Is there a book that proves this one wrong...

This reasoning goes back to aristotle and the ukumene (home of man) region. The frigid and torrid regions did not permit the full development of human potential.

Attached: 1514126212111.jpg (864x546, 195K)

>ziggers
Ayy you aight white boi

kek this is basically why guns germs steel is shit but a liberal wont accept this so a book would be better

looks very promising thanks

Attached: 1444001575454.png (414x499, 309K)

If you want to read a long book where he trashes western civilization as having it easy, then going on and on about how Africa had it hard, and that Australian abos are superior at living outside.

The guy has a few good points about wheat, and farming. If you have common sense you'll know that africa is soil rich, animal rich, mineral rich, etc. He plays that down while claiming the "fertile Cresent" had it so much better....

Oh and ha claims zebras cant be tamed and used as horses were....

It is a load of BS. If you actually read the book he spends more time comparing China and the Middle East to Papua New Guinea instead of comparing Europe to anywhere else. Here are some highlights:
Wild zebras act differently around humans than domesticated horses, therefore zebras could not be domesticated.
Europe didn't have any cereal grains (the most important crop for developing civilization) but Europe somehow had an agricultural advantage.
Europe had no unique resources worth exporting for trade and measurably less quantities of common resources than any other region, but Europe had an advantage in trade.
Europeans had a single access route to Asian trade routes (Constantinople, also lost in the 15th century and Europe was cut off entirely from Asia by Muslims) while Africans had several, (Suez isthmus, Arabia, Indian Ocean) but Europe had better access to Asian resources and knowledge.

Doesn't the successful European colonization of South Africa and Rhodesia kind of BTFO the idea that it's the environment and not the people meme? Also if you're a good smart shitlib don't you accept evolution? Basically organisms are plastic to their environment so even if we accept the environment is shit, it stands to reason the people who originate and develop in that land are shit so the point remains. Sounds like a bunch of bullshit excuses to continue to avoid the racial issue. An issue that persists with this particular race no matter where they grow up or how they're raised.

Attached: 1530654226246.gif (1000x640, 127K)

Not when euros had already developed the technology and culture to conquer the equatorial regions rather than adapt and live with them.

If you havent noticed the africans have taken on modern tech and habits but with much difficulty because as they can start using technology they still lack the biological and socio-cultural evolution to into modern society

Okay I suppose that part makes sense about different levels of technology. I still believe if you took a group of early Europeans and plopped them in Africa they could use their genetic advantage to successfully develop Africa with all of it's resources and proximity to other countries. Like yeah Europeans have better technology, but why? Why were they able to survive in their comparatively worse environment and create technology and social systems that made them creative, innovative, and intelligent? I think the point about evolution still stands, even if I accept it's just le environment, then the root problem of genetic traits among the races still stands. Gee it sucks Africans were never challenged enough to become smarter out of necessity, all them more reason they should all stay in Africa in their gay containment zone and away from all of us.

One of the best books that expands your awarness. Real eye opener.

I remember him saying europe and china were identical. But geography allowed europe to remain divided, and so dynamic. China was unified early and much of its history, and so stagnated. However both were advanced top tier civilizations. But europe expanded, china contracted.

The funny thing is this book is considered right wing today & a couple of uni's/schools have started to stop teaching it

Give it 5 more years & Jared (((Diamond))) will be considered a White Supremacist

Attached: 2sqfmqy4.png (300x244, 62K)

It's just colour-blind madness.

Because of the difficulty of surviving in harsher climates requires the developments of planning and cooperation that doesn't exist in equatorial regions.

There is something to be said of the east-west route from Asia-middle east- Europe its easy to invade eachother thus they had to develop to keep up with each other.

You can see a similar development North-south in the Americas that starts in the Andes, up through mexico and into the Southwest and Mississippi delta.

Those groups of natives were far more advanced than others in the New World because they interacted with eachother from very early in their development.

It is worth reading or listening to. He has done a great deal of research and explains a lot but it has a great deal of confirmation bias. He went looking for any reason besides race to determine why Europeans and Eurasians ran the world but Africa and the Americas did not.
He has a good theory on farming and continents being oriented north and south vs east and west. This worked great for the Americas but when applied to Africa is falls apart.
Because he wont admit that subsaharran africans are sub human he trys everything possible to come up with a reason why they were in the stoneage in 1800s.
SubSaharran Africa had far more going for it than americas did. It had trade routes to Eurasia and it is not north and south it is more east and west. Grain crops from the growing areas could have grown in the growing areas of africa. They were once the white farmers came in the 1700s.

>africans couldn't import and then adapt their cultures to the technology
You're right, they couldn't. But we disagree agree on the reason why they couldn't. Also, you conveniently miss out on why Europe pretty automatically colonised Asia instead of the other way round. You're simply another anti-white who wants ASIA FOR THE ASIANS, AFRICA FOR THE AFRICANS, WHITE COUNTRIES FOR EVERYBODY!

