Have just finished reading Jared Diamond's "Collapse" (2005). It's essentially a sequel to his earlier "Guns, Germs, and Steel" (1998) -- which I read in Perth over the Christmas holiday. Diamond is right up there with the best (though perhaps not the most prolific) of those popular science writers who are also top scientists, and these two books are probably his most important ("The Rise and Fall of the Third Chimpanzee" is the only book of his that I've previously read -- back in undergrad days). They aren't are a super-easy (or quick) read, but well worth the effort.
GGS is a sweeping examination of human history from the original "Out of Africa" exodus to modern times, and attempts to understand the differences in the way societies evolved on different continents -- in particular, why some evolved into industrial super-powers while others remained hunter-gatherers. It's a fascinating question, and the arguments he presents are so compelling (to me at least) that the proposed answers seem almost obvious (details may be wrong, but it seems hard to refute the big picture). The humbling theme that emerges is the huge extent to which all peoples (tribes, countries, whatever) were basically the same. What differed was the environment: some areas were conducive to agriculture and animal-based farming, while others were not. These environmental differences had huge consequences, as they allowed a progression from a nomadic existence to permanent settlements based on a farming lifestyle and thence to the specialization of labour and so on to western civilization as we know it. An interesting side-effect, to which the word "germs" in the title alludes, is that the higher densities arising in permanent settlements led to an evolutionary arms race in diseases and human resistance to them -- with tragic consequences when Europeans encountered indigeneous peoples in other parts of the world. But all this was contingent on a favourable distribution of certain plant and animal species, as well as certain geographical factors (an interesting fact is that Europe is arranged "horizontally" and hence enjoys a relatively uniform climate whereas the Americas lie "vertically" and experience a large range of climates; this would have allowed farming to spread throughout the former but not the latter). A memorable image of how different things may have been is conjured up when he imagines "Rhino-mounted Bantu shock troops" overrunning the Roman empire (this didn't happen because it is not possible to domesticate a rhinoceros -- but that's just a historical accident of evolution).
The follow-up work, Collapse, deals with the "inverse" problem: the demise of societies throughout history and in modern times. He explores a number of cases from history, most notably the tragic examples of the people of Easter Island and the Greenland Norse. Once again bringing to bear a scientific approach, he identifies five key factors that have been involved in such collapses. He then turns to modern societies on the verge of collapse (e.g. Haiti, Rwanda) and shows how these same factors are responsible. Finally, he looks at the challenges facing our modern global society and the sorts of practical solutions that may allow them to be faced. He ends on a note of "cautious optimism" which I'm not sure I completely share.
One disappointing side note relating to Collapse is that his chapter on Australia drew some critical reviews from local quarters; having read a couple of these, I'm inclined to agree that he probably depicts things in an unfairly pessimistic light (it seems he may have been guilty of listening primarily to environmental lobbyist types who may have given a biased representation). The unfortunately corollary is that this calls into question his findings from other chapters, thus opening the door to skeptics looking for an excuse to ignore the broader message. I for one remain convinced by his thesis, but it is a pity that he has left himself open to such criticism seemingly unnecessarily.
BOTTOM LINE: both highly recommended for any fan of popular science writing -- though they aren't the easiest or shortest of reads. If I had to choose, I'd lean towards GGS out of the two (and in any case if you were planning to read both I'd start with this one).
No comments:
Post a Comment