《枪炮、病菌与钢铁》书评
正文翻译
图
Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies
《枪炮、病菌与钢铁》书评
《枪炮、病菌与钢铁》书评
图
评论翻译
I liked this book, and it taught me a bunch of things I hadn't known before I read it. Jared Diamond has clearly had a more interesting life than most of us, and spent significant amounts of time in a wide variety of different kinds of society, all over the world. He says he got the basic idea from a conversation he had back in the 70s with a friend in New Guinea. His friend, who later became a leader in the independence movement, wanted to talk about "cargo" (manufactured goods, technology). "Why is it," he asked, "that you Europeans have so much more cargo than we do?" Diamond thought he had come up with a good question, and wrote the book in an attempt to answer it.
我喜欢这本书，它教会了我很多我之前不知道的事情。作者的生活显然比我们大多数人更有趣，他在世界各地各种各样的社会生活过。他说，他的基本想法来自70年代与新几内亚一位朋友的一次谈话。他的这位朋友后来成为独立运动的领袖，他想谈谈“货物”(商品、技术)。“为什么，”他问道，“为什么你们欧洲人的货物比我们多?技术比我们优秀？社会比我们发展的好？”戴蒙德认为他提出了一个好问题，并写了一本书试图回答它。
我喜欢这本书，它教会了我很多我之前不知道的事情。作者的生活显然比我们大多数人更有趣，他在世界各地各种各样的社会生活过。他说，他的基本想法来自70年代与新几内亚一位朋友的一次谈话。他的这位朋友后来成为独立运动的领袖，他想谈谈“货物”(商品、技术)。“为什么，”他问道，“为什么你们欧洲人的货物比我们多?技术比我们优秀？社会比我们发展的好？”戴蒙德认为他提出了一个好问题，并写了一本书试图回答它。
The core of Diamond's explanation is that Europeans were essentially lucky in two respects. First, we have unusually many easily domesticable plant and animal species. Second, since Europe is oriented East-West rather than North-South, a species which is domesticated in one part of Europe has a good chance of thriving in another, so there are many opportunities to swap farming technology between different areas. It helps that there is an easily navigable river system, and also that there are no impassible deserts or mountain ranges. These conditions are not reproduced in most other parts of the world; Diamond has a range of interesting tables, showing how few useful domesticable species there are elsewhere. Because we got efficient farming earlier than most other people, we also got cities and advanced technology earlier, and everything else followed from that initial lead we established.
戴蒙德解释的核心是，欧洲人在两个方面基本上是幸运的。首先，我们有许多非常容易驯化的动植物物种。其次，由于欧洲是东西走向的，而不是南北走向的，在欧洲某一地区驯化的物种在另一地区也会有很好的生存能力，因此不同地区之间可以有很多交换农业技术的机会。这里有一个易于航行的河流系统，也没有无法控制的沙漠或山脉，这对我们的发展很有帮助。这些情况在世界上大多数其他地方是不会有的。作者给了一系列有趣的表格，显示了在其他地方有用的可驯化物种是多么的少。所以我们比其它大多数人更早地获得了高效的农业，我们也更早地获得了城市和先进技术，而其他一切领先都是从我们最初建立的这个领先开始的。
戴蒙德解释的核心是，欧洲人在两个方面基本上是幸运的。首先，我们有许多非常容易驯化的动植物物种。其次，由于欧洲是东西走向的，而不是南北走向的，在欧洲某一地区驯化的物种在另一地区也会有很好的生存能力，因此不同地区之间可以有很多交换农业技术的机会。这里有一个易于航行的河流系统，也没有无法控制的沙漠或山脉，这对我们的发展很有帮助。这些情况在世界上大多数其他地方是不会有的。作者给了一系列有趣的表格，显示了在其他地方有用的可驯化物种是多么的少。所以我们比其它大多数人更早地获得了高效的农业，我们也更早地获得了城市和先进技术，而其他一切领先都是从我们最初建立的这个领先开始的。
One obxtion you could make is that it ist luck. Diamond's answer to this is fairly convincing. Basically, what he's saying is that pre-industrial people tried everything that could be tried, and when they didn't find anything good, it's because it wasn't there. Systematic studies by modern scientists do seem to support this conclusion.
你可以提出反对意见，这是运气问题。戴蒙德对此的回答是相当有说服力的。基本上，他说的是前工业化时代的人们已经尝试了所有可以尝试的东西，当他们没有发现任何好用的东西时，那只能是因为它不存在。现代科学家的系统研究似乎也支持这一结论。
你可以提出反对意见，这是运气问题。戴蒙德对此的回答是相当有说服力的。基本上，他说的是前工业化时代的人们已经尝试了所有可以尝试的东西，当他们没有发现任何好用的东西时，那只能是因为它不存在。现代科学家的系统研究似乎也支持这一结论。
Another criticism some readers have leveled at Diamond is that he makes history completely deterministic - once the geography was fixed, everything that happened after that was inevitable. I don't actually think that's fair. Diamond is open about the fact that his theories make one embarrassingly incorrect prediction: if it was all about being first to domesticate plant and animal species and set up efficient farming, then China should be the world's preeminent civilization. Even though he makes some attempt to explain why this isn't so, there does right now seem to be a new fair case for saying that it's not only geography.
一些读者对戴蒙德提出的另一个批评是，他让历史完全具有确定性——一旦地理位置确定，之后发生的一切都是不可避免的。我也觉得这是不公平的。戴蒙德公开承认，他的理论会做出一个令人尴尬的错误预测:如果一切都是关于首先驯化动植物物种和建立高效农业，那么中国应该是世界上最杰出的文明国家。尽管他试图解释了为什么不是这样，但现在似乎有了一个新的理由来说明这不仅仅是地理的问题。
一些读者对戴蒙德提出的另一个批评是，他让历史完全具有确定性——一旦地理位置确定，之后发生的一切都是不可避免的。我也觉得这是不公平的。戴蒙德公开承认，他的理论会做出一个令人尴尬的错误预测:如果一切都是关于首先驯化动植物物种和建立高效农业，那么中国应该是世界上最杰出的文明国家。尽管他试图解释了为什么不是这样，但现在似乎有了一个新的理由来说明这不仅仅是地理的问题。
-------------------------------------------------------
In 1532, Francisco Pizarro and a band of 168 Spaniards punctured the heart of the Inca Empire and proceeded to capture its emperor, decimate its citizens, and plunder its gold. Why didn’t it happen the other way around? Why didn't the Incas sail to Europe, capture Charles V, kill his subjects, and loot his castles and cathedrals? Jared Diamond attempts to answer this question in Guns, Germs & Steel.
1532年，弗朗西斯科·皮萨罗和168名西班牙人刺穿了印加帝国的心脏，抓捕印加皇帝，屠杀印加公民，掠夺印加黄金。为什么没有反过来呢?为什么印加人没有航行到欧洲，俘获查理五世，杀死他的臣民，掠夺他的城堡和大教堂呢?作者在《枪炮、病菌与钢铁》中试图回答这个问题。
In 1532, Francisco Pizarro and a band of 168 Spaniards punctured the heart of the Inca Empire and proceeded to capture its emperor, decimate its citizens, and plunder its gold. Why didn’t it happen the other way around? Why didn't the Incas sail to Europe, capture Charles V, kill his subjects, and loot his castles and cathedrals? Jared Diamond attempts to answer this question in Guns, Germs & Steel.
1532年，弗朗西斯科·皮萨罗和168名西班牙人刺穿了印加帝国的心脏，抓捕印加皇帝，屠杀印加公民，掠夺印加黄金。为什么没有反过来呢?为什么印加人没有航行到欧洲，俘获查理五世，杀死他的臣民，掠夺他的城堡和大教堂呢?作者在《枪炮、病菌与钢铁》中试图回答这个问题。
Why have Europeans tended to dominate other peoples on other continents? Does it have something to do with race? Were Europeans cleverer than other races? Diamond says no. It wasn't racial characteristics that tipped the scales of fortune for the Europeans; it was their geography. Their geography gave them access to the best domestic grains and animals, which led to specialization and advanced technologies like steel and guns. Their domestic animals also helped them develop potent germs, and the antibodies for those germs.