White self-hatred is SICK!!

How the fuck did you come to that conclusion you fuck?

>Implying available resources, natural borders, availability of water, weather, etc don't alter cultural and biological evolution.
There is nothing wrong with this book.

>it's not race, race isn't important
>it's an accident of geography, race isn't the reason
Hmm, you're completely baffling.

Wait, didn't they have fucking elephants?

>Europe pretty automatically colonised Asia instead of the other way round
Most of it had to do with the Chinese being to conformist. They did not have "Entrepreneurs" who would do things on their own. China found shit and came back to china and said fuck it.

either:
>Race is a result of evolutionary factors
>Race is irrespective of evolutionary factors
Top one suggests you might be able to integrate the black man which seems to model reality due to the relatively high number of normal black folk.

Yes, because compared to Europeans, Asian people are too ugly to work together! It's their genotype which is the root of it, you anti-white, Politically Correct zealot.

You have the intellect of a child.

Blacks are blacks with all of their shortcomings are BECAUSE of Africa.

AFRICA IS WHY THEY ARE BLACK If whites had lived in Africa for 200,000 years they would be black people you absolute mongoloid.

100,000 years ago Whites were tribe barbarians genocide Neanderthals

So no black people living in Europe wont instantly be successful, but over 40,000 years of natural selection they might be,

African Elephants are too big to domesticate with primitive tools.
but they could not think past next week so it doesn't matter. They could have found horses with saddles on them and they would have fucked them and then ate them.

>you do not have the demeanour of a properly educated, politically correct follower of mommy professor
In your anti-white opinion.

>they could not think past next week
This. Their culture, language, family structure, everything is so broken to the point they don't understand the purpose of keeping future commitments.

Are you a bot?
Or just very bad reading comprehension.
I literally said the opposite of "slant eyes can't work together". They do it so much they have group think.

If it doesn't matter then why do you go on excusing their dysfunction, silly cuc'k?

>i'm so mad that somebody is not playing my respectability game
Kill yourself, anti-white cultist.

Very

You are a Cretan, please kill yourself we dont need potatoes making us look bad.

Said the anti-white who loves to excuse the dysfunction of darkies, so that he can continue to push White Genocide.

Meanwhile, back on Planet Earth, it's ASIA FOR THE ASIANS, AFRICA FOR THE AFRICANS, WHITE COUNTRIES FOR EVERYBODY!

White self-hatred is SICK!!

>i'm so mad that somebody is not playing my respectability game
Anti-white cultists like you are silly.

Yup.

Be sure to think about his conclusions. Do not just take his word for it. He has an agenda to explain everything off as "they had more food" therefore they advanced and there is not racial differences.

Im not anti-white retard. The book isnt anti-white either if you actually think about the implications of his research it basically confirms eugenics.

God damn you are stupid

youtube.com/watch?v=ereJcjDAKLM

Watch these niggers try to smelt iron ore in to an ingot.

Europeans and Asians had been using steel for over 1500 years by the time that European colonies first arrived in Sub Saharan Africa in and around the 1750s

So, why did Africans never develop this technology on their own? It's because they're niggers. A modern population that has maybe a 75 average IQ? How retarded were they back then?

And if the geography was reversed, he would have said that China was too fractured to come together and advance while all of Europe could easily spread ideas and resources. The whole book is one big post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. Europe advanced therefore Europe was advantaged.

In reality China had much higher agricultural potential since dual cropping was possible at their latitude, and of course massive amounts of mineral resources, gold, silver, tin, iron (China is responsible for over 90% of the world's rare earths production.). Not to mention all the unique resources, tea, silk, spices, citrus.
There was a reason Europeans blindly sailed west to get to Asia (they knew the world was round since 500BC at the latest btw) while the Chinese probably never noticed when Muslims cut Europe off from the Asian trade route.

This was written in response to GG & S. Basically, Hanson's theory is the the way of warfare that developed in Ancient Greece in combo with democracy/capitalism lead to the West's victory over the rest of the world. A good read.

Attached: 51bjZV-heCL._SX322_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg (324x499, 43K)

Dude, you need to take your meds, or heroin, what ever is your fancy.

If you're not anti-white, then why spend time with anti-white propaganda, user.? You're not arguing against it; you're arguing for the author's anti-white worldview. Careful, since pro-whites are beginning to figure out what's happening to the white race, since anti-whites have come to power in the Politically Correct establishment.

You might end up on the wrong side of payouts from anti-whites who have pushed White Genocide. Those permanent reparations would leave anti-whites penniless as examples of how not to be.

