Guns, Germs, and Steel discussion

Why do the social discrepancies that Diamond alludes to persist even after technological and resource differences have been nullified to a great extent?

Technological and resources difference have not been equally distributed... yet. Historical consequences of past development and imperialism still has a material legacy. However, we are rapidly seeing a transition in which those geographic advantages are being nullified. For example, the growing economies of China, India, and Brazil. There are still, however, problems like the chronic underdevelopment of Africa which is a legacy of imperialism and the continuance of malaria. Diamond goes into this in some depth in his PBS series of the same title.

Still, things are changing. The Post-American World gives us a hint of how rapidly things are changing.

Communication and travel are what partially nullify resources, but then you have examine resources globally, and ask if it's more cost effective to innovate new ways to maximize resource use and extraction or if it's just easier to hoard it.

Diamond's work was about how modern global inequality arose historically. Today there are Guns, Germs and Steel on every continent, so with the exception of some very few cases, such as undisturbed Amazon Indians, those factors are no longer relevant in maintaining global inequalities. What is responsible now would take another book by another genius as insightful as Diamond. For my 20c worth, it is largely market forces driving modern inequalities: like entering a game of monopoly at round 20 when all the properties have hotels on them. But I am singularly unqualified to comment on economics so I'll leave that to others.
All the best,
Mike

A agree with the fact it's largely market induced inequity that we're seeing.

Just some food for thought along the same line.

I remember reading in The Economist about the dominance of English as the lingua franca of today's world, how this came about and why it will most likely not be replaced by Mandarin (Chinese) or other languages. The main point was that English is the global language and will retain this status because it got there first. At some point in History, French, Spanish, and even German (in scientific circles) were spreading widely but they failed where English succeeded in becoming the first global language. English filled the space It's one of these situations where displacing the one at the top is virtually impossible.

Something similar could be said about the QWERTY keyboard, the metric system (fans of the imperial system will disagree), VHS over Betamax, MS Windows (although its dominance is under attack). Can you think of other examples?

I'm thinking too of the western-style men suit, shirt and necktie attire which has changed very little since the 1930s and is now adopted by business people and politicians everywhere. It became the first global standard in the way men dress and is likely to remain for a long time. Kilts and gelabahs will remain marginal.

The USA, blessed by historical events, came out of WWII with an intact and boosted industrial capacity. No surprise that it became the factory of the world, able to supply the world with consumer goods, cars, appliances while industry in Europe and Japan was basically destroyed by war and left in huge debt. Can the USA ever hope for such a favorable set of circumstances for itself, don't think so. It's just normal that India, China and others are catching up. As the playing field is increasingly leveled, inequalities shrink. But the one at the top as the upper hand and can resist for a very long time.

The one very scary aspect of this trend is that as the planet's resources are limited, we know that a North American lifestyle for all humans is not sustainable. Those who enjoy this lifestyle will fight to preserve it and those who don't enjoy it yet will claim they also have a right to it. As I wrote above it's very difficult to dislodge those who got to the top first or to to make them willingly give up some of their privileges for the greater good. Just think of the Wall Street banksters. ;-)

The main reason Mandarin won't dominate as a global language is due to the flimsey house of cards that the People's Republic of China's economic growth is based on. Their government has fully written off 75% of their own citizens as worthy of nothing but cheap and slave labor [contingient if they get their twenty-three cents an hour wage they're owed].

That coupled with the environmental damage they're doing to their own country is liken to a fever being mistaken for a warm fuzzy feeling. In the end it looks like a form of economic and environmental eugenics, with almost no regard to the potential value of the billion or so people whose lives are destroyed by the quick-fuse model of growth the Chinese government practices.

-John Steiner

For one of the reasons why English and not German became the global "Lingua Franca", see "An Ocean Apart" by Reynolds & David Dimbleby (http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/36...). Basically, Germany could have perhaps won WWI if their cards had fallen a little differently. I've written a review of it, which I won't reproduce here, detailing those events (http://www.goodreads.com/review/show/...).

China is a very complex issue, and it's hard to say what will happen in a hundred years. In any event, the USA seems to be economically imploding, and as the world reaches its resource limits it's going to be interesting to see how well capitalism can cope, with its requirement for constant expansion. Like I say, I'm not an economist. But if you grow bacteria in a sugar solution overnight, then after the growth phase they have to stop growing when the sugar runs out. It'll be interesting to see how humanity copes with that, whether the carrying capacity of the world turns out to be around 10 billion people by 2100, or perhaps many less if global warming reduces the amount of arable land by then as some (e.g. David Lovelock) predict. In any event, China is like a slumbering giant that is just waking up. It's hard to predict how things will pan out in an economically Sino-centric or Asia-centric world.

Best regards,
Mike

I don't know what is the approximate figure but Earth cannot sustain 10B people with a North American lifestyle

Correct. That's right.