为什么欧洲人有能力去统治其他大陆上的其他民族呢?这和种族有关吗?是欧洲人比其他种族更聪明吗?作者说不。这并不是种族原因改变了欧洲人的命运，而是因为他们的地理位置。他们的地理位置使他们获得了最好的谷物和动物，这导致了专业化和先进的技术，如钢铁和枪支。他们饲养的家畜也帮助他们培养了强大的病菌，以及对抗这些病菌的抗体。
为什么欧洲人有能力去统治其他大陆上的其他民族呢?这和种族有关吗?是欧洲人比其他种族更聪明吗?作者说不。这并不是种族原因改变了欧洲人的命运，而是因为他们的地理位置。他们的地理位置使他们获得了最好的谷物和动物，这导致了专业化和先进的技术，如钢铁和枪支。他们饲养的家畜也帮助他们培养了强大的病菌，以及对抗这些病菌的抗体。
Diamond's point is that people living in areas with more domesticable animals (sheep, cattle, pigs, horses, etc.) gained an important advantage over people without them.
作者的观点是，生活在有更多可驯养动物(羊、牛、猪、马等)的地区的人比没有这些动物的人获得了重要的优势。
作者的观点是，生活在有更多可驯养动物(羊、牛、猪、马等)的地区的人比没有这些动物的人获得了重要的优势。
For example, Native Americans had only three domesticated animals before 1492: llamas, turkeys, and dogs. Why only three? Weren’t there wild horses and cattle in America too? Actually, fossil records show huge populations of horses, oxen, and millions of other large mammals in the Americas until about 11,000 BC. What happened around 11,000 BC? You guessed it: man showed up via the Bering Strait. The American horses, oxen and other large mammals, having never experienced a human predator, approached the new arrivals like slobbering puppy dogs, and were consequently turned into steaks. In fact, it was steaks every night for a couple thousand years for the new immigrants, until most of the continents’ large mammals— and all but one suitable candidate for domestication— were wiped out.
例如，在1492年以前，美洲原住民只有三种驯养动物:羊驼、火鸡和狗。为什么只有三个?历史上美洲不是也有野马和牛吗?事实上，化石记录显示，在公元前11000年以前，美洲大陆上有大量的马、牛和其他大型哺乳动物。公元前11000年左右发生了什么?你猜对了:人类出现在了白令海峡。美洲的马、牛和其他大型哺乳动物从未经历过人类这个捕食者，它们会被这些流着口水的人类轻松接近，然后变成了牛排等食物。事实上，几千年来，这些新移民每天晚上都能吃到牛排，直到大陆上大部分的大型哺乳动物——除了还剩一种适合驯养的动物——都灭绝了。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
例如，在1492年以前，美洲原住民只有三种驯养动物:羊驼、火鸡和狗。为什么只有三个?历史上美洲不是也有野马和牛吗?事实上，化石记录显示，在公元前11000年以前，美洲大陆上有大量的马、牛和其他大型哺乳动物。公元前11000年左右发生了什么?你猜对了:人类出现在了白令海峡。美洲的马、牛和其他大型哺乳动物从未经历过人类这个捕食者，它们会被这些流着口水的人类轻松接近，然后变成了牛排等食物。事实上，几千年来，这些新移民每天晚上都能吃到牛排，直到大陆上大部分的大型哺乳动物——除了还剩一种适合驯养的动物——都灭绝了。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
Consider that because the Native Americans didn't have any horses, oxen, pigs, etc. left to exploit as beasts of burden and domesticated food sources, they also lost the civilizational benefits those animals would have brought (and did bring to Eurasians), not the least of which is germs. Yes, germs. Because the Native Americans didn't live in close proximity to a plethora of "farm animals" like their counterparts in Eurasia, they lacked the "petri dish" wherein deadly germs could grow and proliferate. They thus failed to develop the infectious diseases and (more importantly) the antibodies to those diseases that might have protected them from the germs of invading Europeans when Señor Columbus and his crew showed up.
想想看，由于美洲原住民没有任何马、牛、猪等可以用来作为驮畜和家养食物来源，他们也失去了这些动物带来的文明好处(而且确实给欧亚人带来了好处)，其中最重要的是病菌。是的,病菌。由于美洲原住民不像欧亚大陆的原住民那样生活在大量“动物农场”附近，他们缺少致命病菌生长和繁殖的“培养皿”。因此，当哥伦布先生和他的船员出现时，他们还没能发展出传染病，而且更重要的是，他们没能发展出抵抗欧洲入侵者病菌的抗体。
想想看，由于美洲原住民没有任何马、牛、猪等可以用来作为驮畜和家养食物来源，他们也失去了这些动物带来的文明好处(而且确实给欧亚人带来了好处)，其中最重要的是病菌。是的,病菌。由于美洲原住民不像欧亚大陆的原住民那样生活在大量“动物农场”附近，他们缺少致命病菌生长和繁殖的“培养皿”。因此，当哥伦布先生和他的船员出现时，他们还没能发展出传染病，而且更重要的是，他们没能发展出抵抗欧洲入侵者病菌的抗体。
It was for this reason that when the Conquistadores did finally show up, they were able to wipe out 80% of the indigenous population— with germs— with small pox and influenza, both diseases generated by the passing back and forth of germs between domesticated animals and their human caretakers (small pox between cattle and humans, and influenza between pigs and ducks and humans).
正是因为这一原因,当征服者终于出现时,他们能够消灭80%的土著居民。病菌：天花和流感,这两种疾病在驯养动物和饲养者人类之间来回传播。(牛和人类之间的天花,猪、鸭子和人类之间的流感)。
正是因为这一原因,当征服者终于出现时,他们能够消灭80%的土著居民。病菌：天花和流感,这两种疾病在驯养动物和饲养者人类之间来回传播。(牛和人类之间的天花,猪、鸭子和人类之间的流感)。
Then again, you may well ask: “What about moose and bison? Why didn’t Cortés and his boys float up to the Mexican shoreline and find a bloodthirsty cavalry of Aztecs on mooseback?” Diamond surmises that by the time most the large mammals in America had been digested into extinction by their hungry human friends, there was only one suitable candidate left for domestication: the llama/alpaca. Every other large mammal that remained (including moose and bison) lacked the qualities that allow for domestication.
然后，你可能会问:“那驼鹿和野牛呢?”为什么弗朗西斯科·皮萨罗和他的同伴们们没有在到达墨西哥海岸时，发现骑在驼鹿背上的嗜血的阿兹特克骑兵?作者推测，当时美洲大多数大型哺乳动物被都灭绝了，因为他们饥饿的人类朋友。只剩下一个可驯养对象:美洲驼/羊驼。剩下的所有大型哺乳动物(包括麋鹿和野牛)都缺乏驯化的能力。
然后，你可能会问:“那驼鹿和野牛呢?”为什么弗朗西斯科·皮萨罗和他的同伴们们没有在到达墨西哥海岸时，发现骑在驼鹿背上的嗜血的阿兹特克骑兵?作者推测，当时美洲大多数大型哺乳动物被都灭绝了，因为他们饥饿的人类朋友。只剩下一个可驯养对象:美洲驼/羊驼。剩下的所有大型哺乳动物(包括麋鹿和野牛)都缺乏驯化的能力。
In all of human history only 14 large mammals have ever been domesticated: sheep, goat, cattle, pigs, horses, camels (Arabian and Bactrian), llamas, donkeys, reindeer, water buffalo, yaks, and two minor relatives of cattle in southeast Asia called Bali cattle and mithrans. Outside of these, no other large mammals have been transformed from wild animals into something useful to humans. Why? Why were Eurasia's horses domesticated and not Africa's zebras? Why were Eurasia's wild boar domesticated and not America's peccaries or Africa's wild pigs? Why were Eurasia's five species of wild cattle (aurochs, water buffalo, yaks, bantengs, and gaurs) domesticated and not Africa's water buffalo or America's bison? Why the Asian mouflon sheep (the ancestor of our sheep) and not the American bighorn sheep?