Ya, I've read the book many times, still a great book and very insightful. Btw, it's not anti white bias, in fact, I think it's very pro european.

I read it because you should read everything especially things that challenge your worldview

secondly my point is he accidentally makes a racial argument but tries desperately to make excuses for the obvious implications of his geographic determinism conclusions.

>Basically, Hanson's theory is the the way of warfare that developed in Ancient Greece in combo with democracy/capitalism lead to the West's victory over the rest of the world
lmao is that nigga serious
what way of warfare? the losing to steppe people kind?

>everything is pottery because they're too disorganised to build things out of stone
It boggles the mind. But then I look at the "people."

The book isnt anti-white
>Papuans are smarter than Whites because they can remember what wild plants are edible, while stupid whitey is screwing around with spaceships.
>Europeans don't deserve their civilization, they were just lucky. ignore the fact that by every objective measure I put forward Europe is worse off than most other regions, I'll just claim they had equal access to Asian resources .

"Carnage and culture" by Victor Hanson address GGS. It's alright but it's still a little "le based brown people" from what I've read it's tolerable tho.

I think you guys read the fucking spark-notes or some poltards summary.

Guns Germs ans steel makes a racial argument but the author is to cucked to accept what he has discovered

who is this dumb nog? i keep seeing him here.

For the low cost of living with a massive amount of crime and poverty in our societies.

>i'm so mad that somebody is not playing my respectability game
Kill yourself, anti-white cultist.

Africa doesn't have the geography that's suitable for civilization, especially pre modern civilization.
for all of it's size Africa only has a few natural harbors, so that basically rules out any seafaring. most of Africa's rivers are not navigable, which makes trade really difficult. Africa doesn't have much arable land and the majority of it is in the tropics. farming in tropical areas is capital intensive for modern times and virtually impossible for pre moderns. fertilizer and pesticides just didn't exist then. the largest population centers are also in the tropics, which are disease belts. those populations couldn't be sustained without modern medicine and modern agricultural practices (and massive foreign aid).

African's geography was never conducive to fostering a major civilization.

You don't think it will change? Or that is positively couldn't if we fucked the gangs hard and did some nasty but necessary things to their government and educational system?

According to you, it was impossible to import technolgy and adapt their culture to it.

Anti-whites are so silly.

no you idiot. Half the stuff in this book is wrong but some points are not. The point he makes about crops being able to grow in certain climates is correct. Africa had a similar disadvantage to the Americas when it came to crop production. Europe and Asia were not affected by this.

Try reading The Horse, the Wheel and Language next

It won't change until we can literally genetically engineer them. The root of these problems is genetic, that field makes that reality more apparent every year. Selectively breeding them might also work, but completely unrealistic.

Another boggler is that niggers never developed farming.

How rich and lush is African soil? Did they every think, hey maybe if I plant a lot of these plants that make food, we can all have more food. Of course not. This is how stupid they are.

Voortrekkers show up in like 1830 and start farming the land. Instantly start get ahead... So what do the niggers do? Try to kill them all.

You pseudo-intellectual "Imagine all the people"-singing yuppies are ridiculous. The answer that beauty matters and that the darkies are too ugly to work together as whites can is the last thing you want to hear, despite its truth.

All that nonsense of yours in order to excuse non-white dysfunction. You are a sick, self-hating white anti-white aren't you, user.?

White self-hatred is SICK!!

>import technology
You're talking about tens of thousands of years later they should just suddenly pretend they'd evolved with the rest of us and know everything about technological potential. Despite never having culture, universities, public works, they should all just inherently be able to because LOL they would have just adapted because blacks could never do anything sub-par ever. They are perfect. It's definitely the white man.

His main point is basically correct.
Eurasia is oriented east-west so there is a lot of land with similar climate where the same domesticated plants and animals can be used.
Africa and America is oriented north-south with a different climate zone every 1000 miles or so and fucking rainforests in the middle.
Much less reusability - culture spreads much slower or not at all.

You are missing a key component, they developed in a place where they didnt need tech.

Not only did they not invent it they havent even learned how to use it. they dont have the culture or intelligence even now to use it correctly, its very slow going to improve Africans because they are basically starting 20,000 years behind the rest of us.

How many generations do you think it would take to begin raising the relative IQ? I'm not saying it's ever going to be perfect, but we don't need perfection.

Kill them all or make enough anti-white noise to push white guilt and get some quick gibs. Darkies really aren't full-fledged human beings. Human and humane have the same root word and these feeble creatures just have to get out of white society for the good of actual progress.

You arent even an edge-lord, just a schmuck

Doesn't deal exactly with the specific findings of Guns, Germs and Steel, but this is a great book outlining the specific unique qualities of The West which allowed it to become the progenitor of World culture and advancement over the last 500 years.

