What was Jared Diamond's thesis? Jared Diamond's thesis in Guns , Germs, and Steel is that European economic, military, technological, and political power came about because of geographical luck, and not because the Europeans were in any way culturally or racially superior to people of other parts of the world. Otis Parmo Pundit. What was Yali's question? Guoquan Divnov Teacher. What is Diamond's theory of culture change?
Diamond posits that the environment of Eurasia not only favored early domestication but also the spread of agriculture from pristine areas of origin to other societies. Recall that most societies do not develop agriculture on their own, but rather receive it through conquest or other cultural contact.
Rayyan Robic Teacher. What are the primary questions Dr Diamond is trying to answer? How did we get here?
Why did the world become so unequal? What made some countries and places in the world prosper and others never really develop?
Hatim Petrica Teacher. How does Diamond's theory that invention is in fact? How does Diamond's theory that invention is, in fact , the mother of necessity bear upon the traditional "heroic" model of invention? Diamond uses evidence from liguistic similarities in people to prove their migration. He compares words and styles of speech in different parts of Africa to uncover their past. Artemia Almedingen Teacher.
What are the five leading factors that Diamond says have led to the collapse of society? Diamond identifies five factors that contribute to collapse : climate change, hostile neighbours, collapse of essential trading partners, environmental problems, and the society's response to the foregoing four factors.
Chi Shkolnik Reviewer. What did Jared Diamond do? Actively scan device characteristics for identification. Use precise geolocation data. Select personalised content. Create a personalised content profile.
Measure ad performance. Select basic ads. Create a personalised ads profile. Select personalised ads. Apply market research to generate audience insights.
Measure content performance. Develop and improve products. List of Partners vendors. The Porter Diamond, properly referred to as the Porter Diamond Theory of National Advantage, is a model that is designed to help understand the competitive advantage that nations or groups possess due to certain factors available to them, and to explain how governments can act as catalysts to improve a country's position in a globally competitive economic environment.
The model was created by Michael Porter, a recognized authority on corporate strategy and economic competition, and founder of the Institute for Strategy and Competitiveness at the Harvard Business School.
It is a proactive economic theory, rather than one that simply quantifies competitive advantages that a country or region may have.
The Porter Diamond suggests that countries can create new factor advantages for themselves, such as a strong technology industry, skilled labor, and government support of a country's economy. Most traditional theories of global economics differ by mentioning elements, or factors, that a country or region inherently possesses, such as land, location, natural resources , labor, and population size as the primary determinants in a country's competitive economic advantage.
Study guides. Q: How does Diamond's theory that invention is the mother of necessity bear upon the traditional heroic model of invention? Write your answer Related questions. Who is a scop in literature? You have the heroic map pack but how do you get heroic dlc? If you do half of halo 3 on legendary and half on heroic will you get the heroic achievevement?
What qualities do you think would make a person heroic? How do you spell heroic? What part of speech is the word heroic? What is a palindrome for an heroic action? Is heroic a noun? What are heroic situations? What is a good sentense for heroic? Sentence with heroic? When was The Heroic Trio created?
When was Heroic Visions created? When was Heroic Charge created? When was The Heroic Slave created? How do you use heroic in a sentence? Most tropical regions with distinct dry and wet seasons are potentially suited for most of the major cereals grown in temperate Eurasia. Day-length is important for some crops, notably wheat, but in most cases adaptations could, and did, remove even this limitation.
After all, in early times some kinds of wheat were grown as far south as Ethiopia; rice was grown in both tropical and warm midlatitude climates; sorghum, first domesticated in Sudanic Africa, spread to midlatitude regions of Asia. Most tropical root and tuber crops had problems spreading to regions that were cold or seasonally dry, but many of these crops, too, adapted quite nicely: think of the potato. Diamond's error here is to treat natural determinants of plant ecology as somehow determinants of human ecology.
That is not good science. Diffusion is also stressed by Diamond as having been a significant factor in early world history, and some of his points are valid. But when, in various arguments, he posits natural environmental barriers as causes of non-diffusion, or of slow diffusion, he makes numerous mistakes. Some of these as in the matter of north-south crop movements, just discussed are factual errors about the environment.
