Talk:Guns, Germs, and Steel

message: I'm becoming more and more of the opinion that See Also sections should be a section of least and last resort. The section in this article is a clear example of an arbitrary assemblage of links that only tenuously relate to the article topic. I would boldly remove it, but I instead come here to gather consensus. 71.9.31.123 (talk) 15:04, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I’m interested in hearing some specific information. Which links do you consider irrelevant? Are any of them relevant to you? (Not saying I disagree, just curious to hear more details. I agree it’s pretty damn long).  Euor (talk) 15:17, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: If I may stick my nose in here, I'd like to say, first, I agree that the section is a mess, and includes a lot of not paricularly relevant links. For me, personally, GG&S started me on a path of reading many of the most highly regarded books on "deep history", including Yuval Harari and The Dawn of Everything, so I definitely think they should be kept in the section. There may be other entries that should be kept for the same reason. Paulmlieberman (talk) 19:58, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: My own contribution is the "Sword, Plough and Book" one, which was mentioned in the Norwegian edition of Guns, Germs and Steel's foreword by anthropologist Thomas Hylland Eriksen. He among other things noted the parallels between the book titles. However, that book doesn't have its own wiki page, nor even really much mention on the author's wiki page, so I don't know if its worth keeping or not (on one hand its highlighted as related to Guns Germs and Steel in a publication, on the other hand it doesn't have much presence on Wiki yet).--Euor (talk) 23:36, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  See Also section is a mess 

message: Does anybody else think the positive to negative reception ratio seems very biased? I'm fairly certain it was more negatively received than this (among Diamond's other works). Talking to all the anthropology professors I know, the consensus seems to overwhelmingly be that Diamond is a kook. Thornfield Hall (talk) 06:22, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reception 

message: Oswald Spengler offers another possible explanation [which may or may not be correct] as to why advanced civilisations arose only in specific places on our planet (but did not do so in New Guinea or precolonial Australia, which Jared D cites for comparison). Spengler's thesis regards a High Culture as a living organic unit in its own right.
Spengler maintains that the "seed" of a High Culture (as a new organic, spiritual entity) appeared in western Europe round about 500 AD. About 400 years later it started to "blossom", and proceeded to influence and stimulate the leading minds in that area.
Earlier on, similar "higher organisms" appeared and flourished in China, in India, in and around Greece, in Persia/Arabia, in Mexico/Guatemala, and elsewhere.
Spengler is of course adopting a metaphysical approach to the question. We do not know why those phenomena "took root" just at those times and in those particular locations. Obviously, they could not function unless they had human material available (which could be regarded as forming the "cells" in its body). Thus, the Nile, the Tigris/Euphrates and the Indus river system were eminently suitable for the first three manifestations. --DLMcN (talk) 21:03, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oswald Spengler