Attached: thewestandtherest.jpg (183x276, 6K)

I'm not "missing," user. You're seeing me call silly anti-white nonsense what it is.

The white genotype is the one that is capable of modern civilisation and its attendant technology, there aren't any others and what the gooks are doing is merely aping. What the African apes are doing is degenerating.

>jews run the world
>it was europeans that created world culture and ruled the world!
which one is it Jow Forumstards

Attached: 1516238134817.jpg (964x743, 109K)

>The point he makes about crops being able to grow in certain climates is correct.
Only if you ignore native African crops like Diamond does. Africans had plenty of suitable crops that evolved in Africa, Meanwhile Europe had very few and no cereal grains at all, meanwhile Africa had at least 5 separate varieties. The Americas also had plenty of available crops, Corn beans potatoes tomatoes, quinoa.

What are you talking about? Not everyone in the world is out to get you autistic fuck. Try reading a book and forming your own opinion. The book is not out to disprove that one race is superior than the other, he is simply trying to put objective circumstances to explain why one civilization advances more than the other. Take your fucking inferiority complex elsewhere you fucking cuck

>the white person who takes a stand against white genocide is the bad guy
How silly are you, user.? When will you tell the Tibetans under threat of genocide the very same thing you told me? Or are you only anti-white?

Sapiens is a good one; not necessarily disproving what GGnS argues about how much geography affects development, but rather, argues that it doesn’t necessarily affect it as much as the author claims it does.

>i'm so mad that somebody is not playing my respectability game
Anti-white cultists like you are silly.

You can effect changes in a population quite rapidly with selective breeding, but like I said that's unrealistic. For instance if all the people over 6 feet tall died within a country at the same time, the resulting generations would have a much lower average height. It'd be a very rapid change.

At the moment though things are going in the wrong direction. The worst of blacks are basically subsidized to breed delinquent children to single mothers by the welfare state, perpetuating a cycle of retardation. This is a general problem with welfare that just disproportionately affects them. I honestly don't think blacks and other problem races will be fixed until we've mastered genetic engineering, which is sci fi tier technology as of today. It's much more than just IQ.

Right, I understand and agree. I'm saying without geocoding anyone (except a crackdown on gangs) and having total authority of schools how quickly could you turn it around? For added bonus I'll throw in getting rid of welfare entirely and anti-riot crackdowns.

Yes

Attached: BeforeTheRiseoftheSonsOfAres.png (475x804, 349K)

>that traditional twerk dance
God, I can't believe how the west is imitating these monkeys.

I don't know exactly, you'd have to run the numbers. You'd have to encourage blacks over 100 IQ to breed as much as possible with each other, and blacks below that to not breed at all. You'd also have to genetically screen genes we've already identified which link to violence and aggression like the 2 low repeat alleles of MOAO and CDH13 and discourage those people from breeding. If you went full state enforced eugenics you could probably get noticeable results inside a century, maybe sooner depending on how many generations they could get out assuming you performed the same screens for each subsequent generation.

this

I would say more than 20,000 years. when the first human began to adapt to colder climates they started developing cognitive abilities that a person developing in Africa would never need. evolutionary stresses forced Europeans and Asians to develop the critical cognitive ability to plan ahead in order to survive the winter. Africans never had that environmental stress so never developed and refined those skills like other humans.

You appear to have forgotten that anti-whites will say anything, and make any noise even, in order to justify White Genocide. It's really that simple, user. Pseudo-scientists be damned.

>and having total authority of schools
Nah
alt-hype is right
Schools don't matter
youtube.com/watch?v=WPV6Hz9iwQo

>every asian group easily and automatically colonised by european powers until anti-whites successfully pushed a white guilt narrative leading to white genocide
>i'll ignore this so that i can support le based gooks
Pic. related is you, user.

Attached: 1509376034618.jpg (645x729, 27K)

>Diamond was born in Boston, Massachusetts, United States. Both of his parents were from East European Jewish families who had emigrated to the United States.

every single time

Asian geography isn't as favorable as Europe. geography is vital when determining global winners and losers. the rise of Asia in the current is only possible because of the trade order imposed on the world at Bretton Woods.

Beware of narratives given to you by someone who is named after gems and precious metals

Attached: 6hvd43eedghu.png (719x837, 1.08M)

I didn't say every Asian, northern Asians.

mayor of shetfield england

>Asian geography isn't as favorable as Europe.
By what metric? Asia has more arable land, larger rivers and more of them, vastly greater amounts of natural resources, and a warmer climate allowing for more productive farming.

You didn't already know that anyone named diamond gold or silver is a jew?

Africans couldn't invent civilization because black women are so sexy that it is impossible to think with them around.

Attached: dc71bc5268c144ff8bf1efb53a3537a2.jpg (1080x1080, 112K)