Considerations:
- Good discussion questions should reference a specific point or idea in the text.
- Good discussion questions require critical analysis skills.
- Good discussion questions challenges one to demonstrate factual knowledge and an understanding of the geo-political, socio-historical context of the issue.
- Example: In the epilogue, Diamond states, "The histories of the Fertile Crescent and China also hold a salutary lesson for the modern world: circumstances change, and past primacy is no guarantee of future primacy"(GGS, 417). Discuss historical and contemporary examples that support or refute this assertion. (NOTE: This question is from the epilogue. You are only required to read and answer questions about the Prologue and Parts I, II, & III.)
Each student must create UNIQUE discussion questions. All comments are dated and time stamped - check previous comments to be sure you aren't duplicating someone else's question.
1) In the prologue, “Yali’s Question”, Jared Diamond discusses lifestyle differences between New Guineans and other parts of the world. Diamond remarks that even the lowest white person in 1972, “enjoyed a far higher standard of living than the New Guineans” (Diamond 14). Furthermore, he examines genetic differences that may have arisen between the New Guineans and Westerners. He conjures that New Guineans may be smarter than Westerners due to “modern European and American children spend[ing] much of their time being passively entertained by television, radio, and movies”(Diamond 21). New Guinean children do not have these means for passive entertainment and have to actively do something to pass the time. This childhood stimulation in New Guineans promotes mental development, and enables New Guineans to be smarter than Westerners. Therefore, one must wonder if this works in the other way, does the generational wealth found in North America and Western Europe provide North Americans and Western Europeans beneficial genetic advantages over long term impoverished civilizations such as New Guinea?
ReplyDelete2) In chapter nine, “Zebras, Unhappy Marriages, and the Anna Karenina Principle”, Diamond studies animal domestication. Diamond explains how Eurasia was able to domesticate thirteen species, while Africa domesticated none. Diamond stresses that differences between humans did not lead to some civilizations domesticating animals and others not, but rather differences between the animals themselves found in certain areas. Why did some areas of the world have animals that were able to be domesticated and other areas lacked any animals that were able to be domesticated?
3) In chapter six, “To Farm or Not to Farm”, Diamond examines different factors that caused societies to gradually switch from hunting and gathering to farming. Diamond also discusses how some “hunter-gatherers who did see food production practiced by their neighbors, and who nevertheless refused to accept its supposed blessings and instead remained hunter-gatherers” (Diamond 105). Could religion make certain societies turn away from farming? For example, North American indians such as the Sioux tribe, refused farming because it disabled them from being able to live their nomadic lifestyle and hunt buffalo which they believed connected them to the Spirits.
1. In chapter 5, “History’s Haves and Have-Nots”, Diamond states that “radiocarbon is plagued by numerous technical problems,” meaning radiocarbon dating could produce incorrect dates for artifacts found (GGS, 95). The first problem with radiocarbon dating is that it required a large amount of carbon. The second problem is that the levels of carbon 14 and carbon 12 fluctuate with time. Radiocarbon dates are found assuming that the levels of the two carbons remain constant which could give them the wrong date. The dates for certain artifacts and possibly remains of living things could be wrong so if they are, would it mean that history of things calculated before the 1980s could have occurred in a different order? Would those difference be large enough that some major events, such as the rise of farming, could have originated in a different part of the world than we believed?
ReplyDelete2. In chapter 12, “Blueprints and Borrowed Letters”, Diamond talks about how the first scribes had to invent a writing system from scratch but after that, people could have an example to follow (GGS, 217-218). In your opinion, what would be the most logical way to create a new language if you are following the guidelines of another language? In other words, where should you start?
3. In chapter 14, “From Egalitarianism to Kleptocracy”, Diamond talks about the Fayu people of Indonesia and his friend who visited them (GGS, 265-267). The Fayu people were untouched by the outside world and consist of 400 hunter-gatherers who are nomads roaming over a few hundred square mile area. They are a very primitive society and were fairly violent when they would meet. If they remained untouched by the outside world, would they evolve like other societies have in the past and eventually become like us today?
1. In chapter 2, "A Natural Experiment of History," Diamond says that
ReplyDelete"environments affect human societies" (Diamond 54). He gives the
example of Polynesia and the thousands of islands it is made up of.
Most of those islands were isolated from human interaction until 1200
B.C when several farmers settled the islands. Over the course of years
they populated the Polynesian Islands, which varied in nearly all
physical aspects, until they had a stable and organized society which
all lived in a similar fashion in respects to culture, technology,
plants and animals, and language. In a sense, the islands were
different but the lifestyle of the people, the same. These people were
isolated from the rest of the world, so does this
study prove that a human's environment affects him? Or does this
suggest that the social interactions of a human affect his actions?
