Environment has no influence?

[rRico]

In which environmental influences on the development of human civilizations
and societies are called wrong and racist:

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

If factors like availability of resources, relatively easy access to the seas and moderate climate aren't at least in part reason for the success and thriving of civilizations, isn't the implication we are left with a rather distasteful one? When we eliminate those factors from the equation of human success aren't we left with the indeed racist notion that those people whose civilizations do thrive are inherently better than those whose don't?

 

[Asbo Zaprudder]

Yeah, environmental determinism has long been discredited as it held that human activity and psychology are determined by climate and terrain, and it was associated with institutionalised racism, eugenics, and aggressive colonialism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_determinism

Neo-environmental determinism, as popularised by Jared Diamond for example, is the study of how geographic and ecological forces influence cultural, political, and economic development of human societies.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guns,_Germs,_and_Steel

 

[rRico]

And what do you think?

 

[Robert Maxwell]

I think Diamond has some interesting ideas which he excessively generalizes to elide the underlying complexity.

The fact of the matter is that we really don't know what makes some societies grow and prosper while others collapse. There's always a complex web of interrelated factors involved. Geography and available resources are but two of those factors. They aren't the only ones and likely not the most important ones. If we knew exactly what worked and what didn't, well, societies would never collapse, would they? We'd have a reliable formula.

I think you (rRico) are missing the point as to why the notion of environmental determinism was discarded: it was created mainly to support a Eurocentric worldview along with colonialism/imperialism. It also defines "success" a certain way that is, if we're being honest, quite arbitrary. Environmental determinism offers up post hoc justifications for why culture A is better than culture B, which is the wrong way to go about it.

By the way, if you want to have discussions about these issues, maybe you should stop framing things the way you did in the OP. You seem to have an aversion to nuance. I would suggest doing something about that if you want any hope of understanding these topics.

 

[{ Emilia }]

It's funny how this shit is coming back once in a while. I mean, we're talking about a discarded theory from the 19th century that was replaced by an even more openly disgusting theory, which was racism. It's interesting to see how environmental determinism quickly went from consensus to almost total extinction in the scientific discourse with the rise of racism.
And now that racism isn't accepted anymore... it's making a comeback?

Curious, huh?

Constructivist historians have shown how much damage environmental determinism has done by creating a twisted view of reality that shaped people's actions for more than a century. (In fact I know a guy who has researched exactly that.)

I won't close this thread for now but I don't see its relevance to the science forum. We are talking about a pseudo-scientific theory.

@rRico, if your goal is to make as many vaguely racist or sexist posts as possible in as short a time as possible, I suggest you reconsider.
Having seen both this and your contribution to the misc forum makes me think you are on some crusade to push people's buttons. Nobody is impressed.

 

[Asbo Zaprudder]

And what do you think?

I think any form of environmental determinism is a generalisation that can be twisted to fit the cultural zeitgeist, be it justifying colonial expansionism and subjugation of native peoples or positing over-simplified examples that are meant to warn of the effects of over exploitation of resources and climate change, which later turn out to be much more complex (as with Diamond and his parable about Easter Island). I don't have a better theory to offer, mainly because such matters aren't amenable to the scientific method. We don't know how to predict how societies will develop under vast numbers of different inputs and unpredictable random events (there is no theory of Psychohistory to describe such highly chaotic systems), we can't do repeatable experiments nor can we change the past to see how things might have turned out differently.

 

[Robert Maxwell]

Books like Guns, Germs, and Steel lead people to believe that there are simple, silver-bullet explanations for the world around us, but it's just not true.

 

[Asbo Zaprudder]

I'm not sure whether Isaac Asimov seriously believed that Psychohistory could ever be developed as a means of predicting how a galactic society of quintillions of human beings were likely to behave in the same manner as one would use statistical thermodynamics to predict the behaviour of large ensembles of molecules or atoms. Being a chemist, I imagine Asimov thought it was an amusing notion and nothing more. In fact, his stories relied on the Second Foundation to act as a hidden control system as Psychohistory couldn't handle unpredictable agents such as the Mule. In our world, I believe it's Game Theory that the US State Department and other agencies use to analyse and predict the outcome of social and cultural conflict. Whether Game Theoretical models can handle the situation in the Middle East, particularly in Syria where there are multiple players with different agendas, several of whom appear to be very irrational, I have no idea.

