Why do Some Countries Have More Resources than Others?

[@sirtalkalot3211]

Unfortunately Diamonds work is riddled with flaws. The most obvious is of course that civilization advanced the furthest on a remote island on the edge of Europe, namely England during the industrial revolution. It was neither the first nor the most connected place, unlike what Diamonds book should have predicted

[@weirdlyinterestingpod]

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?

[@sirtalkalot3211]

@@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.