replace "winter" with "desert". Any area that makes living difficult will sharpen the intellects of those in the area by killing off those too stupid or lazy to survive.

>>135413402
>The region could only sustain a large number of people if they were intelligent to irrigate the surrounding land and organise into city states.
Then I think we agree that agriculture and early civilization caused selective pressure for higher intelligence

>>135413736
>but not any animal can be bred in captivity
By what grounds?
Pigs, cats, and foxes all contradict several of Jared's postulates for domestication.

Furthermore, why is captivity necessary for domestication in the first place? If behavioral overlap was enough to cause domestication in dogs, why can't simple proximity also instill similar behavior in other animals?

>>135413695
>For example Jews have a tradition of being bankers.

This culture is also influenced by environment, but in this case it's a social environment.

Allegedly, Christians historically banned usury so Jews dominated banking.

>>135413838

M8, the desert it's self is not that big of an impediment.

Had they really wanted to, which they didn't they could have have traded via the sea through a series of outposts or set up a large network of outposts through the desert.

The crossing of Sahara is not any more difficult than the Silk Road.

>>135413999
>By what grounds?
I am not sure, but I know for a fact that is incredibly hard to breed cheetahs in captivity

>Furthermore, why is captivity necessary for domestication in the first place?
Without selective breeding, you can't control the evolution of the animals, thus you cant domesticate them

>>135413889
>what is mutation

>>135413973
>Then I think we agree that agriculture and early civilization caused selective pressure for higher intelligence
It takes intelligence to do those things. You're putting the cart before the horse.

>>135414121
because building infrastructure for such a trading network is way beyond the means of a hunter-gathere society

>>135412711
I'd say culture aswell, considering culture does affect mating selection. For example Jews have a tradition of being bankers. And knowing how to read and receiving an education was considered very important for Jewish boys for thousands of years. Jewish Men who were the most educated and the most successful bankers, had their pick of Jewish waifus, and often had multiple wives, whilst Stupid Jews didn't get any. As a result, the village idiots were eliminated from the Jewish Gene pool by generations of progressive hypergamy. Whilst in much of Africa, being the strongest and the most ruthless was far important for mating selection than being able to read(literacy was non existent in Africa) or being a successful merchant, thus black men have the highest occurrence of the warrior Gene of any race.

>>135410476
environmental determinism is a based philosophy. It's the counterpart to your biological determinism.

>>135414195
>It takes intelligence to do those things.
So intelligent people get better jobs in society, and have better chance to reproduce, meaning the average iq will raise over time

>>135414036
Deleted comment

>>135414264

>>135414239

>because building infrastructure for such a trading network is way beyond the means of a hunter-gathere society
So you agree that Sub Saharan African's are too dumb to get into civilization?

>>135414312
These days it's the opposite. The most educated and successful people are the least likely to have children, whilst the plebs are most likely to have large families.

>>135414428
i would argue they have low IQ because their geographical enviroment didn't allow to start civilization, thus there was no natural selection for high iq

>>135414129
>Without selective breeding, you can't control the evolution of the animals
Selective breeding amplifies evolutionary pressure; it is not the prerequisite.

Again, looking at dogs. Current theory is that dogs were not bred in captivity, rather they simply scavenged human trash and became domesticated by tolerance of human presence. Human proximity was therefore the means for domestication even without selective breeding.

How can we say that over the course of human development that similar factors weren't occurring with other animals? Even without intentional selection, hunting practices could potentially serve as a catalyst for domestication without captivity.

>>135414312
What are you basing this off of? We have examples of the opposite happening right now. Intelligent people have fewer children because they understand the consequence of the action, which include caring and feeding. Look at Africa. They breed with no care increasing suffering.

>>135409858
No because where humans started has nothing to do with what the book says.

>>135414576
because having an IQ of 130 doesn't increase your evolutionary fitness.
I do believe that the best IQ for reproduction is like 105, thats why the average IQ is constantly rising, but not too much

>>135414776
>because having an IQ of 130 doesn't increase your evolutionary fitness.
Only if you limit your idea of evolutionary fitness to the number of children you can squirt out. But everyone with an average to above average IQ knows this isn't he case.