2. In chapter 10, "Spacious Skies and Tilted Axes," Diamond explains "why
was the spread of crops from the Fertile Crescent so rapid?" (Diamond
183). In this he explains that it is due to the latitude of the area.
The latitude, according to Diamond, determines the length of day, the
season changes, and the climate of a specific latitude. He also says
that a plant must be suited for its latitude and gives the example
that a plant cultivated in Mexico would not survive well in the higher
latitudes even if it adapted. The same thing goes for animals he says.
Considering this, discuss how this realization would help early
farmers and grazers produce the most out of their land.
3. In chapter 11, "Lethal Gift of Livestock," Diamond makes the reader
see things from "the microbes point of view" (Diamond 198). The
microbe is not trying to kill its host, but instead reproduce to grow
its population bigger and more diverse. Most humans tend to do what is
best for themselves without thinking about the other party. In what
ways does Diamond use a microbe to represent a bigger picture about
human society?
In chapter three, “Collision at Cajamarca” Diamond explains of how the great Inca emperor Atahuallpa and his army of thousands were defeated by a mere handful of Spanish conquistadors. Diamond says “Thus, Atahualpa’s capture interests us specifically as marking the decisive moment of the greatest collision of modern history” (Diamond, 68). This is an intriguing as 80,000 of Native Americans could not defeat 100-200 European Conquistadors. Another question arises from the battle between these two peoples. 1). How did the Conquistadors know that the rattles and all of the noise would petrify the Native Americans or did they just get lucky? 2). Once captured Atahuallpa, why would Francisco Pizarro and his men continue to slaughter the petrified indians? 3). Why did the Spaniards execute Atahuallpa after they had received the ransom of the gold?
ReplyDelete2. In chapter five, “History’s Haves and Have-nots” Diamond states “Instead, what cries out for explanation is the failure of food production to appear, until modern times, in some ecologically very suitable areas that are among the world’s richest centers of agriculture and herding today” (Diamond, 93). This arises the question of how can, after years of humanities technological evolution and innovation, how have modern times been the start of the food producing world and not previous eras when it may seem more suitable?
3. In chapter eight, “Apples or Indians” Diamond further continues with his topic of “The Rise of Food Production”. In this chapter Diamond brings up an excellent topic of the origins of plant domestication and “Why did agriculture never arise independently in some fertile and highly suitable areas, such as California, Europe, temperate Australia, and subequatorial Africa?”. The Fertile Crescent is the ideal place for agricultural growth, however these other choices still stand. Why were Native Americans the original producers of food? Why weren’t aboriginal Australians have the worlds first agricultural success? Why weren’t the Africans producing food before the Fertile Crescent?
1. In chapter 5 “Histories Haves and Have Nots”, Diamond states that due to flaws in the system, radiocarbon dating is in reality “un-calibrated” and inaccurate. However in the beginning of the book Diamond states that throughout the book he will utilize calibrated for dates within the last 15,000 years and calibrated ones for dates prior (35). Yet later in the book claims that radiocarbon dates are frequently misinterpreted and calibrated inaccurately as some historical artifacts used to cross-reference them are themselves dated improperly. So my question is why does Diamond choose to use the same dating methods in his book that he rebukes as inaccurate later in the same book?
ReplyDelete2. In Chapter 7 “How to make and Almond”, Diamond discusses cultivation and the domestication of wild plan species into farmable and consumable breeds. He makes the argument, notably for the wild almond, that many plant species we eat today once looked, and tasted, very different than they do today. In the case of the almond, which was once known to be poisonous species, people would mistakenly eat the foul plant as eventually defecate the seeds and then the seeds would mutate and grow into the species we know today. While his theory does make sense and explain the almonds change from toxic to tasty, it doesn’t account for the thousands of other species who once, according to the book, grew in inedible forms. At the same time, modern people and scientists who are attempting to modify food seeds today to make them more efficient face much difficulty in doing so due to the complexity of the science. So how then did a bunch of ancient people accidentally, mostly by chance, manage to create all the species we know today without modern technology?
3. In chapter 14 “From Egalitarianism to Kleptocracy”, Diamond very clearly explains the socio-political evolution of the human race from Egalitarian Bands and Tribes into more Kleptocratic Chiefdoms and States. One particular detail that may have slipped passed most readers is that prior to Chiefdoms and States the bands and tribes lived in what we would most likely define today as a communist society (Diamond 272). They group as a whole shared property and food and as they were hunter-gatherers didn’t have the principles of land ownership or government. But as we see throughout history, the larger governments run by chiefs or statehoods prospered and evolved at rates astronomically higher than that of the weak communal societies. So I pose this question, if ancient history clearly shows that capitalist style societies and more “western” style cultures lasted the longest, why do “progressives” in the modern day insist that in order to mover forward as a race, we must revert back to a primitive, inefficient and weaker way of living and thinking?