在人类历史上，只有14种大型哺乳动物被驯养过:绵羊、山羊、牛、猪、马、骆驼(单峰驼和双峰驼)、羊驼、驴子、驯鹿、水牛、牦牛，以及巴厘岛的爪哇水牛和白肢野牛两个小近亲。除此之外，还没有其他大型哺乳动物从野生动物转变成为对人类有用的动物。为什么?为什么驯化的是欧亚大陆的马而不是非洲的斑马?为什么驯化的是欧亚大陆的野猪，而不是美洲的野猪或非洲的野猪?为什么欧亚大陆的五种野生牛(欧洲野牛、水牛、牦牛、亚洲野牛和白肢野牛)被驯化而不是非洲水牛或美洲野牛?为什么是亚洲的摩弗伦羊(我们养的羊的祖先)而不是美洲的大角羊?
在人类历史上，只有14种大型哺乳动物被驯养过:绵羊、山羊、牛、猪、马、骆驼(单峰驼和双峰驼)、羊驼、驴子、驯鹿、水牛、牦牛，以及巴厘岛的爪哇水牛和白肢野牛两个小近亲。除此之外，还没有其他大型哺乳动物从野生动物转变成为对人类有用的动物。为什么?为什么驯化的是欧亚大陆的马而不是非洲的斑马?为什么驯化的是欧亚大陆的野猪，而不是美洲的野猪或非洲的野猪?为什么欧亚大陆的五种野生牛(欧洲野牛、水牛、牦牛、亚洲野牛和白肢野牛)被驯化而不是非洲水牛或美洲野牛?为什么是亚洲的摩弗伦羊(我们养的羊的祖先)而不是美洲的大角羊?
The answer is simple: we tried and it didn't work. Since 2500 BC not one new large mammal (out of the 148 worldwide candidates) has been domesticated, and not for lack of trying. In fact, in the last 200 years, at least six large mammals have been subject to well-organized domestication projects: the eland, elk, moose, musk ox, zebra, and American bison. All six failed. Why? Because of one or more of the following problems: diet, slow growth rate, nasty disposition, tendency to panic, captive breeding problems, and/or social structure.
答案很简单:我们试过了，但没有成功。自公元前2500年以后，世界上148种大型哺乳动物中再也没有新的一种被驯养成功过，这并不是因为缺乏尝试。事实上，在过去的200年里，至少有6种大型哺乳动物受到了精心组织的驯化:大羚羊、麋鹿、驼鹿、麝牛、斑马和美洲野牛。所有六个失败了。为什么?由于以下一个或多个原因:饮食、生长缓慢、性格糟糕、容易恐慌、圈养繁殖问题和和社会结构。
答案很简单:我们试过了，但没有成功。自公元前2500年以后，世界上148种大型哺乳动物中再也没有新的一种被驯养成功过，这并不是因为缺乏尝试。事实上，在过去的200年里，至少有6种大型哺乳动物受到了精心组织的驯化:大羚羊、麋鹿、驼鹿、麝牛、斑马和美洲野牛。所有六个失败了。为什么?由于以下一个或多个原因:饮食、生长缓慢、性格糟糕、容易恐慌、圈养繁殖问题和和社会结构。
Diet: Why don't we eat lion burgers? Because raising lions, or any other carnivore, is uneconomical. You need 10,000 lbs of feed to grow a 1,000 lb cow. You would likewise need 10,000 lbs of cow to grow 1,000 pounds of lion. That means you’d need 100,000 lbs of feed to produce 1,000 pounds of lion.
饮食:为什么我们不吃狮子肉汉堡?因为饲养狮子或其他食肉动物是不经济的。你需要10000磅的饲料才能养出1000磅的牛。同样，你也需要10000磅的牛来养出1000磅的狮子。这意味着你需要10万磅饲料才能产出1000磅的狮子。
饮食:为什么我们不吃狮子肉汉堡?因为饲养狮子或其他食肉动物是不经济的。你需要10000磅的饲料才能养出1000磅的牛。同样，你也需要10000磅的牛来养出1000磅的狮子。这意味着你需要10万磅饲料才能产出1000磅的狮子。
Growth rate: Why don't we eat rhino burgers? Simple, it takes 15-20 years for a rhino to reach adult size while it only takes cows a couple.
增长率:为什么我们不吃犀牛汉堡?很简单，一头犀牛需要15-20年的时间才能长成成年，而牛只需要几年。
增长率:为什么我们不吃犀牛汉堡?很简单，一头犀牛需要15-20年的时间才能长成成年，而牛只需要几年。
Nasty disposition: Here's where we eliminate zebra burgers, hippo burgers, grizzly burgers and bison burgers. These animals retain their nasty and dangerous tempers even after several generations of captive breeding. Did you know zebras injure more zookeepers per year than do lions and tigers?
糟糕的性格:我们从不吃斑马汉堡、河马汉堡、灰熊汉堡和野牛汉堡。是因为即使经过几代人的圈养繁殖，这些动物仍然保持着它们肮脏和危险的脾气。你知道吗，斑马每年伤害的动物园管理员比狮子和老虎还多。
糟糕的性格:我们从不吃斑马汉堡、河马汉堡、灰熊汉堡和野牛汉堡。是因为即使经过几代人的圈养繁殖，这些动物仍然保持着它们肮脏和危险的脾气。你知道吗，斑马每年伤害的动物园管理员比狮子和老虎还多。
Tendency to panic: No deer or gazelle burgers either. Why? Because they take flight at the first sign of danger and will literally kill themselves running into a fence over and over to escape the threat.
恐慌倾向:没有鹿或瞪羚汉堡。为什么?因为它们一有危险的迹象就会逃跑，为了躲避威胁，它们会一遍又一遍地撞向栅栏，直到把自己累死。
恐慌倾向:没有鹿或瞪羚汉堡。为什么?因为它们一有危险的迹象就会逃跑，为了躲避威胁，它们会一遍又一遍地撞向栅栏，直到把自己累死。
Captive breeding problems: Many animals have elaborate breeding rituals that can't happen in captivity.
圈养繁殖问题:许多动物都有精心设计的繁殖仪式，而在圈养环境中是不可能发生的。
圈养繁殖问题:许多动物都有精心设计的繁殖仪式，而在圈养环境中是不可能发生的。
Social structure: This may be the most important requirement for domesticates. The best candidates for domestication live in herds, maintain a clear herd hierarchy. Here humans just take over the top of the hierarchy. They literally become the herd leader.
社会结构:这可能是驯化最重要的要求。最容易驯养的动物都是群居动物，有着一个清晰的群体等级制度。在这里，人类只需要占据等级的顶端，就可以成为他们的领导者。
社会结构:这可能是驯化最重要的要求。最容易驯养的动物都是群居动物，有着一个清晰的群体等级制度。在这里，人类只需要占据等级的顶端，就可以成为他们的领导者。
So the reason European explorers didn't find Native American ranchers with herds of bison and bighorn sheep is because these animals can’t be domesticated. Diamond contends that if there had been any horses left in the Americas, or any of the other 13 candidates for domestication, the Native Americans surely would have domesticated them, and reaped all the attendant benefits. But alas, their great-great-grandpas had already killed, grilled and digested them all.
所以欧洲探险者没有发现美洲土著有着养着成群的野牛和大角羊的原因是——因为这些动物不能被驯化。戴蒙德认为，如果美洲还剩下任何马类，或者其他13种可驯养的一种，美洲原住民肯定会驯养它们，并获得所有随之而来的好处。但可惜的是，他们的曾曾祖父已经把他们都杀了，烤了，消化了。
所以欧洲探险者没有发现美洲土著有着养着成群的野牛和大角羊的原因是——因为这些动物不能被驯化。戴蒙德认为，如果美洲还剩下任何马类，或者其他13种可驯养的一种，美洲原住民肯定会驯养它们，并获得所有随之而来的好处。但可惜的是，他们的曾曾祖父已经把他们都杀了，烤了，消化了。
Diamond's book is a great read. If you're a student of history, it’s a must read. The way I see it, the story of man (and the story of all things) is the story of varied states of disequilibrium moving violently and inexorably toward equilibrium. What was Pizarro's vanquishing of Atahualpa's empire if not an example of such violent re-balancing? The beauty of Diamond's book is that it seems to pinpoint, with surprising simplicity, the original source of disequilibrium among men: geography. Roughly put, some got born in the right place and some didn’t. Skin color had nothing to do with it. Race has always been nothing more than an arbitrary mark to show the geographical birthplace of one's ancestors'.