>>135414692
>Current theory is that dogs were not bred in captivity, rather they simply scavenged human trash and became domesticated by tolerance of human presence. Human proximity was therefore the means for domestication even without selective breeding.
I don't really see why cows or zebras would want to scanvenge human food or live in the proximity of their natural predators

File: Africa.jpg (874KB, 1557x1200px) Image search: [Google]

874KB, 1557x1200px

>>135413080

Was going to say this. White people are the Winter people. Eat your seed crop, you starve. No shelter, you freeze.

We were forced by the elements to plan, to take on the "rainy day" mentality. Same with some Asians. Africans never faced that pressure, and it shows. Superiority/inferiority doesn't enter into it, we speciated to our respective environments.

However, the current behavioral "Africanization" of White culture (i.e single motherhood, poor foresight, etc) is also due to our present abundance economy creating an effectively African environment: fiat currency, Central Banking, abundant resources and shelter absolve us of the need to defer gratification.

Until something happens to end this false abundance, our niggification will continue. Once it does end however, millions will be completely at a wits end as to how to live. Those who have maintained the deferred gratification mentality which is necessary in a scarcity economy will fare well.

>>135413838
I don't and can't agree that the desert was enough of an impediment to outright stifle civilization.

Corridors between Africa and the middle east existed as recent as 6,000 years ago.

>>135414666

>their geographical enviroment didn't allow to start civilization
The thing is they had all the toys for starting civilization.

>>135414875
according to wikipedia, " it describes individual reproductive success and is equal to the average contribution to the gene pool of the next generation that is made by individuals of the specified genotype or phenotype."

File: guns germs and steel.jpg (258KB, 1551x805px) Image search: [Google]

258KB, 1551x805px

(Although I'd think epidemics probably had a fairly large effect on the conquests.)

>>135415015
are you talking about east or west africa?

>>135415115
None of that mentions the number of children.

>>135415115
Also
>wikipedia

>>135415025
they lacked the trade with the rest of the world, so new ideas (agriculture, iron, wheel, writing) couldn't reach them

>>135414884
>I don't really see why cows or zebras would want to scanvenge human food or live in the proximity of their natural predators
Well if you read the rest of my post, you'd see that I covered that partially. Hunting practices can directly change phenotype frequency in a population.

Let's use an extreme example; let's say I were to continually hunt the most skittish members of a pack of cows instead of simply grabbing whatever I can get, that's likely going to reinforce proximity to humans.

>>135414776
*Some* number has got to be the mean. There is no reason to think that something being more common is evidence that it's a better adaptation. There is a limit to how much variation is possible in one generation, and, anyway, the advancements happen at the fringes, what is uncommon and gains a relative advantage as a result.

>>135413884
If life was an RPG, the African characters would have
+100 resistance to sun
+10 str
+10 dex
-50 int
-20 char
Herd mentality
Inability to swim

>>135415267

>they lacked the trade with the rest of the world, so new ideas (agriculture, iron, wheel, writing) couldn't reach them
Wrong, Islam made it's way to Sub Saharan Africa. And there are accounts of trade between Arabia and West Africa from the mid point of the middle ages.
And there is a proto civilization in West Africa that developed Iron tools.

>>135415312
>Let's use an extreme example; let's say I were to continually hunt the most skittish members of a pack of cows instead of simply grabbing whatever I can get
but why would you do that? wouldn't it be easier to hunt the most trusting members of the pack?

>>135415314
i just don't see any proof that very high iq is an evolutionary advantage in modern day society

>>135415203
When have you or I said anything about west africa?

We've been talking about the middle east and it's connection to the subsaharan.

>>135415444
>but why would you do that? wouldn't it be easier to hunt the most trusting members of the pack?
Because, shockingly, the intelligent hunter doesn't shit where he eats.

>>135415433
They traded with east africa, but not with the west africa, at least not until medieval times

>>135413884
Thats actually rather easy to explain. The first step to a society of any kind is a great river. The Nile is africa's onpy great River and it did become a center for civilization. Water is useless unless its clean so with the rest of the continent being either useless desert, grasslands, or marshlands there was nowhere for the civilization to begin.

>>135415444
>but why would you do that? wouldn't it be easier to hunt the most trusting members of the pack?
Because if you kill the trusting members of the pack you can't breed them, m8

>>135415509
And I think its fair to say that east africa for the most time was subjegated by arab muslims

>>135415493
Then, bluntly, all I can say is you have a low IQ.