 

[fireproof78]

I was glad to read others thoughts on this as I was about to react a bit more strongly than was necessary. Clearly this was a postulation based upon incorrect information, hence an incorrect conclusion.

Human behavior is a complicated interaction of genetics and environment. The idea that environment has no influence makes me laugh.

 

[rRico]

I think any form of environmental determinism is a generalisation that can be twisted to fit the cultural zeitgeist, be it justifying colonial expansionism and subjugation of native peoples or positing over-simplified examples that are meant to warn of the effects of over exploitation of resources and climate change, which later turn out to be much more complex (as with Diamond and his parable about Easter Island). I don't have a better theory to offer, mainly because such matters aren't amenable to the scientific method. We don't know how to predict how societies will develop under vast numbers of different inputs and unpredictable random events (there is no theory of Psychohistory to describe such highly chaotic systems), we can't do repeatable experiments nor can we change the past to see how things might have turned out differently.

I see what you mean about the dangers of justifying negatives or turning to alarmism.

I think Diamond has some interesting ideas which he excessively generalizes to elide the underlying complexity.

A book that is written for a wider non-academic audience would necessarily deal with a more generalized language than a paper written for his peers. I've only started to read his book after seeing the video. So far I haven't seen any suggested to simple explanations, but I'll see what comes up when I read on.

The fact of the matter is that we really don't know what makes some societies grow and prosper while others collapse. There's always a complex web of interrelated factors involved. Geography and available resources are but two of those factors. They aren't the only ones and likely not the most important ones. If we knew exactly what worked and what didn't, well, societies would never collapse, would they? We'd have a reliable formula.

I don't think we would. Our understanding of evolution likewise does not let us predict where it will lead to in this species or any other.
What factors do you think are more important?

I think you (rRico) are missing the point as to why the notion of environmental determinism was discarded: it was created mainly to support a Eurocentric worldview along with colonialism/imperialism. It also defines "success" a certain way that is, if we're being honest, quite arbitrary. Environmental determinism offers up post hoc justifications for why culture A is better than culture B, which is the wrong way to go about it.

But is this really an argument about what culture is better? Isn't this rather a look into why it is that, as all human ethnicities - I you want to make such distinctions - have the same innate potential, that one or another could grow as dominant as it has. Has that kind of "success".

By the way, if you want to have discussions about these issues, maybe you should stop framing things the way you did in the OP. You seem to have an aversion to nuance. I would suggest doing something about that if you want any hope of understanding these topics.

There is no nuance in the video that talks about this topic. It flat out denies an influence of our surroundings on us humans. It says such a view is wrong and racist, but does not give any explanation as to why that is.

 

[rRico]

@rRico, if your goal is to make as many vaguely racist or sexist posts as possible in as short a time as possible,

It isn't. And I haven't made any such posts.

 

[Robert Maxwell]

There is no nuance in the video that talks about this topic. It flat out denies an influence of our surroundings on us humans. It says such a view is wrong and racist, but does not give any explanation as to why that is.

Nope, you're wrong. I just watched the video and... you're wrong. Number one, it approaches the issue with considerable nuance given the format and 10 minute running time. The idea being discredited here is that human civilizations are inexorably directed by geographical and climatic conditions.

It explains exactly why it's racist: hypotheses of environmental determinism were always developed by people who conveniently determined that their own environment is the best and produces the greatest success. It's an explanation designed to validate European superiority. It doesn't seek genuine answers but instead categorizes societies based on measures of success that favor European societies and disfavor others. If European culture is the best, don't Europeans then have an obligation to spread their greatness to others? Here's a hint: that's what imperialism is.

 

[rRico]

Nope, you're wrong. I just watched the video and... you're wrong. Number one, it approaches the issue with considerable nuance given the format and 10 minute running time. The idea being discredited here is that human civilizations are inexorably directed by geographical and climatic conditions.

With all other factors being equal something has to make up for the difference of dominance of one culture over others

It explains exactly why it's racist: hypotheses of environmental determinism were always developed by people who conveniently determined that their own environment is the best and produces the greatest success. It's an explanation designed to validate European superiority.

Or to explain it. There is no racism in finding the factors that led one culture or another to be successful.

