06-27-2002, 07:10 AM
Regards Diamond and Hanson I found both authors interesting and worth reading because both started interesting debates. But I am not sure they are incompatible (even though Hanson attacks Diamond in his "Carnage and Culture").<br>
<br>
Cultures reflect a way of adapting, surviving and using an environment which also includes interactions with other cultures. But I think most of the mechanisms that Diamond considers have a time scale that is longer than those of recorded history and the coming and going of ephimeral cultures are affected by large scale forces but not in clear cut ways, leaving plenty of room for short time scale forces to work in unpredictable ways. So it is possible that the incompatibility is more apparent than substantial. But maybe Diamond's mechanisms, active thousans of years ago, are actually obsolete now that cultures exchange ideas and interact in ways that make the world much more complex than it was thousands of years ago. Hanson describes the military evolution of Japan as a counter example of a Diamond-like analysis. But I honestly think this is over-kill. One thing is to explain the origin and implications of farming in the fertile middle east thousands of years before recorded history and another is Japan in recent times. I personally would never have thought of using a Diamond-like approach to recent events. So the two approaches become incompatible if one sets out intentionally on a collision course and overstates his case.<br>
<br>
p.s. I read that in some cases in the U.S. Hanson was criticised from the right.<br>
<br>
<p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://pub45.ezboard.com/ugoffredo.showPublicProfile?language=EN>goffredo</A> at: 6/27/02 11:16:31 am<br></i>
<br>
Cultures reflect a way of adapting, surviving and using an environment which also includes interactions with other cultures. But I think most of the mechanisms that Diamond considers have a time scale that is longer than those of recorded history and the coming and going of ephimeral cultures are affected by large scale forces but not in clear cut ways, leaving plenty of room for short time scale forces to work in unpredictable ways. So it is possible that the incompatibility is more apparent than substantial. But maybe Diamond's mechanisms, active thousans of years ago, are actually obsolete now that cultures exchange ideas and interact in ways that make the world much more complex than it was thousands of years ago. Hanson describes the military evolution of Japan as a counter example of a Diamond-like analysis. But I honestly think this is over-kill. One thing is to explain the origin and implications of farming in the fertile middle east thousands of years before recorded history and another is Japan in recent times. I personally would never have thought of using a Diamond-like approach to recent events. So the two approaches become incompatible if one sets out intentionally on a collision course and overstates his case.<br>
<br>
p.s. I read that in some cases in the U.S. Hanson was criticised from the right.<br>
<br>
<p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://pub45.ezboard.com/ugoffredo.showPublicProfile?language=EN>goffredo</A> at: 6/27/02 11:16:31 am<br></i>
Jeffery Wyss
"Si vos es non secui of solutio tunc vos es secui of preciptate."
"Si vos es non secui of solutio tunc vos es secui of preciptate."