>>135415557
so you think that hunter gatherers were aware that by killing the most skittish members, they would eventually domesticate the herd over thousands of years?

>>135415652
Even wolves do this.

>>135415591
I admire your ability to measure IQ without an IQ test

>>135407783
because it was written for the masses and not for students.

and because he lied when he said some guy in melanesia asked him, "why do white ppl have so much cargo, and we have so little?"

>>135415708
wolves kill the weakest members of a herd

>>135410406
Interesting to see early adopted blacks to much better than others. It's almost like if they don't grow up in the hood around other niggers in a broken nigger home, they have a better chance in life.

>>135415444
>but why would you do that?
Off the top of my head, several tribes of Native Americans had practices where they would be sure to keep buffalo isolated from other herds as much as possible for fear that they would teach each other about their hunting practices.

Whether this is enough to actually cause the effect I'm describing is a different matter, but the point is that humans can (and have) come up with arbitrary rules to hunting practices. And it's fair to believe that "hunt the skittish ones" could have easily happened.

>>135415756
Well, you're saying things that are unintelligent.

>>135415784
Which tends to be the skittish. Even hunter-gathers knew that live food was fresh food and lasted. At least, white hunger-gathers did.

>>135415587
I don't see why that would prevent cultural exchange between the middle east and subsahara.

it assumes all people are created equally was my issue

all people are created equally in the eyes of god, but not all people are created equally in the eyes of other people

File: 924191d18a2870057db03365dfd18bc6.jpg (38KB, 457x477px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 457x477px

Africans are inferior in spirit and biology. This is self-evident and only liberal ethno-masochists try to make excuses for them.

>>135415831
>but the point is that humans can (and have) come up with arbitrary rules to hunting practices. And it's fair to believe that "hunt the skittish ones" could have easily happened.
but I doubt they would follow those rules over centuries.
If you are a hungry tribesman and need food badly, you will go for the easiest prey

>>135415538

>They traded with east africa, but not with the west africa, at least not until medieval times
There is evidence of trade as far back as the 5th century BC.

Also islam spread there around the 10th century, yet we see very little development between the 10th century and the arrival of the Portuguese in the 15th century.

>>135415947
East-Africans could hardly develop their own civilization when they were already subjegated by arab civilization

>>135416065
>but I doubt they would follow those rules over centuries.
Why, exactly? All evidence says otherwise. Your personal doubt on the matter means nothing.

>>135416141
because it makes sense to go for the easiest prey.
Every predator does that

>>135416120
>what is Ethiopia
Only because of Roman, Byzantine influence and Christianity.

>>135416238
No, it doesn't. Again, all evidence goes against you. Your personal doubt is not so strong as to overturn what we already know about organized hunting practices.

File: Alpine_4.jpg (133KB, 990x707px) Image search: [Google]

133KB, 990x707px

>>135413884
The overarching idea is that if your continent's long axis is north-south you're fucked, because everyone's farming different climate bands and it's harder to build up a critical mass of agricultural expertise..
Africa and the Americas are north-south. Eurasia is east-west so it wins.

>>135416065
>you will go for the easiest prey
As far as I'm concerned, easiest prey would be the dogs that scavenged their camps.

>but I doubt they would follow those rules over centuries.
I think you're giving early man too little credit.

Given certain hunting practices, it could easily be that scaring and hunting down the easily startled members IS the means for easiest prey.

>>135416307
I have no idea what you are talking about.
Every predator goes for weak or sick prey, because predators can't afford to lose much energy or or getting injured while hunting strong prey

>>135416441
>I have no idea what you are talking about.
That's your own personal problem.

>Every predator goes for weak or sick prey, because predators can't afford to lose much energy or or getting injured while hunting strong prey
That's pretty much what we just told you, yeah? Skittish is a weakness.

>>135416441
>Every predator goes for weak or sick prey
Except humans.

Even early man focused on things like ornamentation and art. Nabbing the biggest and baddest just for their horns has been common historical practice worldwide.

>>135415784
Weakness comes in many shapes and forms.

The most physically weak prey may be protected by others.

>>135407783
Because the idea of "easily domesticated animals" is a fairly false meme in my eyes. I doubt, I challenge in fact, that there are any animals in nature that just so eagerly jump right into humanity's asshole, just ready to be tamed, and just miracle'ing themselves into the modern domesticated versions we have today. Domestication for the full utility domesticated animals offer, takes time, captivity, a population that has the leisure to do it, selective breeding and generations of it, to reach what they eventually get to in their utility.
Domestication required effort and time, not the near-perfect fricking animal or crop to begin with.

