Sunday, August 28, 2011

For All the Nerds Like Me (book review)

           Being the nerd that I am, the two non-fiction books Mr. Kunkle described as being scientific (Omnivore's Dilemma and Guns, Germs, and Steel ) naturally appealed to me. From there I couldn't decide which one to read, so I just got both, and I actually considered reading both. However, Guns, Germs, and Steel ended up taking me much longer than I thought, but alas, I'm finally done, and I'm here to summarize 440 pages of knowledge-packed literature in one brief blog.
           The entire book looks to answer one question that was posed to the author by Yali, a native New Guinean: "Why is it that you white people developed so much cargo (their term for the material goods brought by Europeans such as cloths, medicine, and matches) and brought it to New Guinea but we black people had little cargo of our own?" It seems a simple question at first, and you can easily give answers like, "because Europeans developed centralized governments and ocean-going ships while New Guineans did not." However, this book goes much further and explains the ultimate causation of why all societies developed differently.
           Most people that are asked this question would automatically assume the racist answer that some people developed differently simply because they're inferior to those who formed complex societies. Jared Diamond on the other hand, completely convinced me that this is untrue. He instead puts the blame solely on the environments in which societies arose. More specifically, he blames four main differences: the number of suitable plants and animals for domestication, how easily societies and their innovations can diffuse through a continent, how easily they can diffuse between continents, and the differences in total area and population size within different continents.
          All complex societies need a surplus of food in order to support their specialized workers, and the best way to achieve this is to domesticate wild plants and animals, but as it turns out, very few species of wild plants and animals are suitable for domestication. It also turns out that a disproportionate number of these wild ancestors originated in Eurasia (Europe and Asia); 33 of 56 large-seeded grass species (things like wheat and barley, the main carbohydrate sources of ancient civilizations) as well as 13 of the 14 mammalian candidates for domestication (both aboriginal Americans and Australians effectively wiped out all large mammals on their respective continents shortly after arriving) originated in Eurasia. Also, many plants suitable for domestication were much harder to domesticate than those of Eurasia. For instance, the wild ancestor of modern corn was about an inch long and was covered with a rock-hard skin, and it took thousands of years for it to become a desirable crop. This gave Eurasians, especially the Fertile Crescent and China, the biggest head start towards becoming complex societies.
          There is some debate about domestication, but it is sure that no more than nine locations (Fertile Crescent, China, Mesoamerica, Andes/Amazonia, West Africa and Sahel, India, Ethiopia, Eastern United States, and New Guinea) were home to independent domestication. Everywhere else either copied or was inspired by the idea from elsewhere. Unfortunately the idea was not spread equally amongst the continents, and therefore, ecological barriers played a major role in the development of complex societies. Eurasia is the only continent (besides Antarctica) whose major axis goes from East to West rather than North to South. This may seem trivial, but an East-West axis means that the continent stays at the same latitude and therefore has similar climates throughout. This was crucial for the spread of crops which are dependent on certain climates to grow. For instance, North Africa was abundant with European crops suitable for the moderate climate and winter rains, and it is often clustered within the term of Eurasia, but those crops never crossed further south into Africa until modern times even though southern Africa was also suitable for European crops, because they couldn't grow in the intermediate span of a differing climate and summer rains. Other more straightforward obstacles like mountains and arid deserts also blocked the spread of societies. This was most prevalent in the Americas where three major societies (the Incas of the Andes, and Aztecs of Mesoamerica, and the Mississipians) developed but never came into contact with each other. This was due to the Andes mountains themselves, the extreme bottleneck of Panama, and the deserts surrounding Mesoamerica.
          Equally important as the barriers within continents are the barriers between continents. Obviously, some continents were harder to reach than others simply because of wide expanses of oceans and the lack of ocean-going ships. As a result, the Americas were colonized much later than Eurasia, and Australia was very secluded with very little contact from other continents after the initial colonization until Europeans came in modern times and nearly wiped out the aboriginal population (only those living in places unsuitable for European crops survived). Partly because of this long-time seclusion, aboriginal Australians remain the most "backwards" people in our eyes, and they still use stone tools even today.
           Lastly, area and population size of the different continents has unequivocally played a role in our history.  More area and higher populations leads to more innovators available to produce technology as well as more societies in which to compete with each other. This constant pressure to either gain the latest technology or be swallowed by those societies more technologically advanced has kept Eurasia at the forefront of technology development for most of human history. Alternatively in the America's where the societies weren't in high competition with each other, Inca, a major, complex society and one of the nine societies to develop a agriculture, never even produced it's own writing system.
           All of these ultimate factors in human history have led to the proximate factors of guns, germs, and steel which were the tools of conquest Europeans used to spread all around the world, and they're why the world is the way it is today.
           Despite that this may seem like a history text book, Jared Diamond presents everything in a way that is enjoyable, and the vast amount of interesting information kept me reading even when I could've been out enjoying the summer (or more likely shut inside playing video games). I highly recommend this book for any nerds like me interested in gaining a little knowledge.

