Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ

If you haven't seen it, there is a documentary based on the book that's pretty decent. It's broken into 18 parts, but they're all available on .

I've never been able to get into this book, or the documentary. I wonder if it's because the person who gave it to me was a much-despised ex bf?

Richard wrote: "If you haven't seen it, there is a documentary based on the book that's pretty decent. It's broken into 18 parts, but they're all available on YouTube."

I think the book was comprehensive enough for me :)

Petra X wrote: "I've never been able to get into this book, or the documentary. I wonder if it's because the person who gave it to me was a much-despised ex bf?"

Bad reason to dislike a book! It is worth a read. I'll try to put up a better review but I need to read more about these ideas before feeling up to championing them here..

Great book. Bill Gates started his philanthropic work after reading this book. Allegedly, he regarded people (and, by expansion, societies, countries) themselves responsible for being "unsuccessful", but the book was able to bring the deluge of external factors that determine a society's fate into his worldview.

Mohit wrote: "Great book. Bill Gates started his philanthropic work after reading this book. Allegedly, he regarded people (and, by expansion, societies, countries) themselves responsible for being "unsuccessful..."

That is the point that Jared puts forth... I am not as convinced as Gates though :) Would have been more believable if he was willing to accept that it is not so simplistic and deterministic.

My initial reaction was same as yours. I am now more inclined to agree, after observing closely the effects of varied societal factors on my own persona in the last 2-3 years.
But the book is bound to arouse crticism. It seems at times the information presented and interpreted serves only to defend the premise made in the first chapter.

Mohit wrote: "My initial reaction was same as yours. I am now more inclined to agree, after observing closely the effects of varied societal factors on my own persona in the last 2-3 years.
But the book is boun..."

I have to be more observant then :)

Have you read Civilizations : Culture, Ambition, and the Transformation of Nature? It's my favourite world-view history book, but from the point of view of the inevitability of geography rather than politics.

You are right it is a bad reason not to be able to read the book, and I will try again one day, just not now.

Petra X wrote: "Have you read Civilizations : Culture, Ambition, and the Transformation of Nature? It's my favourite world-view history book, but from the point of view of the inevitability of geogra..."

geographical determinism is Jared's main thesis in this book too..

By the by, Jared Diamond denies it (Environmental Determinism as a theme)

Mohit wrote: "By the by, Jared Diamond denies it (Environmental Determinism as a theme)"

He cant deny it after admitting it throughout the book :) The best he comes to denying is when he admits that he is focussing on it deliberately to the exclusion of other influences for the sake of argument.

If my aging memories serve (Big if), Diamond takes a somewhat different approach in Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed. He does some pairwise comparisons of cultures/societies that failed miserably with those that did much better under similar geographic conditions. Much of the difference lies in human choices.

I enjoyed both that book and this one very much. I agree with you that the last part of this one drags with repetition, but the whole work of scholarship is rather magnificent. My recollection is that Collapse is more readable overall, and more directed at the current disastrous course of too many civilizations.

My overall takeaway from both books is that geography is extremely important, often in ways that are not obvious. But stupid decisions can screw up good geography, and the converse is also true.

Then again, I may have it all muddled in my own thinking. It happens when you get old.

Jim wrote: "If my aging memories serve (Big if), Diamond takes a somewhat different approach in Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed. He does some pairwise comparisons of cultures/socie..."

The way I get it, Collapse is about modern societies... So geography, by definition, cannot play as important a role any more.

The reason is that: The primary role that geography played in human evolution is as a medium/obstructor of information.

Once our technology grew enough for information to transcend geographical details, geography will necessarily fade into the background as an important determinant.

So I think Jared is being consistent in his overall approach across the two books. I will read it soon and get back to you on this.

Riku wrote: "So I think Jared is being consistent in his overall approach across the two books. I will read it soon and get back to you on this. "

Sounds good, and thanks! One of the photos I remember from Collapse is of the border between Haiti and the Dominican Republic (this was before the big earthquake of 2010 or so). Pretty stark - bare slopes in Haiti, forest in the Dominican. That example is definitely modern. I think one of the others is from the past - Easter Island I believe.

At any rate, always interested in your thoughts and your scholarship, and thanks again!

Jim wrote: "Riku wrote: "So I think Jared is being consistent in his overall approach across the two books. I will read it soon and get back to you on this. "

Sounds good, and thanks! One of the photos I reme..."

I remember a similar contrast in The World Without Us. I think you might enjoy that one.

Riku wrote: "I remember a similar contrast in The World Without Us. I think you might enjoy that one.
"

Yes, excellent! I will perform Kindle samplery on it and go from there. Cheers, Jim.

Jim wrote: "Riku wrote: "I remember a similar contrast in The World Without Us. I think you might enjoy that one.
"

Yes, excellent! I will perform Kindle samplery on it and go from there. Cheers, Jim."

samplery... heh :)

If they keep raising Kindle prices, I may add a goodreads book called 'Kindle-sample-not-buying-at-that-price'. I might even start a movement! Well, maybe not..

goodreads shelf, I meant. It's getting late...

Jim wrote: "I might even start a movement! Well, maybe not"

I'll join in if you ever do.

It's a deal! :)

Glad you enjoyed this, and I encourage you to continue with Collapse. Love the humanity of his starting point at looking at some hunter-gathering society in New Guinea and realizing they are just as smart and capable as human beings as he is. And then wondering what really led to the haves and have-nots in our world. As you move on to Collapse, you will hunger for some positive message for how to break out of the apparent determinism and the destructive pathway it puts us on. As Jim notes, that contrast between Haiti and Santo Domingo holds some seeds of hope and examples to promote responsible forestry at the end is another small glimmer.

I agree with you too that "The World Without Us" was a great read.

You said it right!...Although the magnitude of certain political and historical analysis are commendable, it is the repetition of Diamond's work and certain weak debating factors that did not gel with my mindset. But, I reckon at that time I was heavily into non-fiction and might have found this book not up to the mark. I think I should give it a re-read. Thanks, for this review, Riku. As always a delight to read.

Michael wrote: "I encourage you to continue with Collapse. Love the humanity of his starting point at looking at some hunter-gathering society in New Guinea and realizing they are just as smart and capable as human beings as he is. "

Certainly. That is what I appreciated most about the book!

In fact I am stealth-reading Collapse... I have reached the Easter Islanders.

May I recommend Fernández-Armesto's Civilization - /review/show...

it offers a wonderful take on a number of closely connected civilizations and gives balance to the deterministic perspective.

Praj wrote: "You said it right!...Although the magnitude of certain political and historical analysis are commendable, it is the repetition of Diamond's work and certain weak debating factors that did not gel w..."

Thanks, Praj! I agree that Diamond compromises argumentative structure for rhetorical flourishes occasionally, but it is still a landmark book and quite useful for perspective on other reads.

I loved the book too, and I think the general argument is fine, but I also found myself instinctively (and perhaps incorrectly) distrusting the book because the argument is almost *too* well-constructed. You know what I mean? It just led me to wonder how much of it is solid science and how much is rationalization? A little thought tells me that most of it is probably solid, if I trust Diamond's peers who have surely scrutinized it carefully and still heap praise upon it, though the fact that Diamond never acknowledges anything that might counter his theory still leaves me with a sneaking suspicion :)