It doesn't seek genuine answers but instead categorizes societies based on measures of success that favor European societies and disfavor others. If European culture is the best, don't Europeans then have an obligation to spread their greatness to others? Here's a hint: that's what imperialism is.

That conclusion is indeed a racist one.
If we categorize success as dominance over other cultures, then it is undeniable that the European ones were rather "successful" in that manner in the past, with all the negative that came with it.

 

[Robert Maxwell]

With all other factors being equal something has to make up for the difference of dominance of one culture over others

The answer is "lots of stuff in addition to geography."

Or to explain it. There is no racism in finding the factors that led one culture or another to be successful.

There is racism in saying "my culture is better than yours." Again, did you understand the video? The entire history of this "theory" is philosophers justifying the greatness of their own civilizations and, at the same time, "explaining" the "inferiority" of others. That's racism.

That conclusion is indeed a racist one.
If we categorize success as dominance over other cultures, then it is undeniable that the European ones were rather "successful" in that manner in the past, with all the negative that came with it.

Nope.

At this point I would gently suggest that you work to suppress your obsession with racism, because you discuss it in a ham-fisted way that suggests no real understanding of what it is and what it isn't.

 

[rRico]

Some development regarding the Crash Course video in the OP: https://archive.is/rEIVA

John Green: We're taking down the first two Crash Course Human Geography videos because we got important things wrong. We'll rework the series...

 

[Robert Maxwell]

Environmental determinism is still bunk, though.

 

[rRico]

The answer is "lots of stuff in addition to geography."

In addition. Of course.

There is racism in saying "my culture is better than yours."

That depends on what you understand to be your culture. The secular rule of law and equal treatment and opportunity for all, is a better culture than one that does not have these things.

Again, did you understand the video? The entire history of this "theory" is philosophers justifying the greatness of their own civilizations and, at the same time, "explaining" the "inferiority" of others. That's racism.

It is.
Such a view does not negate the value-free exploration into the factors that gave a culture dominance over others. The conclusions drawn by racists are irrelevant when the explanation for the state of affairs up to that point is correct.

At this point I would gently suggest that you work to suppress your obsession with racism, because you discuss it in a ham-fisted way that suggests no real understanding of what it is and what it isn't.

Prejudice and discrimination based on "race".

 

[Robert Maxwell]

That depends on what you understand to be your culture. The secular rule of law and equal treatment and opportunity for all, is a better culture that does not have these things.

"Better" in what regard? I certainly value secularism, rule of law, and pluralism, but that's not the same as objective, qualitative superiority.

It is.
Such a view does not negate the value-free exploration into the factors that gave a culture dominance over others. The conclusions drawn by racists are irrelevant when the explanation for the state of affairs up to that point is correct.

And who said no one is allowed to investigate those factors? The point is that environmental determinism, as an explanation, is wrong and driven by racist attitudes.

Prejudice and discrimination based on "race".

Well done.

 

[rRico]

"Better" in what regard? I certainly value secularism, rule of law, and pluralism, but that's not the same as objective, qualitative superiority.

In my view it is objectively superior, better. Better for the individual and the societies they form.

And who said no one is allowed to investigate those factors? The point is that environmental determinism, as an explanation, is wrong and driven by racist attitudes.

It does not matter what attitudes drive the investigation when the facts that are found are objectively correct. That Europeans were the dominating culture is a fact. It is simply an impossibility that European were just "better" humans than peoples from other parts of the planet. Therefore the determining factors to their success, their dominance over other cultures must be found in the environment they and their societies flourished in.

Well done.

Thank you.

 

[Robert Maxwell]

In my view it is objectively superior, better. Better for the individual and the societies they form.

"In my view" is the operative phrase here, and inherently not objective.

It does not matter what attitudes drive the investigation when the facts that are found are objectively correct.

Motivation absolutely matters because motive colors results.

That Europeans were the dominating culture is a fact.

I hope you have a credible source for that extraordinary claim.

It is simply an impossibility that European were just "better" humans than peoples from other parts of the planet. Therefore the determining factors to their success, their dominance over other cultures must be found in the environment they and their societies flourished in.

Again, what are you defining as "success" here? What does "dominating culture" mean?

Unless this thread moves in another direction very quickly, it would probably be best if it were locked because so far you're showcasing discredited pseudoscience and racist historical narratives, neither of which would belong in this forum.