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIn chapter six, one of the things Diamond explained was that one factor that led up to the growing dominance of food production “was the two-way link between the rise in human population density and rise of food production” (111). Provide examples from both prehistoric and modern times that are referenced throughout the text in order to support this claim.
ReplyDeleteIn chapter fourteen, Diamond states that “the Fayu consist of about 400 hunter-gatherers, divided into four clans and wandering over a few hundred square miles. According to their own account, they had formerly numbered about 2,000, but their population had been greatly reduced as a result of Fayu killing Fayu. They lacked political and social mechanisms, which we take for granted, to achieve peaceful resolution of serious disputes. Eventually, one group of Fayu invited a courageous husband-and-wife missionary couple to live with them. The couple has now resided there for a dozen years and gradually persuaded the Fayu to renounce violence. The Fayu are thereby being brought into the modern world, where they face an uncertain future” (266). Diamond explains that a once violent, and uncivilized group, can be changed for the better; become pacified and renounce their once violet ways. One of the ways in which this could be achieved is through the assimilation, and introduction of religion into their culture. Why do you suppose that the introduction of religion could have this great of an effect upon such a group, that was once uncivilized?
In the prologue, Diamond stated what the entire text would be about in his thesis: “History followed different courses for different peoples because of differences among peoples’ environments, not because of biological differences among peoples themselves” (25). However, then in chapter 7, Diamond often claimed that natural selection and genetic mutations are both responsible for some plants dominance over other plants of the same species. Could it be possible that the idea does apply to humans as well, even though he said otherwise? Based upon this question one should reexamine the counterargument for Diamond’s thesis. In other terms, is it possible that some imbalances in today’s society are in fact due to differences that exist between particular peoples, not something like racism, but instead as the products of natural selection, in such a way that as people adapted to their own different regions, they would develop in different ways? Use scientific examples of environmental conditions and possible acquired adaptations to those conditions to support or refute the claim.
While explaining the importance of writing and its gradual spread throughout history, Diamond states, "developments in format included the gradual adoption of conventions whose necessity is now universally accepted: that writing should be organized into ruled rows or columns ... ; that the lines should be read in a constant direction ... ; and that the lines should be read from top to bottom of the tablet rather than vice versa" (Diamond 209). He then goes on to explain that the earliest forms of language on which most modern writing is based were read from left to right. If these guidelines truly were "universally accepted", why do some languages such as Arabic and Hebrew read from right to left? Why were these suggestions not accepted or spread to certain cultures?
ReplyDeleteIn order to explain why some civilizations have advanced faster than others, Diamond explains that, “writing brings power to modern societies….” (Diamond 206). He attributes this power to the knowledge that can be conveyed through writing, and states that “knowledge brings power” (Diamond 206). How can writing give one civilization power over another, when the two societies are completely isolated from one another (as most were in the timeframe to which he refers)?
In chapter 1, Diamond explains that the oldest human remains found in North and South America were discovered in Mexico, Canada, and Alaska (Diamond 44). He then goes on to suggest that civilizations in areas of earlier development could potentially have a developmental edge over those in regions that were colonized at later dates (Diamond 49). Assuming that this idea is true, why are Native Alaskan Eskimos, the descendants of the earliest civilized humans in the Americas, such a primitive culture to this day? In keeping with Diamond’s suggestion, shouldn’t they be one of the most advanced modern societies, as they had such an early head start?
In chapter six, “To Farm or Not to Farm”, Diamond discusses how food production was adopted in the fertile crescent around 8500 B.C. (Diamond 104). Think about why people many thousands of years before 8500 B.C. didn’t adopt food production. If people were to adopt food production 10,000 or more years before they did, do you think the world today would be technologically and agriculturally more advanced than it is today? Why or why not?
ReplyDeleteIn chapter two, “A Natural Experiment of History”, Diamond states that the clash between the Maori and Moriori groups was an example of a “Natural experiment of history”, that showed, on a smaller scale, how all the different groups in the world had evolved from one group in one place (Diamond 55). Do you think it is logical to jump to a conclusion that all groups in the world were descended from one group and one place, based off of a clash between two groups in history? Why or why not?
In chapter one, “Up to The Starting Line”, Diamond talks about how Australian/New Zealand giants just disappeared (Diamond 42) . He brings up the point that it is likely that humans had killed off all of these giants, and the animals had not yet developed a fear for humans, which is why they confronted humans with no hesitation. He then states that there is no evidence of humans killing these creatures. There is an argument going on between scientists about whether or not humans killed them or if they were killed by some other force. If there is no evidence of any force killing these creatures, how should scientists go about solving the mystery? What do you think killed off these giants of Australia and New Zealand?
