----- Original Message ----- From: "Maru Dubshinki" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, January 31, 2005 10:09 PM Subject: Re: 'Collapse': How the World Ends L3
> You have a point about oversimplification: In "Guns...", my primary > grief was a lack of attention paid to how cultural and gov.'t factors > contributed and developed the potential geography bestowed. (Anyone > who has looked into, say, Chinese history will notice that a lot of > the most original stuff was done not when the empire was prosperous > and at peace, but during the Warring States period. SImilar examples > could be adduced for much of Europe.) > But I think the article is too harsh on 'Collapse'- I'm half way > through it, and he seems to focus more on how the societies make their > choices, which is what is really relevant, and missing from "Guns..". > BTW: if you haven't read either book, and you have a weekend to kill, > I can think of no better way. Was it wrong about the claims that were made? If not, then Collapse does indeed have serious problems.For example, in the US, the percentage of lands that are forests is actually slightly higher than it was 75 years ago. Erosion is a far smaller problem than it was 75 years ago. On my father-in-law's farm, for example, the amount of topsoil is now increasing...and his farm is not atypical New technology has cut down the erosion while yield per acre has gone drastically up. For the most part, the air and water are far cleaner in the US than they were 40 years ago. I'll admit I have not read this particular Collapse book yet, although I've read plenty in the last 30+ years. But, if the review is at all accurate concerning the claims in the book, then it is based on a selective gleaming of facts. Dan M. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