戴蒙德的书是一本好书。如果你是学历史的，这是必读的书。在我看来，人类的历史(以及所有事物的历史)是各种不平衡状态朝着平衡状态猛烈而无情移动的历史。皮萨罗对印加的征服，如果这不是一个暴力的重新平衡的例子，那又是什么呢?戴蒙德这本书的美妙之处在于，它似乎以惊人的简单，准确地指出了人类失衡的根源:地理。粗略地说，有些人出生在正确的地方，有些人没有。肤色与此无关。种族一直只是一个标记，它只是用来显示这个人祖先的地理出生地。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
戴蒙德的书是一本好书。如果你是学历史的，这是必读的书。在我看来，人类的历史(以及所有事物的历史)是各种不平衡状态朝着平衡状态猛烈而无情移动的历史。皮萨罗对印加的征服，如果这不是一个暴力的重新平衡的例子，那又是什么呢?戴蒙德这本书的美妙之处在于，它似乎以惊人的简单，准确地指出了人类失衡的根源:地理。粗略地说，有些人出生在正确的地方，有些人没有。肤色与此无关。种族一直只是一个标记，它只是用来显示这个人祖先的地理出生地。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
By the way, if you do read this book, take note of the way we humans first discovered agriculture. According to Diamond, it happened at the latrine. We'd go out gathering seeds, eating some along the way, and then come back to camp and defecate, all in the same spot. Guess what started growing in that spot? Yes, my friends, as crude as it may sound, we humans shat are way to civilization. Thank your ass when you get a chance.
顺便说一下，如果你读过这本书，请注意我们人类最初发现农业的方式。据戴蒙德说，这个事情发生在厕所。我们会出去收集种子，在路上吃一些，然后回到营地，在同一个地方大便。猜猜那个地方会开始生长什么?是的，我的朋友们，尽管听起来很粗鲁，但我们人类就因此走向文明。真要找机会谢谢你的屁股。
顺便说一下，如果你读过这本书，请注意我们人类最初发现农业的方式。据戴蒙德说，这个事情发生在厕所。我们会出去收集种子，在路上吃一些，然后回到营地，在同一个地方大便。猜猜那个地方会开始生长什么?是的，我的朋友们，尽管听起来很粗鲁，但我们人类就因此走向文明。真要找机会谢谢你的屁股。
-------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Diamond, NOT an anthropologist, takes Marvin Harris' theory of cultural materialism and uses it to explain everything in life, history, and the current state of the world.
Materialism is a way of looking at human culture which, for lack of a better way to explain it easily here, says that people's material needs and goods determine behavior and culture. For instance Jews stopped eating pigs because it became so costly to feed pigs they themselves were starving.
戴蒙德不是人类学家，他采用的是马文·哈里斯的那种文化唯物主义理论，用它来解释生活、历史和世界现状中的一切。
唯物主义是一种看待人类文化的方式，因为可能没有更好的方式来解释这个世界了。它的表述是人们的物质需求和商品决定了人类的行为和文化。例如，犹太人不吃猪，因为饲养猪的成本太高，毕竟养猪的话，连猪自己都会挨饿。
Mr. Diamond, NOT an anthropologist, takes Marvin Harris' theory of cultural materialism and uses it to explain everything in life, history, and the current state of the world.
Materialism is a way of looking at human culture which, for lack of a better way to explain it easily here, says that people's material needs and goods determine behavior and culture. For instance Jews stopped eating pigs because it became so costly to feed pigs they themselves were starving.
戴蒙德不是人类学家，他采用的是马文·哈里斯的那种文化唯物主义理论，用它来解释生活、历史和世界现状中的一切。
唯物主义是一种看待人类文化的方式，因为可能没有更好的方式来解释这个世界了。它的表述是人们的物质需求和商品决定了人类的行为和文化。例如，犹太人不吃猪，因为饲养猪的成本太高，毕竟养猪的话，连猪自己都会挨饿。
On the surface, materialism seems very logical. Like any theory it has to be at least somewhat probable sounding, and since people are used to thinking of life, these days, in terms of materialistic values already, Harris' theory sounds logical.
从表面上看，唯物主义似乎很合逻辑。像任何理论一样，它听起来有一定的可能性，而且由于人们已经习惯了用唯物思维来思考生活，所以如今，哈里斯的理论听起来很有逻辑。
从表面上看，唯物主义似乎很合逻辑。像任何理论一样，它听起来有一定的可能性，而且由于人们已经习惯了用唯物思维来思考生活，所以如今，哈里斯的理论听起来很有逻辑。
But like every other time you attempt to explain everything that ever happened in the history of man with one theory, this falls desperately short of reality. Materialism is likely ONLY when coupled, sensibly, with other theories and, need I say it, actual PROOF, of which Diamond has little.
但是，就像每一个试图只用一个理论来解释人类历史的人一样，这将很愚蠢，也与事实相去甚远。唯物主义只有合理地与其他理论结合起来的时候才有可能正确存在，而且我需要再加说明的是，只有在实际证据充分的情况下才有可能存在，而在书中作者阐明的证据并不充分。
但是，就像每一个试图只用一个理论来解释人类历史的人一样，这将很愚蠢，也与事实相去甚远。唯物主义只有合理地与其他理论结合起来的时候才有可能正确存在，而且我需要再加说明的是，只有在实际证据充分的情况下才有可能存在，而在书中作者阐明的证据并不充分。
As an exercise in materialist theory this book is magnificent. I would recommend this book ONLY to people in Anthropology with a great understanding of theory, less educated or unwarned people might think this book is fact rather than an exercise in speculation.
As an explanation of why the world is the way it is, it is an utter and complete failure.
若作为唯物主义理论本身的一个操练，这本书在唯物主义理论实际化方面是宏伟的。我只会向那些对人类学有深刻理解的专业人士推荐这本书，而那些受教育程度较低或没有意识到这些提醒的人可能会认为这本书说是事实，而不是一种猜测。
但它作为世界的一种解释本身层面，还是一个彻底的失败。
As an explanation of why the world is the way it is, it is an utter and complete failure.
若作为唯物主义理论本身的一个操练，这本书在唯物主义理论实际化方面是宏伟的。我只会向那些对人类学有深刻理解的专业人士推荐这本书，而那些受教育程度较低或没有意识到这些提醒的人可能会认为这本书说是事实，而不是一种猜测。
但它作为世界的一种解释本身层面，还是一个彻底的失败。
-------------------------------------------------------
This is an ambitious book. It seeks to provide a simple rationale to explain why inequalities exist between the peoples of the world. What makes its approach fresh is that the analysis is from someone who is neither an economist nor a historian. Broadly speaking, Diamond pulls this off. His style is readable and his arguments well laid out. His conclusions about the importance in early human history of having the right plants and animals to promote the vital first step for a civilisation – that of developing farming, is compelling. I was also particularly impressed by his view that the orientation of a continent can foster or hinder the spread of farming, a point I had never considered.
这是一本雄心勃勃的书。它试图提供一个简单的理由来解释为什么世界各国人民之间存在着不平等。它的研究方法之所以如此新颖，是因为它的分析者既不是经济学家，也不是历史学家。总的来说，戴蒙德做到了这一点。他的风格可读性强，他的论点条理清晰。他的结论是：在早期人类历史上，拥有正确的动植物是促进文明的关键也是第一步——发展农业——这样的解释令人信服。他的观点也给我留下了深刻的印象，他认为一个大陆的方向有着可以促进或阻碍农业的传播，而这一点我从未想到过。
This is an ambitious book. It seeks to provide a simple rationale to explain why inequalities exist between the peoples of the world. What makes its approach fresh is that the analysis is from someone who is neither an economist nor a historian. Broadly speaking, Diamond pulls this off. His style is readable and his arguments well laid out. His conclusions about the importance in early human history of having the right plants and animals to promote the vital first step for a civilisation – that of developing farming, is compelling. I was also particularly impressed by his view that the orientation of a continent can foster or hinder the spread of farming, a point I had never considered.