1) In chapter one, "Up to the Starting Line", Diamond talks about how the Cro-Magnons seemed to be more advanced and more developed than the Neanderthals (Diamond 39). Diamond goes on to talk about how the Cro-Magnons produced greater technology and had more brains than the Neanderthals ever did. He even states that they used their far superior development to kill or displace the Neanderthals. So based on this, how do you think the Cro-Magnons gain the more advantageous traits than the Neanderthals did?
ReplyDelete2) In chapter four, "Farmer Power", Diamond discusses how the advantages of food-production over the hunter-gathering lifestyle (Diamond 88-90). Diamond says that the production of food led to a higher population density, and also permitted people to a high supply of food. Clearly the food-production way was more beneficial to the population rather than hunting and gathering. If this was the case, why did the hunter-gatherers take so long to decide to switch to the food production lifestyle from the hunting and gathering?
3) In chapter eleven, "Lethal Gift of Livestock", Diamond goes into detail how the close proximity of humans and animals allowed for disease to spread more easily (206-209). He states that people who live in a higher population can contract more diseases from the contact with people. He also states how people who live close to their livestock may also be exposed to disease from the animals, which then can be spread throughout the population of people. If people were getting sick while leaving near a lot of other people and animas, why would they not move farther away from animals and live in less dense populations of people?
1. A large portion of Part Two: The Rise and Spread of Food Production focuses on farming, as well as the autocatalytic process. This led me to wonder as to how most of the world is currently able to consume edible, non-harmful foods, without the consumption of the bizarre foods that humans once used to eat. For instance, yesterday, I ate some Oreos. On the back of the box, I noticed that the product seemed to be ridden with artificial chemicals and preservatives. I found the presence of these synthetic contents within my snack to be interesting. The production of food begins somewhere, but how does it end up for us to consume?
ReplyDelete2. Is necessity in fact the foundation of invention? It is not, according to Jared Diamond in chapter thirteen, “Necessity’s Mother” (Diamond 240). My question is, how and why have we progressed at such an accelerated rate? The point is, that necessity is not the foundation of invention, and oppositely, that invention is not the foundation of necessity. Why in a span of a decade has the world changed from wires, to wireless? What is the cause, and what is the end result of Diamond’s theory?
3. Jared Diamond talks about the use of power in chapter fourteen, “From Egalitarianism to Kleptocracy.” Based on his interpretations of power in this section, I have come to wonder about one thing: is the use of power in ancient societies is similar to that of today? Is it possible to predict the end result of a country based on how it is governed? A kleptocracy is defined as: “A government or state in which those in power exploit national resources and steal.” How has kleptocracy affected the use of power today?
1. In Chapter 12, “Blueprints and Borrowed Letters”, Diamond discusses the origins of writing and how other languages essentially piggybacked off of already developed writing systems. The task of starting from scratch and formulating a whole new system is very arduous, which is why most languages adapt from others. What would be your main motivation for creating a new language as opposed to taking the easier route of copying ideas from already existing ones?
ReplyDelete2. In Chapter 4, “Farmer Power”, food production is said to be indirectly linked to the development of guns, germs, and steel. Over time, more efficient uses of domesticated animals, plants, etc were created. As food production is a term that contains many different items and parts to it, which ones specifically do you believe were paramount compared to others in this development?
3. In Chapter 7, “How to Make an Almond”, it is explained that wild almonds possess a bitter taste which is due to a chemical called amygdalin. Due to this, wild almonds possess the capability of killing the consumer. However, there is a single gene mutation that rids the almond of its bitterness. Although these trees are usually gone very soon as birds get to them first, Diamonds explains how children would usually stumbled upon these trees and find out about them. Why do you think the children lacked knowledge on the effects of the wild almonds as they mention no sign of a physical distinction between the good and bad ones? If the children knew not eat wild almonds, do you think this mutation would have ever been discovered by humans? If yes, how?
In chapter one, “Up to the Starting Line,” Diamond states that the first definite signs of human history occurred during the Great Leap Forward. Diamond’s definite first signs of human existence are considered to be standardized stone tools, distinctive shapes in stones, and engraving tools. How can we be certain that these stones were used as tools, and not just naturally made by falling rock or erosion?
ReplyDeleteIn chapter six, “To Farm or Not to Farm,” Diamond stated, “The much denser populations of food producers enabled them to displace or kill hunter-gatherers by their sheer numbers, not to mention the other advantages associated with food production...” Therefore, my question is, why did some people wait so long to go from a hunter-gatherer lifestyle to a farming lifestyle?
