Book: "Collapse: How Societies Succeed ..." by Jared Diamond

by **Cynus** » Fri 31 Dec 2004, 11:07:08

I'm currently reading "Collapse" by Jared M. Diamond . It a study of how unsustaibale societies eventually collapse or change to adapt to their environment. It's lessons for our current situation are plenty. I'm sure everyone here will find it's lessons enlightening.

by **Jack** » Fri 31 Dec 2004, 18:09:32

I noticed it being discussed a few days ago...Amazon should have my copy delivered in about a week!

It sounds like a most useful book.

by **uNkNowN ElEmEnt** » Fri 31 Dec 2004, 18:14:45

God I'm up to my eyes in things I should read and so much of it is soooo dry. Would you be willing to paraphrase, give us the high points or even a review of sorts?

by **Itch** » Fri 31 Dec 2004, 21:08:29

Jared Diamond is the fucking man. I'm about half way through with "Guns, Germs, and Steel" and, although I start daydreaming from time to time, I must say that it is quite insightful, like most of his writings.

I'd like to join in inconnu's suggestion and humbly ask for any interesting observations you have noticed.

by **skiwi** » Fri 31 Dec 2004, 22:25:27

Edited transcript of a speech he gave recently at Princeton University

Why Societies Collapse

by **Cynus** » Sat 01 Jan 2005, 15:04:23

THere's another thread in this forum posting an article he wrote today in the New York Times that pretty much summarizes the book. The analogy between the deforestation that killed of many previous civilizations and our depletion of oil seems very obvious--and will ikely have identical consequences. I wish he made the comparision more explicit.

by **some_guy282** » Tue 04 Jan 2005, 22:34:42

Here's an audio interview with Jared Diamond, who has just authored a book titled Collapse: How Societies Succeed or Fail. It's very interesting. He starts off by talking about Easter Island.... OnPoint Radio

The interview starts 8 minutes into the broadcast.

by **BabyPeanut** » Wed 05 Jan 2005, 11:51:16

Yes, he was in the NY Times recently too.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/01/opini ... amond.html

by **khebab** » Wed 05 Jan 2005, 12:13:27

There is also a good review in the last issue of Scientific American:

Scientific American

This book offers a different point of view on the Rwanda genocide and the American state of Montana!

by **BabyPeanut** » Sat 15 Jan 2005, 18:33:50

audio, 1 hour

http://www.wamu.org/programs/dr/05/01/13.php

by **BabyPeanut** » Sat 15 Jan 2005, 21:53:50

Jared points out that the Bushies anti-family-planning subjugates the third world by keeping them overpopulated and therefor in poverty. This is only mentioned very briefly in the interview.

Clearly the side-effects of world overpopulation are fundemental.

by **ararboin** » Sat 15 Jan 2005, 22:49:21

I thought that the solutions he offered weren't very promising. He didn't venture into the realm of criticizing the first worlders for their lifestyles, chosing instead to encourage such personal actions as giving to various causes, such as Ducks Unlimited....?

Like so many people who "get it," perhaps he just feels that Joe Public couldn't grasp the enormity of the situation anyway, so why rattle his cage?

And, maybe authors, when they are on these talk shows, are too aware that what they say might be detremental to book sales.

by **ozkrenske** » Sun 16 Jan 2005, 08:44:23

First up good interview, facts wise and even some of the Q&A was quite good. He did point out Oil scarcity etc, but indeed he gave some fairly pithy answers to the 'what is your solution' question. Of course that would probably be a full 1 hour+ episode and would be suggesting things that will not be accepted on either a concious or subconcious level by most americans. Germans were held up by him as a sort of solution but if you actually tried to get Americans to live as germans do then it won't happen. About 1/3rd of the populace has no personal vehicle, consumption is not quite the same driving factor so less is bought etc. Of course even the Germans need to halve their energy consumption and generate a lot more green energy to survive into the future, and good for them, they are trying to do both. Americans though really won't get it until a real shock occurs.

My main problem with the interview was the presenter, Good God, was she employed to put people into a Coma or is she one of these Radio/TV people who have been around for 50 years and will need to be carried out in a box. The Woman was actually succeeding in helping my insomnia. I have heard Jarrod several times before and actually went to a lecture of his, here in OZ, he has a fairly sedate presentation style but certainly seemed more dynamic in person (especially in Q&A), maybe he was also being effected.

by **BabyPeanut** » Sun 16 Jan 2005, 09:38:51

ozkrenske wrote:My main problem with the interview was the presenter, Good God, was she employed to put people into a Coma or is she one of these Radio/TV people who have been around for 50 years and will need to be carried out in a box. The Woman was actually succeeding in helping my insomnia. I have heard Jarrod several times before and actually went to a lecture of his, here in OZ, he has a fairly sedate presentation style but certainly seemed more dynamic in person (especially in Q&A), maybe he was also being effected.

You can't please everybody. I happen to enjoy listening to Dianne's show. I have a thing for listening to older and therefor wiser people.

by **ozkrenske** » Sun 16 Jan 2005, 12:21:27

Sorry for the complaint, It just really got to me. Blame my addiction to high speed, high tempo, rock and roll if you must

.

Website · by **Yavicleus** » Sun 16 Jan 2005, 12:36:40

BabyPeanut wrote:
ozkrenske wrote:My main problem with the interview was the presenter, Good God, was she employed to put people into a Coma or is she one of these Radio/TV people who have been around for 50 years and will need to be carried out in a box. The Woman was actually succeeding in helping my insomnia. I have heard Jarrod several times before and actually went to a lecture of his, here in OZ, he has a fairly sedate presentation style but certainly seemed more dynamic in person (especially in Q&A), maybe he was also being effected.

You can't please everybody. I happen to enjoy listening to Dianne's show. I have a thing for listening to older and therefor wiser people.

I can't stand the sound of Dianne Rheme's voice. It's like somebody distilled the essence of whiney liberal into a bottle and then injected it into this woman's vocal chords. The main reason I don't donate to public radio is that I hope they fire her due to lack of funding.

by **Ludi** » Sun 16 Jan 2005, 12:37:55

She suffers from a condition which affects her vocal cords, which makes her voice slow and spastic.

by **BabyPeanut** » Sun 16 Jan 2005, 16:48:35

Yavicleus wrote:I can't stand the sound of Dianne Rheme's voice. It's like somebody distilled the essence of whiney liberal into a bottle and then injected it into this woman's vocal chords. The main reason I don't donate to public radio is that I hope they fire her due to lack of funding.

The reason I don't give them any money is that when Riyadh got car bombed they didn't make a peep but two days later Baghdad got car bombed they were all of the story. They are clearly puppets.
Go search their site for "Riyadh" and see the most recent story is

Middle East: Saudi Royal Family Divided over Political Reform
07-20-04, Morning Edition

by **ernest** » Mon 17 Jan 2005, 12:49:47

Blaming George Bush for third world overpopulation is a bit over the top. Nobody is forcing people to have babies. Nobody can. Lack of economic and poltical development, and education, are the forces that encourage overpopulation, not the political decisions of one white man.

by **BabyPeanut** » Mon 17 Jan 2005, 16:59:13

ernest wrote:Blaming George Bush for third world overpopulation is a bit over the top. Nobody is forcing people to have babies. Nobody can. Lack of economic and poltical development, and education, are the forces that encourage overpopulation, not the political decisions of one white man.

It's not about forcing people to not have babies. Sexual desire does that perfectly. It's about not funding the medical technologies that would prevent babies despite sex.