15.12.2012 Views

GUNS, GERMS AND STEEL - Cloverport Independent Schools

GUNS, GERMS AND STEEL - Cloverport Independent Schools

GUNS, GERMS AND STEEL - Cloverport Independent Schools

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

154 " <strong>GUNS</strong>, <strong>GERMS</strong>, <strong>AND</strong> <strong>STEEL</strong><br />

species suitable for domestication. In fact, most areas where indigenous<br />

food production arose late or not at all offered exceptionally poor rather<br />

than rich resources to hunter-gatherers, because most large mammals of<br />

Australia and the Americas (but not of Eurasia and Africa) had become<br />

extinct toward the end of the Ice Ages. Food production would have faced<br />

even less competition from hunting-gathering in these areas than it did<br />

in the Fertile Crescent. Hence these local failures or limitations of food<br />

production cannot be attributed to competition from bountiful hunting<br />

opportunities.<br />

LEST THESE CONCLUSIONS be misinterpreted, we should end this<br />

chapter with caveats against exaggerating two points: peoples' readiness<br />

to accept better crops and livestock, and the constraints imposed by locally<br />

available wild plants and animals. Neither that readiness nor those constraints<br />

are absolute.<br />

We've already discussed many examples of local peoples' adopting<br />

more-productive crops domesticated elsewhere. Our broad conclusion is<br />

that people can recognize useful plants, would therefore have probably<br />

recognized better local ones suitable for domestication if any had existed,<br />

and aren't barred from doing so by cultural conservatism or taboos. But a<br />

big qualifier must be added to this sentence: "in the long run and over<br />

large areas." Anyone knowledgeable about human societies can cite innumerable<br />

examples of societies that refused crops, livestock, and other innovations<br />

that would have been productive.<br />

Naturally, I don't subscribe to the obvious fallacy that every society<br />

promptly adopts every innovation that would be useful for it. The fact is<br />

that, over entire continents and other large areas containing hundreds of<br />

competing societies, some societies will be more open to innovation, and<br />

some will be more resistant. The ones that do adopt new crops, livestock,<br />

or technology may thereby be enabled to nourish themselves better and to<br />

outbreed, displace, conquer, or kill off societies resisting innovation.<br />

That's an important phenomenon whose manifestations extend far beyondthe<br />

adoption of new crops, and to which we shall return in Chapter 13.<br />

Our other caveat concerns the limits that locally available wild species<br />

set on the rise of food production. I'm not saying that food production<br />

could never, in any amount of time, have arisen in all those areas where it<br />

actually had not arisen indigenously by modern times. Europeans today

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!