Look at the damage done to China's various ecosystems and the places where their citizens live. And then there's the issue of their government making claims of growth that defy the reality. The bulk of their growth was the result of trade with the U.S. and yet they managed to maintain 8% growth during our recession? That just doesn't pass the smell test. When Enron and Bernie Madoff issued such outlandish claims the scam was revealed.

U.S.'s implosion is due to a temporary madness plaguing our leadership coupled with lack of intellectual curiosity amongst the citizenry, but those are fixable. If the U.S. could pull through the civil war and the 20th century we can handle today's bouts of insanity.

The simplest explanation is that at the end of the Age of Exploration, the guns and steel were not evenly distributed. European societies (including North American offshoots) were left with a legacy of more effective education, infrastructure, political organisation, wealth, military power, etc.. The agricultural and industrial revolutions, which could only start and spread in the wealthier countries, allowed them to accelerate further ahead. In many (if not most) cases the superior European power was used to restrict the development of other societies. Diamond calls the knight the tank of the mediaeval world - well by the 19th century, European powers had the maxim gun, and by the 20th century they had actual tanks.

From this perspective, the question is less 'why do inequalities persist' and more 'why has inequality not always got worse'?

Diamond also makes the point that political unification of large area (made possible partly because of few geographic barriers) initialy gave a boost to technical innovation. His example is China which was unified over 2000 years ago and remained the most technically advanced civilization until around 1500. Then Diamond argued there was a tipping point in technology development when smaller countries isolated by geographic barriers started competing for military and economic survival which boosted technology development. His example is Europe from Renaissance to WWI. The geographic barriers being the English channel, the Alps, the Pyrenees, the Baltic Sea, the waters around Italy and Spain, etc. Which initialy were obstacles to political unification.

Mark wrote: "Why do the social discrepancies that Diamond alludes to persist even after technological and resource differences have been nullified to a great extent? "

The key is distribution, which is due in large part to the distribution of wealth. While it may true that in just about every country in the world, your basics - such as computers, PDA's and internet access - are all available, only certain people can afford them, and oftentimes they are only available in major cities. In countries where small towns and villages lack for clean drinking water and electricity, you can't expect to find the same kind of conveniences that we take for granted in places like the US, Canada, Australia, Europe, Japan, et al.

Mark wrote: "Why do the social discrepancies that Diamond alludes to persist even after technological and resource differences have been nullified to a great extent? "

Simply, because the "West" got a head start.

Even if you were to level the playing field, making sure everyone had the same commodities, hardware, etc, that would not erase centuries of accumulated "cultural capital".

As some have pointed out already, Diamond was exploring this issue more from the anthropological side, whereas it has now become more of a sociological issue.

Let me give you a very crude example. Take a High School graduate from a low/middle class background (let's say Newark, New Jersey; or perhaps Compton, California) and just for kicks, let's put him side by side with an Exeter Academy or Trinity School graduate. Then, to level the playing field, let's send them both to Harvard.

Same professors, same programs, same textbooks, dorms, clubs, etc. Same chances of succeeding right? Of getting into Harvard Law? Of landing a dream job in a prestigious firm? No.

Even though both have gone to the same college, under the same program, and studied under the same faculty, the odds are in favor of the Exeter/affluent background graduate simply because through both personal/family connections and "manicured" upbringing, he would have accumulated more social and cultural capital, thus, more likely to find his way into the more exclusive circles where opportunities abound.

Therefore, in the race for "cargo" the West is way ahead, and even though some conditions that proved advantageous to modern societies have been nullified, we're still in mile 20 of the marathon, while the rest are just warming up.

John wrote: "Look at the damage done to China's various ecosystems and the places where their citizens live. And then there's the issue of their government making claims of growth that defy the reality. The bul..."

But keep in mind the US's unprecedented growth in the past was due to historical reasons. The resource base that was once there, coupled with its population, is a good basis for wealth. But the explosive growth seen within the 20th century was due to the decline of Europe from its power position in the world and growing dependence on the US. With that over by the late 70's, the trend discontinued.

The power is now shifting to Asia for a reason. They have a massive population base, a growing industrial base, and the means to begin pushing the envelope on innovation. That's been Japan and the Tiger economies secret, and with India and China jumping on board, the days of US dominance are due to end. I totally agree that there are temporary problems that can be fixed, mainly political, but the shift is likely to continue.

What a globally aware thread! But then again, if we've all read "Guns Germs & Steel" then we have that perspective.

An English capitalist businessman of the Industrial revolution (I forget who) said "It's muck as makes money". That's what China is doing. Whereas a photovoltaic company in Germany has to pay to have all its toxic waste chemicals disposed of, a competing Chinese company dumps them srtiagt into the Yangtze River. For some reason, that river's dolphin population is now thought to be extinct. If capitalism really made producers pay for the real cost of their damage it might be more sustainable. But that will not happen (just look at the global warming fiasco), so our next big issue as a species is probably going to be overpopulation and population bust. The shift will continue towards Asia because they produce cheaper. The cost of that cheap production is not only low wages, no superannuation or no medical benefits, but also the destruction of the environment. But as long as the West continues to import their photovoltaic cells, TVs, PCs, cars, etc to compete in the same market place then the shift will continue. Globally it might even be a good thing if the West is a little humbled. They do not have a good history.