这是一本雄心勃勃的书。它试图提供一个简单的理由来解释为什么世界各国人民之间存在着不平等。它的研究方法之所以如此新颖，是因为它的分析者既不是经济学家，也不是历史学家。总的来说，戴蒙德做到了这一点。他的风格可读性强，他的论点条理清晰。他的结论是：在早期人类历史上，拥有正确的动植物是促进文明的关键也是第一步——发展农业——这样的解释令人信服。他的观点也给我留下了深刻的印象，他认为一个大陆的方向有着可以促进或阻碍农业的传播，而这一点我从未想到过。
The book’s strength is also it weakness. Jared Diamond is very good on his own ground, and so long as his narrative is based on his knowledge of anthropology, biology and geography, all is well. Once the book approaches our own times, however, his arguments become stretched. When more complicated historical, social and economic factors need explanation, his narrative becomes less convincing. That said, this is still an excellent, thought-provoking read.
这本书的优点也是缺点。贾雷德·戴蒙德在自己的领域非常出色，只要他的叙述基于他的人类学、生物学和地理学知识，一切都很好。然而，一旦这本书接近于我们这个时代，他的论点就变得有些牵强附会了。当更复杂的历史、社会和经济因素需要解释时，他的叙述就不那么令人信服了。尽管如此，这仍然是一本优秀的发人深省的读物。
这本书的优点也是缺点。贾雷德·戴蒙德在自己的领域非常出色，只要他的叙述基于他的人类学、生物学和地理学知识，一切都很好。然而，一旦这本书接近于我们这个时代，他的论点就变得有些牵强附会了。当更复杂的历史、社会和经济因素需要解释时，他的叙述就不那么令人信服了。尽管如此，这仍然是一本优秀的发人深省的读物。
-------------------------------------------------------
Guns, Germs, and Steel is one of those books that everyone should read.
The premise of the book is revealed in the prologue in a conversation between the author and a New Guinea native who lives his very simple life in Stone Age conditions. The thesis that arises in their conversation is what specific events led to the fact that Europeans were the ones to reach New Guinea and interact with its people, and why it wasn't the New Guinea people to develop the technology and abilities to travel the world and make first contact with the Europeans.
《枪炮、病菌和钢铁》是所有人都应该阅读的书籍之一。
这本书的前提就揭示在序言中，作者和一个还生活在石器时代的新几内亚人讨论。而本文的论点就出现在他们的谈话中，是什么导致这一事实——欧洲人先到达新几内亚接触到这里的人，而不是新几内亚人发展技术和能力，然后环游世界接触到欧洲人。
Guns, Germs, and Steel is one of those books that everyone should read.
The premise of the book is revealed in the prologue in a conversation between the author and a New Guinea native who lives his very simple life in Stone Age conditions. The thesis that arises in their conversation is what specific events led to the fact that Europeans were the ones to reach New Guinea and interact with its people, and why it wasn't the New Guinea people to develop the technology and abilities to travel the world and make first contact with the Europeans.
《枪炮、病菌和钢铁》是所有人都应该阅读的书籍之一。
这本书的前提就揭示在序言中，作者和一个还生活在石器时代的新几内亚人讨论。而本文的论点就出现在他们的谈话中，是什么导致这一事实——欧洲人先到达新几内亚接触到这里的人，而不是新几内亚人发展技术和能力，然后环游世界接触到欧洲人。
With the concept in place, Diamond sets about doing this. And yet you are left with that adage of chaos theory: everything on this planet happens for a reason and has a knock-on effect.
Some of Diamond's ideas that I found and still find most astonishing include:
有了这个概念，戴蒙德开启了本书的阐述。然后就是那句混沌理论的至理名言:这个星球上发生的一切都是有原因的，都会发生着连锁反应。
我认为戴蒙德的一些想法中，现在仍然觉得最惊人的包括:
Some of Diamond's ideas that I found and still find most astonishing include:
有了这个概念，戴蒙德开启了本书的阐述。然后就是那句混沌理论的至理名言:这个星球上发生的一切都是有原因的，都会发生着连锁反应。
我认为戴蒙德的一些想法中，现在仍然觉得最惊人的包括:
The reason the continent of Eurasia was able to develop to a much more advanced level than the rest of the world, with its complex empires, cradles of civilizations, and large amount of farming and domesticated species was due to its latitude on a specific east-west axis. The other continents -- North and South America, Africa, Australasia -- are all on a north-south axis. What does this difference mean? For one, climate is greatly changed the further north or south ones goes, which has an effect on the migration of people, animals, and plants, as well as the spread of information, technology and culture. Because of this, Eurasia was able to develop more crops and have them spread around the continent through trade, as well as the spread of domesticated animals, culture and more importantly, technology. The other continents did not have this ease, which Diamond explains in clear detail with facts and dates.
欧亚大陆拥有复杂的帝国、文明的摇篮、大量的农业和驯养物种，能够发展到比世界其他地方先进得多的水平，其原因是由于它处于特定的东西轴线上。其他大陆——北美和南美、非洲、大洋洲——都位于南北轴线上。这种差异意味着什么?首先，南方和北方会产生很大的气候变化，这对人，动物和植物的迁移，以及信息，技术和文化的传播都有影响。正因为如此，欧亚大陆得以发展更多的农作物，并产生贸易，以及驯养动物、产生文化，更重要的是，允许技术的传播，可以将其传播到整个大陆。其他大陆则没有这种便利，戴蒙德用事实和日期详细地解释了这一点。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
欧亚大陆拥有复杂的帝国、文明的摇篮、大量的农业和驯养物种，能够发展到比世界其他地方先进得多的水平，其原因是由于它处于特定的东西轴线上。其他大陆——北美和南美、非洲、大洋洲——都位于南北轴线上。这种差异意味着什么?首先，南方和北方会产生很大的气候变化，这对人，动物和植物的迁移，以及信息，技术和文化的传播都有影响。正因为如此，欧亚大陆得以发展更多的农作物，并产生贸易，以及驯养动物、产生文化，更重要的是，允许技术的传播，可以将其传播到整个大陆。其他大陆则没有这种便利，戴蒙德用事实和日期详细地解释了这一点。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
Of course, I am vastly over-simplifying the book and it's really necessary for one to peruse its pages to get the full understanding. Another concept that I was very happy to be made so clear is the explanation of why whites conquered most of the world was not because they were a superior race in any way.
If you liked this review, and would like to read more, go to BookBanter.
当然，我把这本书说的过于简单化了，一个人要想完全理解这本书，阅读它的每一页是非常必要的。另一个让我很高兴被解释得如此清楚的概念是，到底为什么是白人征服了世界上的大部分地区，而原因并不是因为他们是优越的种族。
如果你喜欢这篇评论，并且想读更多，那就去读这本书吧。
If you liked this review, and would like to read more, go to BookBanter.
当然，我把这本书说的过于简单化了，一个人要想完全理解这本书，阅读它的每一页是非常必要的。另一个让我很高兴被解释得如此清楚的概念是，到底为什么是白人征服了世界上的大部分地区，而原因并不是因为他们是优越的种族。
如果你喜欢这篇评论，并且想读更多，那就去读这本书吧。
-------------------------------------------------------
I felt cheated by this book. It started off with such promise and like a fat person with a box of chocolates in front of them, I couldn't wait to get wired in. At one point, I decided that this book was worthy of four stars. By the midway point though I was tired. Tired.
我觉得我被这本书欺骗了。就像在一个胖子面前放着一盒巧克力一样，我迫不及待地想要打开。曾经一度我觉得这本书配得上四颗星。然后到中途我就觉得厌倦了，觉得不值四星。
I felt cheated by this book. It started off with such promise and like a fat person with a box of chocolates in front of them, I couldn't wait to get wired in. At one point, I decided that this book was worthy of four stars. By the midway point though I was tired. Tired.
