Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 08, 2023, 11:08:19 PM

Quote from: BadApple on October 08, 2023, 10:32:28 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 08, 2023, 07:35:50 PM
To all the Diamond detractors:

I read the book many moons ago.  I found it interesting.  It was later that I found out that he had put in bad information (the correct information was known by the academic community while he was writing the book) and omitted important facts pertinent to his subject matter.  I found this disappointing.  Unfortunately, this leaves everything in the book subject to doubt.

This aside, the over all idea of examining the mundane and it's impact on the growth of culture is excellent.  The question of why one culture succeeded over another by looking at all the little pieces is perfectly valid.  I mentioned the book Salt earlier and it's excellent material to look at for how a mundane but crucial resource shaped history and culture.

There are so many things that you can use to shape your world during world building.  I actually used the concept in my own world building, both in my fantasy world and in my scifi setting.  I love making a functioning world for players to interact with.

I would caution any GM or game designer that world building can be a bit of a trap.  The better you do your world building, the more you want to show it off.  Sadly, good world building is like good animatronics, the working parts should make it look alive but be hidden from the ones it's mean to entertain.   

Who are the scientific sources against him?

I would recommend that you google it.  It's a bit of a rabbit hole.  There's a lot of modern ideological leverage involved using theories in the book as a fulcrum.  Because there is some serious political issues surrounding it, the fact that I don't represent any party, and I'm not accredited in any related field, I won't be posting names.  I will say that you will very quickly dig up a lot with a simple search.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 08, 2023, 11:08:19 PM

Quote from: BadApple on October 08, 2023, 10:32:28 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 08, 2023, 07:35:50 PM
To all the Diamond detractors:

I read the book many moons ago.  I found it interesting.  It was later that I found out that he had put in bad information (the correct information was known by the academic community while he was writing the book) and omitted important facts pertinent to his subject matter.  I found this disappointing.  Unfortunately, this leaves everything in the book subject to doubt.

This aside, the over all idea of examining the mundane and it's impact on the growth of culture is excellent.  The question of why one culture succeeded over another by looking at all the little pieces is perfectly valid.  I mentioned the book Salt earlier and it's excellent material to look at for how a mundane but crucial resource shaped history and culture.

There are so many things that you can use to shape your world during world building.  I actually used the concept in my own world building, both in my fantasy world and in my scifi setting.  I love making a functioning world for players to interact with.

I would caution any GM or game designer that world building can be a bit of a trap.  The better you do your world building, the more you want to show it off.  Sadly, good world building is like good animatronics, the working parts should make it look alive but be hidden from the ones it's mean to entertain.   

Who are the scientific sources against him?

Greetings!

Hey my friend!

Yeah, I've read "Guns, Germs, and Steel." I used to discuss Diamond's book with several of my college professors. Two Historians, a Sociologist, a Political Science professor, and an Anthropologist. All of them pretty much agreed that Diamond wrote an interesting book and presents some very good arguments--while simultaneously, some of his arguments presented in his book are flawed and have problems.

I suppose then, like any decent scholar, Diamond is right on some things, and wrong on others. That dynamic is not any different from most other scholars and academics of good quality.

Personally, I enjoyed "Guns, Germs, and Steel." I can't disagree with my college professors, as all of them highlighted legitimate and powerful arguments against various arguments that Diamond makes in his book. So, *shrugs* "Guns, Germs, and Steel" is a decent book, with some good analysis within it. Some good, with some flaws.

As a resource for game world building, I would say that Diamond's book makes for a worthwhile resource. I certainly learned a few things from reading the book. As I said, I liked the book, and feel that "Guns, Germs, and Steel" is a solid work.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 08, 2023, 11:08:42 PM

Falsified by whom?

By the real world.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 08, 2023, 11:08:19 PM

Who are the scientific sources against him?

REALITY!  Domesticated bison exist.  Same with domesticated deer species.  PLUS the fucking theory overall is NOT testable.  Do you know what that means for a scientific theory?

I think it's perfectly fine to use if you already have an idea of how your world is *supposed* to look. Yes there are flaws in Diamonds work (as others have posted above) I don't think that means it's not useful as a tool for worldbuilding.

After all, your players aren't going to be doing anthropology are they? But insofar as using Diamonds ideas (or ANYONE ELSES) to worldbuild, I think there are much more important considerations that make dickering around whether Diamonds model (or anyone elses) is accurate: Magic and Gods.

Integrating those ideas into Diamond's model is possible - and can completely throw it out of whack unless you do a lot of self-discipline in your application of Diamond's ideas to your world.

Consider the power of Magic(tm) allows for the domestication of not just any animal, but also impact geography (Move Earth? Create Water? you think those things are basic spells but cast enmasse over time and yes you can could/would impact entire biomes. Imagine what the Pharaohs could do with actual low-level D&D magic? The Sahara would have remained a savannah or hell, could have stayed green and maybe remained a forest? Those radar images showing mighty riverbeds cutting from east to west across the Sahara pre-12k years ago means early civilizations could very well have had the magic to keep the climate more static, (barring acts of God(s) and meteor strikes etc.).

Quote from: tenbones on October 09, 2023, 11:05:42 AM
I think it's perfectly fine to use if you already have an idea of how your world is *supposed* to look. Yes there are flaws in Diamonds work (as others have posted above) I don't think that means it's not useful as a tool for worldbuilding.