I've saw for an example, people train zebras to be ridden, just like horses. In my opinion, there is no magical damn disqualifying reason, any more for zebras than for whatever the ancestors of the modern donkey and horse breeds were/are, that make them so very un-domesticate-able in comparison.

It's horseshit. Other races and places didn't domesticate and advance civilization, because the denizens were either too stupid, And they got along just fine Enough, without domestication.

If we'd of been a good bit smarter as cavemen, maybe we'd have domesticated sabertooths following us around today, along side our dogs. We just weren't, and didn't have the time to invest generations of breeding into the idea.
Wolves weren't any magical picnic to reach what they are now, either. They just had a handful of positive traits that we had to dig into, like a metaphorical domestication molehill we turned into an industrial mine tunnel. Now, we crank out anything from Chihuahuas to Great Danes. And it wasn't because wolves are a miracle of nature, either. We just STARTED, from SomeWhere, and proceeded to work at it. To me, that is domestication. Not *poof miracle* suddenly plowhorses.

>>135410594
That's where I stopped reading the book, I picked it up thinking it would have something interesting but that was too much for me.

>>135416393
>The overarching idea is that if your continent's long axis is north-south you're fucked, because everyone's farming different climate bands and it's harder to build up a critical mass of agricultural expertise..
That's fucking stupid.

>>135408290
Now this is retardation. Winter obviously makes tribes evolve new tactics, longer-term thinking and so on. Harsch climate = more intelligent OR = more dead. The book is lefty propaganda but your understanding and arrogance are worse.

>>135415553
>The Nile is africa's only great River

>>135416393
so it's based on a dataset of 3?

>>135407783
"guns" and "steel" is kind of redundant, kind of a shitty title that's trying too hard to sound cool imo

>>135417021
Hilarious, there are seasons in Africa that have to be accounted for just like on any other continent.

File: urbanyouth.gif (602KB, 318x240px) Image search: [Google]

602KB, 318x240px

>>135416976
I didn't think it was an entirely implausible hypothesis, but it is based on, as >>135417101 remarks, the shakiest of statistical evidence.

File: aldous_huxley_righteous_indignation.jpg (95KB, 800x525px) Image search: [Google]

95KB, 800x525px

>>135412230

You want to know the difference between you and us?

We don't care what the answer is. The if the answer was, as you say, fortunate circumstances, we'd be fine with that.

However, you don't even have low IQ on the table as a possible choice. Your faggot emotions won't even let you consider the possibility because WAHHHHH IT MAKES YOU F-FEEEELLL BAAAADDDDDD.

Fuck you idiot. The universe doesn't care about your cunt feelings. There is reality then there is the nonsense bullshit you fuckheads feed yourselves.

Go get anally plowed by more nigger dick you fucking worthless piece of shit.

File: 20060122_multiracialists_are_crazy_part_3_iq_graph_racial.jpg (25KB, 600x405px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 600x405px

>>135417512
I wonder how "race realists" like you feel about smart blacks and dumb whites

>>135410948
Africa has loads of resources, but hard as fuck to get those to the coast and available to trade due to the lack of navigable rivers. The one place where Africa had a lasting, advanced (at its prime) civilization, Egypt, was due to the existence of a long navigable river. This also held back Russia for a long time until Stalin basically forced it to industrialize, but at the cost of the lives of millions of people and a reduced standard of living for the country as a whole

>>135417231
The book was written with liberal presuppositions in mind because that was his target audience.

>>135416811
but do you agree that some animals are harder to breed in captivity than others?

>>135417723
Are you trying to argue that exceptions disprove the rule of averages?

>>135417132
So you think it´s all the Neanderthal genes? Or are you a Christian?

>>135417723
Finally proving yourself to be baiting, thanks bro.

File: you_talk_like.png (258KB, 480x342px) Image search: [Google]

258KB, 480x342px

>>135417723

Just ask.

Both exist.

Next question?

>>135417947
I am trying to argue that the so-called "race realists" are hypocrites who will still hate high IQ blacks and defend low IQ whites.
In my eyes, they are nothing but racists

>>135417992
There seems to be some sort of misconception that planning isn't required to live in Africa.