In chapter fourteen, “From Egalitarianism to Kleptocracy,” Diamond states, “With the rise of chiefdom so around 7,500 years ago. People had to learn, for the first time in history, how to encounter strangers regularly without attempting to kill them.” With this in mind, how did we, as people, slowly come to accept and embrace strangers from different continents and ethnic backgrounds? Although not all people accept one another, what stops us from automatically killing the other person?
1. In chapter 2, A Natural Experiment of History, Diamond states that the Moriori and the Maori descended from the same group of Polynesian people who settled on the Chatham Islands and in New Zealand. The Moriori were the group who settled on the islands, which were good for a hunter-gatherer society. The northern part of New Zealand was good for farming, which was done by the Maori tribe. The Moriori eventually became less advanced than the Maori, and the Maori waged war on them and won. What environmental conditions could have caused the groups to become so different that they could not come to an agreement upon difficulties?
ReplyDelete2. In chapter 4, Farmer Power, Diamond discusses how people discovered that they could ride horses and other animals. Later they invented stirrups and saddles to make riding easier. The usage of animals in battles and in everyday use gave the groups with these animals an advantage over the groups without this ability. Why is it that certain civilizations all over the world were able to use this technique, but only certain civilizations did this, while others did not take advantage of this opportunity?
3. In chapter 6, To Farm or Not to Farm, Diamond explains how humans went from hunter-gatherers to farmers. He says that some people chose to use the food production method completely, some partially, and some not at all. The first farmers could not have seen someone else doing it, as many others did. These people had to figure it out on their own, and then share it with everyone else. Farming and food production rapidly became popular in most countries. How did the first farmer figure out what to do when farming?
1. In chapter nine, "Lethal Gift of Livestock", Diamond discusses "how the ultimate cause of food production led to the proximate causes of germs" (Diamond 195). In that chapter, he talks about how the close relationship between humans and animals has been the cause of numerous worldwide epidemics. He also weighs in on the heavy influence that germs have had on world history, being the most common cause of death to humans throughout time. Do you think that us humans are to blame for the existence of the many diseases that have originated from domesticated animals?
ReplyDelete2. In chapter six, "To Farm or Not to Farm", Diamond discusses the shift of hunting and gathering to producing food. He uses the Polynesian settlers of New Zealand as an example. "Only after the first Polynesian Settlers had exterminated moas and decimated seal populations on New Zealand, and exterminated or decimated sea birds and land birds on other Polynesian Islands, did they intensify their food production" (Diamond 110). Under what other circumstances did hunter-gatherer societies turn to producing their own food?
3. In chapter seven, "How to make and Almond", Diamond examines the "strikes" that kept humans from domesticating oak trees. He states that the lifespan of the trees, as well as their evolution alongside squirrels caused farmers to fail if they attempted to farm acorns for human use. After learning the "strikes" of any undomesticated plant, do think it is possible for it to domesticated?
In chapter eight, Diamond discusses New Guinea’s geography and how its diversity is very high given that it is a fairly warm and humid environment. Diamond also says that there has been human life in New Guinea for 40,000 years which would allow the reader to assume that the citizens of New Guinea are aware of their diverse environment (Diamond 147). On the contrary, he goes on to describe the amount of deaths due to starvation when travelers run out of food that they packed for their journey. It makes little to no sense why New Guineans would die to starvation when they are more than likely knowledgeable of all the edible plants around them. Why would those New Guineans choose to die of starvation when food is literally everywhere? Is it because of cowardness? unsureness? or are they simply lazy?
ReplyDeleteIn chapter six, Diamond explains why hunter-gatherers took such a long time to become farmers. Diamond provides his reasons that have to do with farming being an easier practice to make food rather than hunting, and how it’s efficiency is greater (Diamond 105-107). Given the knowledge of modern hunting and what Diamond has said about hunter gatherers and their challenges, what would be the differences between hunting back then and hunting now that made hunter-gatherers have a more troublesome time looking for animals? Also, since hunting was a harder task, what made the hunter-gatherers stay hunters instead of changing into farmers?
In chapter nine, Diamond defines a domesticated animals is “an animal selectively bred in captivity and thereby modified from its wild ancestors, for use by humans who control the animal’s breeding and food supply” (Diamond 159). Diamond earlier wrote how animals provide humans with so many necessities, such as milk, meat, and fertilizer. Given how important animals are to mankind, and how humans domesticate animals from their natural habitat, do you think domestication is something that humans should be proud of? Imagine the situation vis versa, and animals taking humans away from their home and taming them. Also, keep in mind what supplies and food humans would lose if domestication terminated.