Best regards,
Mike

In Collapse Diamond himself pointed out the fiery exploitation by China over its own resources with little regard to their environment. America's decline is because of politics and an arsonist's ideology to free markets. China's issues are much deeper into their institutions [systemic corruption] and limits to the geological resources.

Yes John, I agree. Interestingly, in contrast to the individualist West, many of China's citizens have a relucant acceptance of the need to make sacrifices for the greater good of the nation (a nation of which they are intensely proud and with good reason considering its history). That surely partly explains why China can exploit its people the way it does, which seems impossibly harsh for us "big noses" in the West, but relfects the contination of a basic undercurrent of Chinese social mentality that has been exploited by the country's rulers for millennia. It may be quite difficult for many Chinese, But CHINA is doing quite well, and probably will continue to do so for some time to come as long as its people continue to think and behave like Chinese. All the best, Mike.

I was never much convinced by the cultural argument as to why Japanese/Asians/Iberians/Germans/Latin Americans/Muslims/anyone in a country that isn't currently a liberal democracy. Generally it seems to hold true until the repression slackens or is broken and the people take more control. To me, the primary reasons the Chinese state and companies can exploit people so effectively are 1) repression of dissent and 2) the fact that factory work is still an improvement on life as a peasant farmer. We'll see what happens when this reserve army of labour dries up and the industrial workforce becomes more settled.

In the West, our leaders like to talk about how small businesses drive the economy, create employment and will lead us out of recession. China is a big f**k you to this idea. Somehow economists and politicians seem to have forgotten about economies of scale. I suspect its an attempt to reconcile the conflicting beliefs in a well-functioning free market and the overwhelming fact of economies of scale, that in most areas, large organisations dominate. Developed economies have also staked a lot on science, technology and creative industries, with their 'intellectual property'. They've attempted to build extensive legal systems to protect this intangible property, only to find themselves faced with a major country that has scant regard for those principles. (Not to mention that their own populations are pretty dubious about them.)

There was an article in the NYT a while back about why Apple manufactures in China. What was really interesting about it were that most of China's strengths were things most people here would regard as unappealing - huge scale, great control by corporations over workers, tight corporate-government links.

I'm not sure any of this really links in to GGS; I think the book's theory stops applying once the world is sufficiently integrated (those guns, germs and steel have spread across it). That's the generous view, at least. The harsher view is that the fact we can't usefully apply Diamond's theory to modern times is because close up we see that things are really driven by complexity and chance and not explicable by any overarching theory.

@Tiredstars: haven't you read GGS?
Reading your comments, I think not.

Yes, but not for quite a long time, so I might have forgotten some important points.

Ah, OK.

true

Argento wrote: "Mark wrote: "Why do the social discrepancies that Diamond alludes to persist even after technological and resource have been nullified to a great extent? "

Simply, because the "West" g..."

I'd disagree with the idea that the West got a head start. I think it's arguable that China was technologically and economically superior to the West into the 16th Century and possibly 17th Century, and gave up its lead, with the decision to stop seafaring shortly after Zheng He's voyages being one of the steps in the process. I also think luck had a lot to do with it: Europe would not have fared quite so well had the inhabitants of the New World been less susceptible to the diseases of the Old.

Now, if you're referring simply to the relative position of the West in the current world, then the idea of a head start is more appropriate. Here, I think that the intellectual, social, and cultural changes that started in 14th Century Italy and became the Renaissance is the beginning of the head start.

Wonder how Bertrand Russell would evaluate this thesis Diamond presents? What if we used -profound and critical thought- as a measure to the rise and fall of specific civilizations? The Chinese made gun-powder, yet Europeans applied it to guns, killing and war. Thus, who demonstrated a form of higher-order thinking? Who demonstrated carnal and materialistic "thought"? I think if we go back and measure civilizations by quality of thought, we might find that they "selected" another path, which cost them dearly.

I just read Guns, Germs, and Steel. I really enjoyed it. Do any of you know of a book or two which would be a good follow-on book to read?

Colapse

Gilles wrote: "Just some food for thought along the same line.

I remember reading in The Economist about the dominance of English as the lingua franca of today's world, how this came about and why it will most l..."

Latin was the lingua franca in Europe for centuries, and French after that (the court language in England was French for many years after 1066. It was also the language of rule in Piedmont-Sardinia, and the language of the elite in Russia).

Ed wrote: "Gilles wrote: "Just some food for thought along the same line.

I remember reading in The Economist about the dominance of English as the lingua franca of today's world, how this came about and why..."

John wrote: "A agree with the fact it's largely market induced inequity that we're seeing."

Gilles has written a very insightful review.