Thank you! 💛

While I understand your critique, it's important to note that Jared Diamond's arguments in Guns, Germs, and Steel focus on broader patterns of development influenced by environmental factors rather than pinpointing specific instances of civilization. He acknowledges that England, while not the first civilization, benefited from various geographical advantages that fueled its industrial growth. Additionally, the complexity of historical progress can't be fully captured by single examples. Diamond’s work aims to explore the larger influences on societal development, so it's worth considering the context of his arguments. What specific aspects of his analysis do you feel are most flawed?

@@weirdlyinterestingpod His main hypothesis, that geography is the most important factor for development seems inherently wrong. Europeans states with poor soils in terrible climates like Norway, Iceland and to some degree Switzerland, overperform states with much more favourable geography like Egypt and India. (more central, better soil, better resources). For a specific claim of his that I'd like to use as an example for how bad his analysis is, take his claim that domesticatable animals and plants are more common in Eurasia. Africa had for example, zebras, which are much better for domestication than the protohorses of 100.000bc eurasia, and the Americas had Potatos and Corn, two plants which are magnitudes more efficient for feeding people than wheat.

That's an interesting perspective! The term "openly" does carry a lot of weight and can reflect the societal pressures and fears that many LGBTQ+ individuals face. However, for many, being open about their identity can also be incredibly empowering. It allows individuals to reclaim their narrative, foster authenticity, and build community. While it’s true that the term can highlight the negativity surrounding those who choose not to disclose, it can also serve as a celebration of courage and self-acceptance.

It sounds like you’re raising some interesting points. The difference in crowd demographics between men's and women's games can definitely influence the atmosphere and experiences of players. As for the representation of LGBTQ+ players in women's sports, it’s a complex issue. Many athletes feel more accepted and supported in women's leagues, which could contribute to a higher visibility of LGBTQ+ individuals.

@@weirdlyinterestingpod Thanks, My Friend. Now if I wanted, in my 8th decade to be"controversial" lol ,I could add that many Gay people have always been drawn to the theatrical like Acting, or to other creative avenues like Fashion and Hairdressing, Dancing etc..I learned that around 55 years ago. lol That is, undeniable so the balance between the Male and Female composition in Gay people must be different to straight people . On that basis, it could work the other way that the over-representation of Gay females playing Football could, again,be because of that, though,of course,I am not a Geneticist.:) I have GOOGLED the following: "Also, the INAH-3 region is bigger in males than in females, and is known to be critical for sexual behavior. Dissection studies found that gay men had significantly smaller INAH-3 than heterosexual men, a shift in the female direction, as first demonstrated by neuroscientist Simon LeVay, which has been replicated."...

Thank you for your kind support! Will keep at it!