>>135418060
>In my eyes, they are nothing but racists
No one cares what assumptions you have. You're not that important.

>>135407783
>Jew hates whites
>Jew writes book saying whites had it easy
>Jew's book gets easily debunked by actual anthropologists and archaeologists
>other Jews shriek and declare critics to be anti-Semitic
>spam threads on /pol/ declaring debunked book is still the gold standard

>>135418184
>Jew hates whites
proof?
>Jew's book gets easily debunked by actual anthropologists and archaeologists
proof?

File: confessions.png (3MB, 722x8458px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 722x8458px

>>135418107

>There seems to be some sort of misconception that planning isn't required to live in Africa.

SOME planning is required, but it's minimal compared to injecting winter into the mix. Food storage, adequate clothing and shelter, water access, etc etc etc are all problems Africans didn't have to deal with.

But keep playing dumb. I know it makes you feel better.

>>135418397
Are you telling me a white man can survive in Africa without food storage, adequate clothing and shelter, water access, etc etc...?

too much of it ignores race.

Guns, Germs, and Steel falls apart when you realize the Mesoamericans were able to independently build a civilization that had writing while the Subsaharan Africans could not.

>>135418675
That's the point of the book. It's environmental determinism.

>Jared (((Diamond)))

>>135417805
I think the point my friend is trying to make is that no animal starts out easily domesticated. Africa has wild hunting dogs and water buffalo, which over many generations could become their equivalent of dogs and cows. I can't see a reason as to why a wild hunting dog is any harder to breed than a fucking wolf. What it boils down to, Hans, is that there is no wild animal that you can just walk up to and domesticate. That takes years and years of planning, breeding and commitment, something that Africans couldn't be bothered to do. So no, I don't agree that some animals are "harder to breed in captivity", some people are just less likely to breed them.

>>135418060
>In my eyes, they are nothing but racists
So you're judging others off of your preconceived notions while arguing for your
ideals, which in this case is a book that most historians consider to be garbage. Congrats, you're the real hypocrite.

Arnold Toynbee's A Study of History is what you should be reading.

>>135418577
It's almost like it's based far more in genetics for the building of civilization than environment.

>>135412799
there is so much fucking wrong with this post that its laughable.

File: quote-i-am-somehow-less-interested-in-the-weight-and-convolutions-of-einstein-s-brain-than-stephen-jay-gould-36-88-38.jpg (85KB, 850x400px) Image search: [Google]

85KB, 850x400px

>>135407783

It's just typical jew stuff. Only reason he has a job is hes a hebe.

Compare to his friend and fellow jew Gould. Gould wrote a book called The Mismeasure of Man, dragging the reputation of a scientist froma century earlier who classified the races, studies skulls, and found stuff like white have a larger cranial capacity. That racist was actually a great scientist, while Gould misrepresented the data and didn't actually do any measurements himself.

tldr: learn 3 easy ways an ivory tower jew says blacks are equal to whites

>>135412889
now show me where niggers did this 3,000 years ago?

I'll wait.

File: 1500611665400.jpg (80KB, 600x623px) Image search: [Google]

80KB, 600x623px

>>135418060

Because we can think one generation ahead. Low IQ whites are more likely to have higher IQ kids, and high IQ blacks are more likely to have low IQ kids. Regression to the mean.

File: ago_old_argument.jpg (155KB, 700x564px) Image search: [Google]

155KB, 700x564px

>>135418577

Again, keep playing dumb. It's your strong suit.

...maybe you aren't playing?

>>135419958
>dodging the question
This might shock you but Africans do, indeed, try and plan for the future because their environment does put that pressure on them. They're just not good at it.

>>135407783
The opening of the book flat out says his goal is to prove that Africans didn't develop civilization due to genetic inferiority. From the beginning, you know that he is going to try to make a certain argument instead of presenting history as is.

File: 20 percent of blacks.png (444KB, 750x765px) Image search: [Google]

444KB, 750x765px

>>135417723
REALLY JOGGED ME NOGGIN

>>135410476
You might not agree with it, but it's a valid theory and serves to foil an entirely biological view of causation.

>>135413710
So you basically are using this bullshit as a though exercise with no intention of learning anything.

Go fix the niggers today in their own countries or shut up. Invade and crack the whip if you have to. You want to fix them right? Then go do it.

