3 Comments
User's avatar
User's avatar
Comment deleted
Jul 12, 2023
Comment deleted
Expand full comment
Ezra Brand's avatar

The passage you quote doesn't "debunk Diamond". It critiques Diamond's framing. Diamond's major thesis of the book is developing the existence and importance of different ecological environments, and how that affects economic and technological development. I agree with your critique, but it doesn't affect Diamond's main thesis in the book

Expand full comment
User's avatar
Comment deleted
Jul 12, 2023
Comment deleted
Expand full comment
Ezra Brand's avatar

I disagree that the views, broadly speaking, are mutually exclusive. I think I've made my argument clearly enough in my previous comments

Expand full comment
User's avatar
Comment deleted
Jul 12, 2023
Comment deleted
Expand full comment
Ezra Brand's avatar

Thanks for the pointer to that review. Was interesting. This is the punch line, which I agree with:

"All of which suggests that the comparatively easy domestication of foodstuffs and animals in Eurasia at most only accelerated group divergences already under way. This in any case is what evolutionary logic demands. The different environments they had occupied for tens of thousands of years previously would have forced Africans, Europeans, Asians and Amerindians apart by 8,000 B.C. Prof. Diamond devotes only two dismissive sentences to this idea"

So his arguments don't debunk Diamond's theory. They can be reframed to say that the factors that Diamond identifies were the causes of group divergences.

I'm hoping to read Troublesome Inheritance by N. Wade as well, at some point

Expand full comment