Other errors are grounded in a serious failure to understand how culture influences diffusion. All of these areas are midlatitude regions that are separated from midlatitude Eurasia by some intervening environment. Diamond devotes a lot of attention to two such areas: the Cape of Good Hope and Australia. Why did these two regions remain non-agricultural for so long? In both cases, the sought-after explanation is supposed to be a combination of barriers to diffusion and local environmental obstacles, notably relative absence of potential domesticates.
Cultural factors are ignored. The Cape of Good Hope is a zone of Mediterranean climate. What "cries out for an explanation" here is the fact that this area, according to Diamond, had the ecological potential to be a productive food-producing region, but remained a region of pastoralism until Europeans arrived. Bantu-speaking agricultural peoples spread southward into South Africa but, according to Diamond, they stopped precisely at the edge of the Mediterranean climatic region.
This region was occupied by the Khoi people who were pastoralists. Why did the Bantu- speakers, who had invaded Khoi lands farther north, not do so in the Cape region and then plant crops there? Why did the Khoi not adopt agriculture themselves? Diamond denies, rightly, that the this had to do with any failure of intellect; the causes, he argues, were matters of environment and diffusion. The crops grown by the Bantu- speakers, here the Xhosa, were tropical, and, according to Diamond, could not cope with the winter-wet climate of the Cape region.
So the Xhosa did not spread food production to the Cape because of its Mediterranean climate. The Khoi, for their part, did not adopt agriculture because Mediterranean crops that had been domesticated north of tropical Africa could not diffuse from North Africa through the region of tropical environment and agriculture to the Cape; and because the Cape region did not have wild species suitable for domestication.
But the Khoi probably did not adopt Xhosa agriculture for quite different reasons. Almost all of the area in South Africa that the Khoi occupied before the Europeans arrived is just too dry to support rain-fed agriculture. The Khoi could have farmed in a few seasonally wet riverside areas. They must have known about the Xhosa techniques of farming some of them lived among the Xhosa. But they chose to remain pastoralists. This had nothing to do with non-diffusion of Mediterranean crops, absence of domesticable plants, and non-adaptability of tropical crops.
The decision to retain a pastoral way of life was an ecologically and culturally sound decision. Actually, the zone of Mediterranean environment, with enough rainfall for cropping, is a quite small belt along the southernmost coast, a region too small to bear the weight of argument that Diamond places on it.
Australia also "cries out for explanation. Again we are told that the explanation is a matter of environment and location. Diamond accepts the common view of cultural ecologists that the hunting-gathering-fishing economy employed by Native Australians was productive enough to give them a reasonable level of living so long as they kept their population in check, which they did.
It is likely also that their way of life helped them to fend off efforts by non-Australians to penetrate Australia. Why then, should they give up this mode of subsistence and adopt agriculture? Diamond simply assumes that they would have done so had it not been for environmental barriers. Of course, parts of Australia are moist enough to support farming. But these regions, says Diamond, did not become agricultural because of their isolation from farming peoples outside of Australia.
The logic here is murky. Diamond notes that Macassarese traded with Australians in the northwest, near modern Darwin, but he believes that the Macassarese famous sailors could not have sailed to the Cape York Peninsula, where tropical crops could have been grown. Moreover, Cape York Peninsula is separated from New Guinea by the narrow Torres Strait, with several stepping- stone islands nearly connecting the two landmasses. Again: isolation. Diamond finds barriers to north-south diffusion that just did not exist.
Probably Australians chose not to adopt agriculture because they managed quite well without it The "ultimate" environmental factors or forces, which caused agricultural societies to arise in some places and not others, continued to shape cultural evolution thereafter, according to Diamond. He discusses the evolution of writing, sociopolitical complexity, and technology, devoting most attention unsurprisingly to technology.
Here is his summary of the argument about technological evolution after the Neolithic:. It was also the landmass with the two centers where food production began the earliest: the Fertile Crescent and China.
Its east-west major axis permitted many inventions adopted in one part of Eurasia to spread relatively rapidly to societies at similar latitudes and climates elsewhere in Eurasia
0コメント