No white liberal is capable of walking their own talk on racial integration. Put up or shut up.

>>13541383
> i am a dumb nigger but it's not my fault
This whole thread

>>135421122
kek

>>135407783
As Charlie Munger said about the book: "It's a great book, just the general idea is wrong".

What he meant was that they forgot to talk about race. Race is the difference, not the environment.

>>135419871
Source?

>>135413973
It's literally the other way around
Could it be less obvious
Honestly

>>135407783

Namibia is one of the most sparsely populated countries on Earth. There was (I was there when it was SWA all the way through to it becoming Namibia) and is violent competition and rivalry and outright hatred between Bantu and San tribes to this day. That why some many Bushman joined up with SADF and SWATF against SWAPO. That's why SWAPO killed them pretty much non-stop then and, now, keep them on the periphery of society. Spend some time on the Caprivi if you want to learn what the San think of their SWAPO government overlords.

Past that, if you are truly a German Anon, you know that the major "cities" of Namibia were and are still dominated by German descendants and German tourists and Boers. Even the Namibian government recognises this and does everything to "keep the peace"; including keeping blacks out as much as possible. Which is why the economic outlook of the average Namibian black has changed little since gaining its independence.

Namibia is "peaceful" in the way a riverbank is before the crocodile attacks.

>>135421759
Society is one of the strongest selective pressures on humans.

>>135421122
My greatest fear, a black kid who can beat me at chess. Checkmate, racists!

File: 432_Park.jpg (84KB, 626x276px) Image search: [Google]

84KB, 626x276px

>>135420049

>They're just not good at it.

We're almost there.

And WHY aren't they good at it?

>>135421608
should've been titled Race, Race, and Race kek

>>135421675

Basic genetics. https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regression_toward_the_mean

File: belgian_congo.jpg (158KB, 913x600px) Image search: [Google]

158KB, 913x600px

>>135421957

I wonder if the Kraut even knows about German Kamerun, modern-day Cameroon.

Your weird fuckers did some African colonizing of your own.

Oddly, the Cameroonians, for the most part, think well of the German colonizers. They respected their strict, no-bullshit approach.

Niggers respond to threats of violence. Nothing else really works.

>>135407875
FPBP

>>135422008
Sure, but who did society in the first place if not the humans who founded it, putting at work their neurons, establishing rules and laws and following through?
This german nigger can only say
> wypipo had boats, bantus had no boats
> wypipo had agriculture, bantus had no agriculture
Guess what, genius

>Pol is this retarded
These are the people who shitpost on sci

Fucking hell, clearly oil offsets the lack of framable land or harsh conditions which limit crop yield

>B B but these civilizations like Aztecs
usually outliners thanks to particular condition like a huge river/good farmland and they still remained fairly primitive

>>135420049
Winter's alot harder to prepare for than summer and fall, dumbass. If they can hardly handle surviving in africa what makes you think they wouldn't be extinct if they had started up in Europe??

>>135422445

Going by his argumenta here, probably not.

Germans had a very "no bullshit" approach to colonial administration but it was incredibly handicapped by a lack of colonial vision and a lack of will at home to see it through. It was more a jostling for power and land that they could use to affect negotiations with England and France.

There's a book by Thomas Pakenham called "The Sramble for Africa" that goes into that in some detail. Very well annotated, too. Kind of goes off the rails at the end. The last couple of chapters read like notes and outlines. Not sure why.

>>135408491
>by the easily-observable reality that blacks and other non-whites consistently do just as poorly regardless of where they are born.

One is millions of years of evolution to the specific geographic region, another is 100s years of just taking some black dude from his natural habitat and moving him into the US.

>>135418107
It's not. It's r/k selection theory.

R-selected survival strategy: plenty of resources all around, all the time (just grab a fruit from the nearest tree), so you just have as many babies as possible and that maximizes your genes survivals (think of rabbits for example).

K-selected strategy: limited resource (i.e. winters before modern age), so you can only have limited amount of kids, however in order to make sure your genes survive, you have to put all your effort into nurturing them. You obviously don't have to do this in r-selected strategy, because if you have 20 kids, and 7 of them die, who cares? Your genes still live on.

>>135410998
>Read it for the data which is well researched but the conclusions are classic confirmation bias.
Lewontin basically.

>>135407783
>Blame Whitey: The Book