Friday, August 19, 2011

A Vindication of My Right To Despise This Essay

              While I do not claim that women are in any way inferior to men, I despised this article. I only understood about a quarter of the whole thing, half of it being a random jumble of drawn-out phrases with seemingly no significance, and another quarter consisting of words and references that were beyond me (not entirely bad since it filled my previously vacant vocab list). Of the quarter I did understand, I found about half of it to be ridiculously far-stretched and many times even more sexist that just about anything I hear in the world today. For instance, at the very bottom of the third to last page, she says, "... let their virtues be the same in kind, though they may vainly struggle for the same degree." She doesn't even think women can be equal to men! That's not the only sexist remark in the essay either; she repeatedly uses negative stereotypes in her reasoning that are way more sexist than anything used in modern times.
             This brings up another point as well. All of her evidence/references obviously came from a long time ago, a time when sexism was much more prevalent. I know of no one today who would seriously consider reforming women's' education to be more suitable for learning how to please men as Rousseau apparently did in the 1700's. I already whole-heartedly agree that women deserve to be taught the same education and the same principles (if they wish) as men, and I already know that it is not any women's job to please men. I'm sure I'm not alone, either. I know of a lot of stay-at-home dads, and it's the norm nowadays for both parents to work. The old stereotype of the women preparing the husband's meal for when he comes back from work is dwindling in the world today. Perhaps people back then really did need a twenty page rant with lots of big words used to make it seem legit and important in order to see this, but we certainly don't. This article is just outdated and over-extravagant.
              Maybe my narrow mind simply can't comprehend her wise (or at least big) words, but the whole article read like a jumbled mess to me. She jumped from subject to subject, often coming to the same points later on in the article only to say the same thing with different fancy words. Every part that I was able to understand seemed to result in a no **** (duh) moment. After I wasted my time trying to grasp what exactly she was attempting to say, all of it, such as the multitude of occasions where she said that women shouldn't be blindly obedient to their husbands, was already completely obvious. I learned absolutely nothing from this article other than the fact that I should never read anything from the 18th century ever again. All twenty pages could be summarized to the last three pages, or even the just the third to last page. Hell, I can sum it up in one quick and easy-to-understand sentence:

Women should stop obediently following men and should stop being beautiful so that they can become more like men, and therefore gain manly virtues and principles, because they are obviously better than women's.

For everyone who didn't feel like wasting their time reading this essay, that's pretty much the whole thing. You didn't miss anything.

Tuesday, August 9, 2011

IT'S THE END OF THE WORLD!!! or maybe not

             As I was reading some of other blog posts about the Google article (posting late does have its advantages), everyone seemed to think that the internet was some sort of tool of humankind's inevitable destruction and that AI is going to consume our brains and take over the world. Ok, maybe it wasn't that drastic, but still, I don't see anything wrong with using the internet to obtain information faster and more efficiently than ever before. Being able to search for any tidbit of information that currently eludes us is not a bad thing. It allows us to learn things that we otherwise would never have figured out. Carr himself admitted that we read more today than people ever did in the 70's and 80's, and this is thanks to the plethora of information available online. No human could ever know every single thing about everything in the universe, but the internet is as close to a complete archive of the universe as there could possibly ever be, and we can use this vast resource to increase our own knowledge, not decrease it.
              I'm also inclined to disagree with the fact that our ability to concentrate has been destroyed by the flashy messages on Yahoo or the multitude of links available on every webpage (there are 18 on this page alone). However distracting they may be, I don't think our brains are completely rewired because of them. I for one hardly click on any links other than the ones necessary to bring me to where I intended to go in the first place, and I completely ignore any adds or flashy messages. It's not as if every distraction is a siren luring you in just to kill you (or at least make you dumber) as soon as you fall prey to it's seduction. It's certainly not impossible to impose a little self-control and limit your browsing, thereby resisting the "inevitable" dummification (yes I just made that word up) of the human race.
            Carr mentioned that he can no longer focus on lengthy readings, but I find it hard to believe that the internet is completely destroying our ability to concentrate and formulate intellectual thoughts. Even I, a teenager who spends vast amounts of time playing video games, can still appreciate a lengthy text from time to time. In fact, I'm quite enjoying the non-fiction book I chose to read over the summer, which happens to be a 440 page history book with big pages and small print about the ultimate causation of why societies are the way they are today. I may not be reading it cover to cover in one day, but I'm having no trouble concentrating on it at all. If I can do it, so can a literature buff. If they surf the web so much that their thinking has turned "staccato," I think the problem is that they're just on the internet too much. They can control exactly how much they're on the internet as well as the pace at which they read articles online. It's all about moderation. The internet may be vast with many flashy diversions and even more useless information, but that in itself is not enough to change how we think.