我觉得我被这本书欺骗了。就像在一个胖子面前放着一盒巧克力一样，我迫不及待地想要打开。曾经一度我觉得这本书配得上四颗星。然后到中途我就觉得厌倦了，觉得不值四星。
Diamond attempts to answer an age old question; what determines a society's position in relation to the others on Earth? The problem with the approach he uses is that it is just not robust enough to be worth sharing. My first problem is that just because things are the way they are, it doesn't mean they had to be. Unless otherwise convinced (and I would take some convincing) I just can't lend any weight to the idea that history is anything other than chaotic, influenced by countless factors, many of which we remain unaware. I just could not shirk off the impression that Diamond was coming up with a theory and then shoehorning facts into the theory to lend it credence. One example of this is the idea that societies rate of progress is determined largely by what way round the landmass they inhabit lies. He fails to mention The Alps, The Mediterranean, the Himalayas or the large temperature gradient between parts of Eastern Russia and Western Europe, as potential barriers to the diffusion of ideas between societies in Eurasia, instead choosing to blithely ignore them to fit his chosen hypothesis. To me that's a bit like saying that rather than teeth evolving to fit our diet, they evolved to improve our smile and hence give us more chance of attracting a mate. In other words, making up a theory to fit the facts and using the facts themselves as justification and choosing to ignore existing evidence.
戴蒙德试图回答一个古老的问题：是什么决定了一个社会相对于地球上其他社会的地位?他使用的方法是有问题的，是不足以令人信服的，所以不值得分享。我的第一个问题是，事情可以顺着这条路这样，并不意味着它们必然这样。除非另有一些证据(我需要一些说服)，否则我无法支持这样一种观点，因为历史就是混乱的，受无数因素的影响，其中许多因素我们至今仍不知道。我就是无法接受戴蒙德提出的这一理论，他是把事实硬塞进这个理论里，从而使它更可信。这方面的一个例子就是，社会的进步速度在很大程度上取决于它们所居住的大陆环境。但他没有提到阿尔卑斯山脉、地中海、喜马拉雅山脉，也没有提到俄罗斯东部和西欧部分地区之间的巨大温度差异，这些都是欧亚大陆社会间思想传播的潜在障碍，相反，他选择愉快地忽略它们，以符合他所选择的假设。对我来说，这有点像说——牙齿进化不是为了适应我们的饮食，而是为了改善我们的微笑，从而给我们更多吸引伴侣的机会。换句话说，这就是编造一个符合事实的理论，用事实本身作为理由，而选择忽略现有的其它证据。
戴蒙德试图回答一个古老的问题：是什么决定了一个社会相对于地球上其他社会的地位?他使用的方法是有问题的，是不足以令人信服的，所以不值得分享。我的第一个问题是，事情可以顺着这条路这样，并不意味着它们必然这样。除非另有一些证据(我需要一些说服)，否则我无法支持这样一种观点，因为历史就是混乱的，受无数因素的影响，其中许多因素我们至今仍不知道。我就是无法接受戴蒙德提出的这一理论，他是把事实硬塞进这个理论里，从而使它更可信。这方面的一个例子就是，社会的进步速度在很大程度上取决于它们所居住的大陆环境。但他没有提到阿尔卑斯山脉、地中海、喜马拉雅山脉，也没有提到俄罗斯东部和西欧部分地区之间的巨大温度差异，这些都是欧亚大陆社会间思想传播的潜在障碍，相反，他选择愉快地忽略它们，以符合他所选择的假设。对我来说，这有点像说——牙齿进化不是为了适应我们的饮食，而是为了改善我们的微笑，从而给我们更多吸引伴侣的机会。换句话说，这就是编造一个符合事实的理论，用事实本身作为理由，而选择忽略现有的其它证据。
-------------------------------------------------------
I was appalled when reading it. I am appalled when I think of it. The conclusions drawn by this ornithologist about an entirely unrelated field of study are so ridiculous.
我读到它时吓了一跳。我一想到这件事就感到震惊。这位鸟类学家在一个完全不相关领域做出了研究，还得出的结论是如此荒谬。
I was appalled when reading it. I am appalled when I think of it. The conclusions drawn by this ornithologist about an entirely unrelated field of study are so ridiculous.
我读到它时吓了一跳。我一想到这件事就感到震惊。这位鸟类学家在一个完全不相关领域做出了研究，还得出的结论是如此荒谬。
In essence the author concludes that aboriginal tribes ( who used Stone Age implements 50 years ago) are the most intelligent beings on the planet. Forget Isaac Newton, Mozart, Da Vinci and others. They belonged to societies that perpetrated war. This in a nutshell is the premise of this much lauded book.
在本质上，作者认为土著部落(50年前使用石器时代工具的土著人)也是地球上最聪明的生物。那么忘掉艾萨克·牛顿、莫扎特、达·芬奇和其他人吧。他们是属于发动战争的社会。然而这就是这本广受赞誉的书的前提。
在本质上，作者认为土著部落(50年前使用石器时代工具的土著人)也是地球上最聪明的生物。那么忘掉艾萨克·牛顿、莫扎特、达·芬奇和其他人吧。他们是属于发动战争的社会。然而这就是这本广受赞誉的书的前提。
-------------------------------------------------------
It’s been a few years since I read Guns, Germs and Steel. If my memory serves me well, Diamond is expatiating on a theory (geographic determinism) that has been in decline for decades, yet the points are presented so convincingly that one is inclined to believe the (seemingly) logical connections. I am in no position to invalidate geographic determinism as a theory, because I do not have extensive knowledge on that subject and the theory is not even fully rejected in academia. What I can do, as a geographer, is shed light on some of the claims, which Diamond seemingly cherrypicked to support his attempt at explaining the evolution of societies with basis on geographic determinism, and of which I believe are wrong or too restrained. Given the immensity of the task Diamond has bestowed upon himself, generalisations are inevitable, and as such, erring.
我已经好几年没读这本书了。如果我没记错的话，戴蒙德是在阐述一个已经衰落了几十年的理论(地理决定论)，然而这些观点却能如此“令人信服”，以至于让人们倾向于去相信(表面上)逻辑上的联系。我没有资格去否定地理决定论作为一种解释理论，因为我对这一主题没有广泛的知识，而且这个理论在学术界甚至还没有被完全否定。但作为一名地理学家，我能做的就是阐明其中的问题，其中的一些论据，戴蒙德选择了这些论据来支持他用地理决定论来解释社会的进化，但我认为这些论据说法是错误的，或者是不充分的。考虑到戴蒙德给自己赋予了如此巨大的任务，那一概而论是不可避免的，同样也是错误的。
It’s been a few years since I read Guns, Germs and Steel. If my memory serves me well, Diamond is expatiating on a theory (geographic determinism) that has been in decline for decades, yet the points are presented so convincingly that one is inclined to believe the (seemingly) logical connections. I am in no position to invalidate geographic determinism as a theory, because I do not have extensive knowledge on that subject and the theory is not even fully rejected in academia. What I can do, as a geographer, is shed light on some of the claims, which Diamond seemingly cherrypicked to support his attempt at explaining the evolution of societies with basis on geographic determinism, and of which I believe are wrong or too restrained. Given the immensity of the task Diamond has bestowed upon himself, generalisations are inevitable, and as such, erring.
我已经好几年没读这本书了。如果我没记错的话，戴蒙德是在阐述一个已经衰落了几十年的理论(地理决定论)，然而这些观点却能如此“令人信服”，以至于让人们倾向于去相信(表面上)逻辑上的联系。我没有资格去否定地理决定论作为一种解释理论，因为我对这一主题没有广泛的知识，而且这个理论在学术界甚至还没有被完全否定。但作为一名地理学家，我能做的就是阐明其中的问题，其中的一些论据，戴蒙德选择了这些论据来支持他用地理决定论来解释社会的进化，但我认为这些论据说法是错误的，或者是不充分的。考虑到戴蒙德给自己赋予了如此巨大的任务，那一概而论是不可避免的，同样也是错误的。
For example, he wrote: "Within Europe, England and France and Spain and Portugal founded worldwide colonial empires but Switzerland and Poland and Greece did not, because of equally straightforward geographic reasons: the former countries did, and the latter countries did not, have Atlantic Ocean ports."
