I really
enjoyed Jared Diamond’s story of human evolution and the inequalities that
naturally arose from geographical and not biological determined factors. At
first, it was really refreshing to read Diamond’s version of evolution, as he
made it abundantly clear that our vast inequalities had absolutely no racial premise.
His account of our evolution illustrated how environmental and geographical
differences led to disparities in success in various human domains. However, as
I continued reading, I started to wonder is there a racist undertone to this
reading? Let me begin by stating, Diamond did a great job of summing-up 13,000
years of human evolution in one book. However, we started this class talking
about how the environment and genes interact and lead to evolution (very lightly
stated). Furthermore, if the environment was vastly different in different
parts of the world (enough to predict success), would it have led to
biologically or genetic differences in the different human populations today? I
am just confused about the biological implications of these vastly different
human trajectories. Did they only affect our social success (empires, advanced
civilizations, etc.) or did they also predict the current biological
disparities? In other words, initially it may have been the environment that
caused the discrepancy or a “head start” but can it be argued that those
environmental differences led to biological differences? I don't know exactly
where I stand on the issue but that is thought I had while reading this book.
I also enjoyed reading Diamond's book and was impressed with his ability to sum up essentially all of human history in one book. Sammy brings up an interesting question that if different human populations lived in such vastly different environments that some populations were able to gain advantage over others, then wouldn't it make sense that different populations also developed differences biologically and genetically? I had a hard time figuring out exactly where Diamond stands on this. This question made me think of how, as we discussed in class, there are differences between different populations in terms of health. For instance, people of African descent are more likely to have sickle cell anemia than people from other regions of the world, as sickle cell makes it more difficult to get malaria, which is most prevalent in Sub-Saharan Africa. Following Diamond's logic, one could argue that this is a genetic difference brought about by environmental factors and because Sub Saharan Africa also lacked domesticatable animals, agricultural systems, etc. many regions became poor and therefore were unable to eradicate malaria. I am sure that there are many examples of health issues that have arisen for particular populations due to environmental factors. I see Sammy's point, but I got the impression that Diamond was arguing more against a racist perspective in saying that people were able to get ahead, not because they were genetically superior, but because they happened to be living in the right place at the right time.
ReplyDelete