Comments on: Those who do not understand the present are bound to misinterpret the past

By: Graham Young

Graham Young — Thu, 26 Jan 2006 00:17:11 +0000

Stephen, while Wikipedia is an interesting resource, you can’t describe it as being definitive. I use it extensively as a quick primer, but I’ve frequently found it inaccurate, particularly in areas of contention where one side or the other has a vested interest in winning an argument. It’s probably a major triumph that Peiser got in there at all. However, Wikipedia does not deny that there were trees on Easter Island when Europeans arrived and casts doubt on the supposed catastrophe.

By: Stephen L

Stephen L — Wed, 25 Jan 2006 21:02:11 +0000

Here’s and extract from the Wikipedia article on Easter Island.
“Peiser too does frequently ignore scientific fact that would contradict his theories (for example, he entirely glosses over the proven fact, borne out by archaeological evidence, that some sort of massive ecosystem degradation did come about as a consequence of Polynesian settlement, instead claiming it was not so, though this stands at complete odds with what is known about the ecological consequences of the Polynesian expansion – see also Henderson Island).”
I certainly lack the expertise to arbitrate in this case, but maybe you do to Graham. I suspect Diamond has overstated his case, but it does seem, even from Peiser, that large trees were wiped out even if smaller ones remained – not really a wise action under the circumstances, and quite possibly responsible for a drastic fall in the population. The fact that things got even worse after Europeans arrived does not negate Diamond’s central point, although he probably should have been less hyperbolic about it.

By: John

John — Mon, 23 Jan 2006 17:21:29 +0000

The last word of the second paragraph should have been unihabitable.

By: John

John — Mon, 23 Jan 2006 17:18:56 +0000

These two sites
1.www.coteda.com/fundamentals/index.html
2. http://www.dabase.net/coop+tol.htm
sum up the world situation in a unique fashion. They effectively argue that our adolescent anti-”culture” of competitive individualism has brought the entire world to the brink of both cultural & ecological meltdown.
They also argue that we have not learned a damn thing from history, especially of the last hundred years, and that our collective history has been going downhill in an ever darkening spiral especially in the past 50 years.
And that if we dont somehow find the wherewithall to change the historically generated patterns and momentums currently being dramatised on the world stage then we might very well destroy oureslves and render the planet inhabitable.
And yes the answer is religious in its broadest and deepest and all inclusive universal sense.

By: Vic Hart

Vic Hart — Sun, 22 Jan 2006 21:29:10 +0000

A few years back Diamond’s arguments were mesmerising many but I found his scholarship thin on the ground on a number of fronts. The lack of critical thinking especially among the natural scientists that appeared to endorse and celebrate Diamond’s prophecies and re-juggling of history and anthropology – proved to be a cue for me to dig deeper. And so I did.
May I recommend a few review essays:
William H. McNeill, “History Upside Down,” NEW YORK REVIEW OF BOOKS, May 15,
1997 and his exchange with Diamond in the June 26, 1997 issues of the same
publication
James Blaunt’s review in GEOGRAPHICAL REVIEW vol. 89, no. 3(July 1999), 391-408
Gale Stokes, “The Fates of Human Societies: A Review of Recent Macrohistories,” AMERICAN HISTORICAL REVIEW vol. 106 (April 2001), 508-25
** as well as Jennifer Marohasyâ€™s piece post posted on OLO on Friday, 4 November 2005 titled
“Jared Diamond’s gated community of the mind”
Link : http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=64