例如，他写道:“在欧洲，英国、法国、西班牙和葡萄牙建立了世界范围的殖民帝国时，瑞士、波兰和希腊没并有，因为同样直接的地理原因:前几个国家有大西洋港口，而后几个国家没有”
例如，他写道:“在欧洲，英国、法国、西班牙和葡萄牙建立了世界范围的殖民帝国时，瑞士、波兰和希腊没并有，因为同样直接的地理原因:前几个国家有大西洋港口，而后几个国家没有”
It would be sensible to compare England, France, Spain and Portugal to China - another great power whose society has been concentrated along the coast throughout history. Diamond doesn’t answer why, for example, the Chinese didn’t use their big ass ships (junks) during the relatively peaceful period in Ming dynasty (specifically 1400-1433) to establish country-sized colonies like the Western European nations did a few centuries later. Chinese naval expeditions, which went as far as Africa and Indonesia during Ming dynasty, are well documented, but somehow conquering those far-flung corners of the world didn’t interest them that much. Perhaps one could argue this lack of interest in establishing colonies persisted in China because in a Confucian world order merchants were considered to be among the lowliest members of society, but that is closer to being a reason pertaining to possibilism or at least probabilism, not determinism.
I’d like to see (an attempt of) this Chinese reluctance to expand in a colonial manner explained by geographic determinism.
但将英国、法国、西班牙和葡萄牙与中国进行比较才是明智的，中国是另一个社会，历史上一直集中在沿海地区的大国。戴蒙德没有回答这是为什么，例如，在相对和平的明朝时期(特别是在1400-1433年)，中国人没有像几个世纪后西欧国家那样，使用他们的大船建立起国家大小的殖民地。明朝时，中国海军远航至印度尼西亚和非洲，这是有据可查的，但不知何故，征服世界上那些遥远的角落并没有引起他们多大的兴趣。也许有人会说，中国之所以对建立殖民地缺乏兴趣，是因为在儒家的世界秩序中，商人被认为是社会中地位最低的成员之一，但这更接近于可能性解释，或者至少是概率主义，而不是能作为决定论。
我希望看到用地理决定论来解释，为什么中国人不愿意以殖民的方式扩张。（译者加：我刚刚查阅了这本书，其实书中在尾记部分还是做出了些解释的。）
I’d like to see (an attempt of) this Chinese reluctance to expand in a colonial manner explained by geographic determinism.
但将英国、法国、西班牙和葡萄牙与中国进行比较才是明智的，中国是另一个社会，历史上一直集中在沿海地区的大国。戴蒙德没有回答这是为什么，例如，在相对和平的明朝时期(特别是在1400-1433年)，中国人没有像几个世纪后西欧国家那样，使用他们的大船建立起国家大小的殖民地。明朝时，中国海军远航至印度尼西亚和非洲，这是有据可查的，但不知何故，征服世界上那些遥远的角落并没有引起他们多大的兴趣。也许有人会说，中国之所以对建立殖民地缺乏兴趣，是因为在儒家的世界秩序中，商人被认为是社会中地位最低的成员之一，但这更接近于可能性解释，或者至少是概率主义，而不是能作为决定论。
我希望看到用地理决定论来解释，为什么中国人不愿意以殖民的方式扩张。（译者加：我刚刚查阅了这本书，其实书中在尾记部分还是做出了些解释的。）
-------------------------------------------------------
"Guns, Germs, and Steel" should have been a fifty-page essay about how the Spanish conquered the Aztecs and the Incas. Diamond's discussion of that topic is interesting, well argued, and reasonably well researched, particularly when he talks about why Europeans carried deadlier diseases than Native Americans. Diamond wasn't necessarily the first person to make such an argument, of course, but he probably made it more comprehensively than any of his predecessors. For this effort he deserves respect and commendation.
《枪炮、病菌和钢铁》本该是一篇50页的文章，它只需要讲述西班牙人是如何征服阿兹特克人和印加人的。戴蒙德对这个话题的讨论很有趣，也有充分的论证和研究，尤其是当他谈到为什么欧洲人携带的是比美洲原住民更致命的疾病时。当然，戴蒙德并不一定是第一个提出这种观点的人，但他可能比他的任何前任都做得更加全面和充分。他的这一努力值得尊重和赞扬。
"Guns, Germs, and Steel" should have been a fifty-page essay about how the Spanish conquered the Aztecs and the Incas. Diamond's discussion of that topic is interesting, well argued, and reasonably well researched, particularly when he talks about why Europeans carried deadlier diseases than Native Americans. Diamond wasn't necessarily the first person to make such an argument, of course, but he probably made it more comprehensively than any of his predecessors. For this effort he deserves respect and commendation.
《枪炮、病菌和钢铁》本该是一篇50页的文章，它只需要讲述西班牙人是如何征服阿兹特克人和印加人的。戴蒙德对这个话题的讨论很有趣，也有充分的论证和研究，尤其是当他谈到为什么欧洲人携带的是比美洲原住民更致命的疾病时。当然，戴蒙德并不一定是第一个提出这种观点的人，但他可能比他的任何前任都做得更加全面和充分。他的这一努力值得尊重和赞扬。
The problems start to crop up when he applies his environmental thesis to the rest of the world. The following is some of the more egregious nonsense that appears in this work.
当他把他的地理理论应用到世界其他地方时，问题就开始出现了。以下是这部作品中出现的一些令人震惊的胡言乱语。
当他把他的地理理论应用到世界其他地方时，问题就开始出现了。以下是这部作品中出现的一些令人震惊的胡言乱语。
1. Shameless cherry-picking
The central thesis of "Guns, Germs, and Steel" is that civilizations living in regions that are geographically suited for agriculture tend to become dominant. Earlier development of agriculture, combined with the ability to cultivate more and better crops and domesticate more and larger animals, gives a civilization a surplus of food, leaving many of its inhabitants free to develop better technologies. Domestication of animals also exposes a people to a wider range of diseases, building immunities. By virtue of their superior technologies and higher levels of immunities, agricultural civilizations are able to conquer their less-advanced pastoralist and hunter-gatherer neighbors.
1. 无耻的挑选
《枪炮、病菌和钢铁》的中心论点是，生活在适合农业地理位置的文明往往会占据主导地位。农业的早期发展，加上有能力种植更多更好的作物，驯养更多更大的动物，会使一个文明拥有过剩的粮食，使其许多居民可以自由地发展更好的技术。驯养动物也会使人接触到更广泛的疾病，从而建立免疫力。农业文明凭借其先进的技术和较高的免疫水平，能够征服其它较不发达的畜牧和狩猎采集邻居。
The central thesis of "Guns, Germs, and Steel" is that civilizations living in regions that are geographically suited for agriculture tend to become dominant. Earlier development of agriculture, combined with the ability to cultivate more and better crops and domesticate more and larger animals, gives a civilization a surplus of food, leaving many of its inhabitants free to develop better technologies. Domestication of animals also exposes a people to a wider range of diseases, building immunities. By virtue of their superior technologies and higher levels of immunities, agricultural civilizations are able to conquer their less-advanced pastoralist and hunter-gatherer neighbors.
1. 无耻的挑选
《枪炮、病菌和钢铁》的中心论点是，生活在适合农业地理位置的文明往往会占据主导地位。农业的早期发展，加上有能力种植更多更好的作物，驯养更多更大的动物，会使一个文明拥有过剩的粮食，使其许多居民可以自由地发展更好的技术。驯养动物也会使人接触到更广泛的疾病，从而建立免疫力。农业文明凭借其先进的技术和较高的免疫水平，能够征服其它较不发达的畜牧和狩猎采集邻居。
Diamond cites a number of examples from human history to prove his theory. The European conquest of America and Australia is a prime example. Thanks to Eurasia's abundant domesticable animals, Europeans carried and were immune to a wide range of diseases which nearly exterminated the Native Americans and aboriginal Australians. Europeans also had more advanced technology than Native Americans and Australians, thanks in part to the wider range of crops available in Eurasia.