Designing fantasy worlds has little to do with reality.  Diamonds work can be considered another model for fantasy worlds.  There's no problem with that at all.  A fantasy world doesn't have to hold up to logic for the most part.  I like having a little paradise at the bottom of a deep crater in the middle of a frigid mountainous area.

This seems to be a semi-central repository for criticisms of the book:

https://www.livinganthropologically.com/archaeology/guns-germs-and-steel-jared-diamond/

Quote from: MeganovaStella on October 07, 2023, 07:31:24 PM
If you were to use Guns, Germs, and Steel in your worldbuilding, or you do, how would/how do you use it?

I'd treat it with respect as I would any other religious document.  It has millions of believers, after all.  You'd take its specious, made-up, anti-white claims literally, just as you would parse Noah's Ark literally if your worldbuilding was based on the Bible.

Quote from: tenbones on October 09, 2023, 11:05:42 AM
After all, your players aren't going to be doing anthropology are they?

Np, the anthropology majors do Tekumel.

Quote from: Scooter on October 09, 2023, 08:48:32 AM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 08, 2023, 11:08:19 PM

Who are the scientific sources against him?

REALITY!  Domesticated bison exist.  Same with domesticated deer species.  PLUS the fucking theory overall is NOT testable.  Do you know what that means for a scientific theory?

But it's not a scientific theory.  It's a discourse on the development of societies, but it's not any more a scientific theory than Das Kapital.
The standards of information are different.  Sure, he brings in stuff about domesticating plants and animals and tries to provide evidence for his views, but this is not intended to be a scientific theory.

Quote from: Persimmon on October 10, 2023, 08:36:11 AM

Quote from: Scooter on October 09, 2023, 08:48:32 AM
REALITY!  Domesticated bison exist.  Same with domesticated deer species.  PLUS the fucking theory overall is NOT testable.  Do you know what that means for a scientific theory?

But it's not a scientific theory.  It's a discourse on the development of societies, but it's not any more a scientific theory than Das Kapital.
The standards of information are different.  Sure, he brings in stuff about domesticating plants and animals and tries to provide evidence for his views, but this is not intended to be a scientific theory.

Exactly. No theories about human development are testable. The best one can do is search for parallel case studies within human development. (For that matter, astronomy also isn't testable, or macro-evolution.)

Further, the point about bison is specious. Bison were only barely domesticated -- and some of that may only have been due to cross-breeding of bison with European domestic cattle. From the Wikipedia article on bison:

QuoteDespite being the closest relatives of domestic cattle native to North America, bison were never domesticated by Native Americans. Later attempts of domestication by Europeans prior to the 20th century met with limited success. Bison were described as having a "wild and ungovernable temper"; they can jump close to 1.8 m (6 ft) vertically, and run 55–70 km/h (35–45 mph) when agitated. This agility and speed, combined with their great size and weight, makes bison herds difficult to confine, as they can easily escape or destroy most fencing systems, including most razor wire. The most successful systems involve large, 6-metre (20 ft) fences made from welded steel I beams sunk at least 1.8 m (6 ft) into concrete. These fencing systems, while expensive, require very little maintenance. Furthermore, making the fence sections overlap so the grassy areas beyond are not visible prevents the bison from trying to get to new range.

And regarding genetics:

QuoteA new study published in the journal Scientific Reports has revealed the strongest evidence to date that all bison in North America carry multiple small, but clearly identifiable, regions of DNA that originated from domestic cattle.

Source: https://www.technologynetworks.com/genomics/news/strong-evidence-that-all-bison-in-north-america-originated-from-domestic-cattle-361470

The limited domestication of bison by cross-breeding them with European cattle isn't a significant counterpoint. Diamond already points out in the book that Andeans had domesticated llamas, alpacas, and guinea pigs from ancient times, but none of those had anywhere near the impact on civilization that the horse did in Eurasia.

The general point stands that the available choices of wild animals to domesticate has a major impact on civilizational development.

Greetings!

Well, has anyone here actually read "Guns, Germs, and Steel" like, now? Recently? It has been years since I read Diamond's book. As I said previously, at the time, I thought the book was solid scholarship. As for "Scientific Theory"--it is a book, by a Historian. Maybe he's an Anthropologist. I forget. Anyways, yeah, I don't think "Scientific Theory" has anything to do with Diamond's book. There are no "experiments" to replicate. There are no laboratory procedures involved.
His main discussion concerned the impact and influence that geography, climate, and resources have on how different cultures of people--develop differently. Unless I am mistaken, that is his main contribution. As far as how strong an argument it is, well, I would think his argument makes perfect and good sense.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

  The issue I had was his arguments seemed to have an agenda that he more or less decided before writing the book...which I think he felt compelled to have decided because if differences in civilizations and advancement are not determined solely from geographic luck....well he gets into what has become a very, very, very career ending subject for an academic.

Quote from: Persimmon on October 10, 2023, 08:36:11 AM

Quote from: Scooter on October 09, 2023, 08:48:32 AM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 08, 2023, 11:08:19 PM

Who are the scientific sources against him?

REALITY!  Domesticated bison exist.  Same with domesticated deer species.  PLUS the fucking theory overall is NOT testable.  Do you know what that means for a scientific theory?

But it's not a scientific theory.

That's what I said.

Quote from: oggsmash on October 10, 2023, 02:11:13 PM
  The issue I had was his arguments seemed to have an agenda that he more or less decided before writing the book...

He committed professional suicide via confirmation bias.