1. In chapter 2, "A Natural Experiment of History," Diamond talks about the two different groups, the Maori and the Moriori. While only 1,000 years before they were among each other, now one group is slaughtering the other. While Moriori had to resort to hunter-gathering, the Maori people were able to become farmers. While farming was supposed to be creating more developed societies, if the Moriori offered the Maori a peace offering and the Maori killed them anyway, is this really a more developed society? Instead of trying to expand their society they kill off distant relatives.
ReplyDelete2. In chapter 11 "Lethal Gift of Livestock," Diamond talks about how farmers became immune to certain germs through the raising of livestock. These animals that they were around carried certain sicknesses and over time they become immune. But what Diamond does not mention is that hunter-gathers are around and eat animals for suvival. How did the continuous slaughter of animals and eating of them not help hunter-gathers become immune to certain sicknesses as well?
3. In chapter 12 "Blueprints and Borrowed Letters," Diamond speaks of how writing systems were created or adapted for societies. Humans first created writing system was in 3000 B.C. but it amazes me that it was this late. If humans had been living among each other and developing societies for about 10,000 years before then, I assume they had to communicate with one another. If they communicated with each other verbally, why did it take so many years for them to finally communicate through a writing system?
1. In chapter 2, Diamond talks about the citizen of the Hawaiian Archipelago. He specifically talks about the political and social patterns of the citizens. In the area, the chiefs and children of the chiefs were separated into eight different descendants. The higher residents in the area could only marry other people that had equal status. Sometimes this even meant that the person would have to marry someone that they were directly related to. The higher residents were in control of the entire area and did little work for the region. Is this an early, excessive aristocracy?
ReplyDelete2. In chapter 12, Diamond explains who the European explorers had gained an advantage over other societies that they came across because they had developed reading and writing and were more literate then the societies that they came across. Being literate allowed them to make documents of sailing routes and the creation of maps as well as many other advantages. What were some of the reasons that the Europeans were able to become generally more literate then the other societies? What were some of the differences between the two societies because of one being more literate then the other?
3. In chapter 14, Diamond talks about the Fayu tribe in Indonesia. They are a group of primitive hunter-gathers that roam a large area of land. Diamond explains that the tribe said that it was once 2,000 members but now it had greatly diminished into the 400. Later in the chapter, Diamond talks about how the Fayu were very close and held very close relationships with one another which allowed them to break fights up easily. Diamond then says that larger communities would not be able to break fights up as easily because less people would be willing to intervene. If the Fayu tribe was very close and could break up fights easily, then why did their population drop from 2,000 members to 400 members from tribe member on tribe member violence?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete1.) In chapter 5, Diamond questions why farming was not adopted in areas that are perfectly suitable for a farming lifestyle. Explain, based on the facts supplied by Diamond, why in suitable areas for farming, farming was not adopted, and why farming was adopted at different times on different continents?
ReplyDelete2.) In chapter 8, Diamond uses that example that the apple was able to being domesticated where some Native Americans lived, but it never was. He then asks if the blame is on the apple or on the Native Americans. examples Why could it either be the apple's fault, or the Indians?
3.) In chapter 9, Diamond states that only 14 of the 148 big wild terrestrial herbivorous mammals became domesticated. Were all 148 of the animals tested or were some just dismissed right away as unfit to become domesticated? Also, were the 14 that passed the test figured out through trial and error or by certain characteristics that would make them more valuable than others?
1) In Chapter 1: Up to the Starting Line, Diamond opens by briefly explaining human origins. He explains that about 7 million years ago, African apes split into different populations, of which one evolved into modern gorillas, another into two different species of chimpanzees, and a third into humans (Diamond 36). This raises two key questions. First, why was Africa the continent that humans evolved on, when there are other species of apes living elsewhere, such as Southeast Asia? Secondly, what could possibly have split the African apes into different groups, and caused them to evolve differently?
ReplyDelete2) In Chapter 10: Spacious Skies and Tilted Axes, Diamond mentions that the axes do not just affect the distribution of food, but also technological inventions. As an example, he states that the wheel was invented around 3000 BC, around Southwest Asia, and it spread quickly east and west. However, it Mexico, where the wheel was developed independently, it had trouble spreading north and south. Writing also had the same results. Diamond relates this to food production, as wheels were attached to food carts, and writing was developed by educated elites who did not have to farm, as there was enough food (Diamond 182-183). The question is, if food had already been spread along the north-south axis (the major difficulty), then why was the wheel so slow to do the same? Food needed to be transported to northern and southern markets as well. Also, why did only food production allow the wheel to be invented? Why did the hunters and gatherers not invent wheels to build carts that could carry more food back to their settlement?
3) In Chapter 6: To Farm or Not To Farm, Diamond explains that some hunters and gatherers, not just food producers, intensively manage their land. He gives the example of the New Guinea peoples who, despite never domesticating sago palms or mountain pandanus, increased their production by clearing away competitive trees and keeping channels in sago swamps clear. He also describes Aboriginal Australians who managed the landscape and harvested and regrew yams, but were never officially farmers because they never took back and regrew the plants at their camp (Diamond 102-103). These examples raise a thought-provoking question: why? Why did the New Guineans never domesticate the sago palms or mountain pandanus to harvest the best ones? Also, did the Aboriginal Australians not regrow the yams back at their camp because they believed that the plants should be accessible to all the tribes and all the animals, or some other reason, or was it just because the thought never occurred to them?
1) In the prologue, Diamond states, “History followed different courses for different peoples because of differences among peoples’ environments, not because of biological differences among peoples themselves” (Diamond 25). Essentially, this was supposed to summarize the entire book. However, in Chapter 7, Diamond proposes such factors such as natural selection, and even genetic mutations that are responsible for some dominates in the different species of plants. But the question arising from that statement remains; could that theory technically be applied to humans as well? Rather than racism and other judgments, could the superiority of certain people be caused by the genetic coding of the individual?
ReplyDelete2) During chapter two, Diamond talks about how the Polynesian people split off into two different tribes. The Maori and the Moriori Tribes. Although these tribes are both filled with all Polynesian people, the difference between them is interesting. The Moriori became peaceful and the Maori became war-like. Was it because of the other indigenous people that were on this land? Or was it because the two groups just had different religious and ethical values?
3) Diamond's discussion of the large amount of time it took to create efficient farming systems is discussed in Chapter 5. Some places took more time to develop such a system, as other places did not take as long. This raises thoughts as to how some places developed faster than others in farming. How was there so much variation in the time it took for developing an efficient farming system? Was it because of geography, resources, intelligence, etc.? Why?
In chapter 4,"Farmer Power," Diamond explains how he worked on a farm as a teenager(Diamond 85). In the area of the farm their were still many hunter-gatherers. Diamond explains how the world used to be full of hunter-gatherers, but at one point people decided to start producing food for themselves. Little by little the hunter-gatherer population started to die down. Why did the human population begin to think producing crops for themselves was the way to survive?
ReplyDelete2. In chapter 8, "Apples Or Indians," Diamond faces us with two explanations (Diamond 8). His explanation states why people with the resources for domesticating plants, do not domesticate them. The other explanation explains how people may have wanted to domesticate plants they just did not have the resources. This explains why some areas were independently domesticated many years after other areas were. What in the culture of some the people made them refuse domestication? Also, why did the people with no resources to domesticate not think to bring resources to them?
3. In chapter 11, "Lethal Gift Of Livestock," Diamond talks about a patient in the hospital with a "mysterious microbe" (Diamond 196). The patient admits to having intercourse with various sheep after a visit to the family farm. The sheep was without a doubt the cause of the microbe. Diamond explains how this may sound odd, but most people do love their animals, just not in a romantic way. This brings the question, why do some people love animals more than the usual platonic level? Also, why would someone have intercourse with an animal, knowing it would bring disease?
In number 1 it should be there* instead of their.
DeleteIn number two the question should be, What was it about their culture that made the people refuse domestication?
1) In Chapter 3, "Collision at Cajamarca", a collision occurred between the Inca Empire and the Spanish, which would cause Pizarro's group of 168 soldiers to decimate an Inca army of 80,000. The Inca's were so surprised by the attack, and especially by the "alien-like" weaponry of the Spanish would lead to their inevitable defeat. Pizarro's 168 soldiers had guns, steel swords, and steel armor. This weaponry was so incredibly unfamiliar to the Incas, for the most "modern" weaponry they had were bows and arrows. Furthermore, the Spanish soldiers were proudly mounted on horses - which again the Incas had never seen such an occurrence (Diamond 67-72). With this in mind, I pose the question: Is there any chance that the Incas could have fought back the Spanish conquistadors, or was their defeat just simply inexorable. Also, if the Inca's and the Spanish were to switch roles (Pizarro's army invading mainland Spain), would the Inca's be able to invade the Spanish without any repercussions? If no, what would be stopping them from attacking the Spanish?
ReplyDelete2) In Chapter 10, "Spacious Skies and Tilted Axes", Diamond hypothesizes that there are two axes that describe the spread of food production. The first is the "North-South" axis, which is allocated to The Americas and Africa. The second is the "East-West" axis, which correlates directly to all of Eurasia. Diamond claims that food production spread more quickly on the East-West axis rather than the North-South axis mostly because "East-West" shares the same latitude, which can correlate to the same climate. On the other hand, the North-South axis poses a multitude of different climates and vegetation. Thus, is food production was traveling East-West, there would be no need for any biological adaptations or mutations to take place since it's located on the same climate (Diamond 176-182). However, if you examine much more than the ecological/biological factors of Diamond's reasoning, you begin to unravel some faults in his argument. What are some faults that Diamond faces with his theory of the axes?
3) In Chapter 14, "From Egalitarianism To Kleptocracy", Jared Diamond proposes that there are four stages of society throughout World History. These include bands, tribes, chiefdoms, and the state. These are in order from "least developed" to "most developed". Bands usually consists of a few dozen families and food production is practically non-existent. In other words - bands are clearly hunter-gatherers. Tribes are perhaps a version of bands, yet bigger, more developed, and farming techniques are first being acquired. Next, the chiefdom's come along, whom are basically minuscule versions of states - they have bureaucracy and thousands of people reside within these chiefdoms. What exist today are the states - which are centralized and have systems of taxation (Diamond 265-270). Typically, we would see the progression of society occur in linear a linear fashion - from a band, then to a tribe, then chiefdom, and finally a state. With this in mind - could society possibly reverse that linear order? In other words, could a state develop itself into a chiefdom or a plethora of tribes? In addition, could we see societies "skipping" the order set forth by Diamond. For instance, could a tribe develop in a state right away?
Error corrections:
Delete"Is" is supposed to be "if".
"Typically, we would see the progression of society occur in a linear fashion"
In chapter three, Diamond discusses the advantages of Spanish Conquistadors over the native people, such as their manpower and weapons. In many cases, the Spanish allied with one tribe in order to win battles against their rivals. If neighboring tribes had allied to defeat the invading Conquistadors, could they have won? Why was separating their enemy into groups such a significant strategy for the Spanish? In addition, could the Aztec's and Inca's weapons held against the Spanish army if there had been equal manpower?
ReplyDeleteIn chapter eleven, Diamond talks about the differences between crowd diseases and those that affect small populations. He states that the reason that crowd diseases could not persist in small populations is because the entire town would quickly become infected and either the disease or the population would die out. Similarly, slow-spreading diseases are more dangerous to outside populations because natives often have some immunity to the virus. In some cases, the Spanish used biological warfare by sending blankets used by smallpox patients to intentionally spread it to the Native Americans. Do you think that the tribes could have done the same to the Spanish with their own diseases? Would theses diseases spread quickly in a dense population or remain slow-spreading and die out?
In chapter nine, Diamond talks about the abundance of domesticable animal species in the Fertile Crescent. Many of these, such as pigs, cows, and horses, were an important factor in the exponential growth of populations. In chapter six, Diamond talks about domesticable plant species in the same region. These factors combined to allow Europe and Asia to gain it's power economically. If the Fertile Crescent only had domesticated plants and another region had domesticated animals, which civilization would have progressed more quickly? Is one factor more advantageous than the other?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIn chapter 2, "A Natural Experiment of History", Diamond states that; "the ultimate ancestors of all modern Polynesian populations shared essentially the same culture, language, technology, and set of domesticated plants and animals" (Diamond 55). However, the people in the Polynesian experiment were scattered across the Pacific. Each area had different circumstances, such as isolation and climate. How were all of the polynesians able to develop as a whole when they suffered such great amounts of diversity? If their land was spread across so much so much area, each of them experiencing things different than the others, how were all of the people tested able to grow up and have the same results?
ReplyDeleteIn Chapter 7, "How to make an Almond", Diamond discusses plant domestication with crops. At the beginning of the chapter, he explains that scientists take their seeds of plants and use their knowledge of genetics to breed them and make a healthy, growing biotic creature. My question is, what scientific material did they have with them at the time of plant domestication? Did they use any machines or structures to breed the seeds? Furthermore, did the scientists fear the possible consequences of their experiments? Based on the book, it seems like they did not have a lot of knowledge going into the situation, so it is amazing yet puzzling how they were able to achieve the best possible results without much trouble.
In chapter 10, "Spacious Skies and Tilted Axes", Diamond talks about the domestication of plants around the Fertile Crescent. He writes about how plants flourished because they had adapted completely, and because the environment in the Crescent was sufficient for the plants to grow compared to other communities. My question is, how long did it take for the plants to adapt to the environment of the Fertile Crescent? When the investigators discovered the rapid plant growth, the plants could have already grown in another environment, then attached to different adaptations, and began to slowly die off. The evolution of the plants can change overtime, so how long did it take the plants to meet the standards of the Crescent?