戴蒙德引用了一些人类历史上的例子来证明他的理论。欧洲人征服美洲和澳大利亚是一个很好的例子。由于欧亚大陆有着大量的驯养动物，欧洲人携带着多种病菌，只是他们自身免疫，但是这些疾病几乎灭绝了美洲原住民和澳大利亚原住民。欧洲人也比美洲原住民和澳大利亚原住民拥有更先进的技术，这在一定程度上要归功于欧亚大陆更广泛的农作物品种。
戴蒙德引用了一些人类历史上的例子来证明他的理论。欧洲人征服美洲和澳大利亚是一个很好的例子。由于欧亚大陆有着大量的驯养动物，欧洲人携带着多种病菌，只是他们自身免疫，但是这些疾病几乎灭绝了美洲原住民和澳大利亚原住民。欧洲人也比美洲原住民和澳大利亚原住民拥有更先进的技术，这在一定程度上要归功于欧亚大陆更广泛的农作物品种。
Missing from this discussion is any serious treatment of technologically-backward pastoral societies that conquered their more advanced agricultural neighbors. The examples are numerous: the Turkic conquest of the Middle East, the Manchu conquest of China, the Celtic conquests in Europe, and the Mongol conquest of most of Asia, to name just a few. It seems that good tactics and equestrian skill can often more than outweigh the advantages of agriculture. What Diamond sees as an iron law of history turns out to be a pattern that sometimes occurs and sometimes does not, depending on other factors.
在这个讨论中，是没有严肃对待技术落后的牧区社会的，这些社会征服过更先进的农业邻居。举几个例子:突厥人征服中东，满族征服中国，凯尔特人征服欧洲，蒙古人征服亚洲大部分地区。看来，良好的战术和马术技能往往可以超过农业的优势。戴蒙德所认为的铁的历史规律，原来只是一种模式，当考虑其它因素后，它才有时发生，有时不发生。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
在这个讨论中，是没有严肃对待技术落后的牧区社会的，这些社会征服过更先进的农业邻居。举几个例子:突厥人征服中东，满族征服中国，凯尔特人征服欧洲，蒙古人征服亚洲大部分地区。看来，良好的战术和马术技能往往可以超过农业的优势。戴蒙德所认为的铁的历史规律，原来只是一种模式，当考虑其它因素后，它才有时发生，有时不发生。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
None of this is to say that Diamond's findings on these subjects aren't valuable. There's no question that agriculture, and technology in general, plays an important role in conflict between societies, and Diamond is probably right to lix it to the Bantu expansion, the conquest of the Americas, and other such events. It is not, however, a universal law of history, and Diamond's presenting it as such is irresponsible and dishonest. Had he truly taken all the evidence into account, he would have identified these trends as "things that sometimes play a decisive role in history."
这并不是说戴蒙德在这些课题上的发现没有价值。毫无疑问，农业和科技在社会冲突中扮演着重要的角色，戴蒙德将其与班图人的扩张、美洲的征服以及其他类似事件联系起来可能是正确的。然而，这并不是一个普遍的历史规律，戴蒙德这样描述它是不负责任和不诚实的。如果他真的把所有的证据都考虑进去，他应该把这些趋势定义为“这是有时在历史上起决定性作用的东西”。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
这并不是说戴蒙德在这些课题上的发现没有价值。毫无疑问，农业和科技在社会冲突中扮演着重要的角色，戴蒙德将其与班图人的扩张、美洲的征服以及其他类似事件联系起来可能是正确的。然而，这并不是一个普遍的历史规律，戴蒙德这样描述它是不负责任和不诚实的。如果他真的把所有的证据都考虑进去，他应该把这些趋势定义为“这是有时在历史上起决定性作用的东西”。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
2. Blind acceptance of questionable historical claims
There are a number of instances in this book when Diamond attempts to explain historical trends that may not have actually happened. Essentially, Diamond takes a questionable or even discredited historical theory, accepts it as true, and then explains how environmental factors were ultimately responsible. This represents a lazy and self-serving approach to historiography; Diamond would rather parrot theories that confirm his thesis than actually try to get to the bottom of the events he's studying.
2. 盲目接受有问题的历史主张
在这本书中有很多例子，戴蒙德用它们来试图解释历史趋势，但这些可能并没有真正发生。从本质上讲，戴蒙德接受了一些有问题的甚至是不可信的历史理论，并认为它们是正确的，然后拿来解释环境因素最终是如何起作用的。这代表了一种懒惰和自私的史学方法：戴蒙德用抄来的理论来证实他的论点，也不愿弄清他正在研究的事情背后的真相。
There are a number of instances in this book when Diamond attempts to explain historical trends that may not have actually happened. Essentially, Diamond takes a questionable or even discredited historical theory, accepts it as true, and then explains how environmental factors were ultimately responsible. This represents a lazy and self-serving approach to historiography; Diamond would rather parrot theories that confirm his thesis than actually try to get to the bottom of the events he's studying.
2. 盲目接受有问题的历史主张
在这本书中有很多例子，戴蒙德用它们来试图解释历史趋势，但这些可能并没有真正发生。从本质上讲，戴蒙德接受了一些有问题的甚至是不可信的历史理论，并认为它们是正确的，然后拿来解释环境因素最终是如何起作用的。这代表了一种懒惰和自私的史学方法：戴蒙德用抄来的理论来证实他的论点，也不愿弄清他正在研究的事情背后的真相。
Take Diamond's treatment of Africa. He accepts without question that the civilizations of sub-Saharan Africa have always been less wealthy and less technologically advanced than those of Eurasia. This is a popular belief among lay Westerners, and it has some support in scholarly circles, but many historians have argued against it. John K. Thornton, for example, argues that Africa's underdevelopment is a relatively recent phenomenon in human history; before the eighteenth century, sub-Saharan Africa had many economic and technological advantages over Europe (c.f.- Thornton, "Africa and Africans in the Making of the Atlantic World"). Even scholars who generally accept that Africa was always underdeveloped make exceptions for certain parts of Africa for and time periods. Acemoglu and Robinson, for example, say that civilizations of the Sahel region were "as developed as their contemporaries anywhere in the world" during the medi period, even if Africa as a whole was relatively poor and backward (c.f.-- Acemoglu and Robinson, "Why is Africa Poor?"). Suffice to say that Diamond's theory doesn't work if the thing it explains didn't actually happen! Diamond, however, is either unaware of or unconcerned with the debate over Africa's development. This demonstrates either laziness or ignorance.
以戴蒙德对非洲的态度为例。他毫无疑问地承认，撒哈拉以南非洲的文明一直没有欧亚大陆那么富裕，技术没那么先进。在外行的西方人眼中，这是一种流行的观点，在学术界也有一些支持，但在许多历史学家眼中这是错误的。例如，约翰·k·桑顿认为，非洲的不发达是人类历史上相对较新的现象。在18世纪以前，撒哈拉以南非洲相对于欧洲有许多经济和技术优势的(——约翰·k·桑顿的《大西洋世界形成过程中的非洲与非洲人》）即使是一些认为非洲一直不发达的学者，也会对非洲某些地区在某一段时期内的情况作出例外。例如，阿西莫格鲁和罗宾逊说，萨赫勒地区的文明在中世纪时期“与世界上任何地方的同时代人一样发达”，即使当时整个非洲是相对贫穷和落后的。(——阿西莫格鲁和罗宾逊的《为什么非洲贫穷?》）我只想说，如果戴蒙德的理论所解释的事情实际上没有发生，那么它的理论自然就不成立!然而，戴蒙德要么不知道，要么不关心有关非洲发展的辩论。这要么是懒惰，要么就是无知。
以戴蒙德对非洲的态度为例。他毫无疑问地承认，撒哈拉以南非洲的文明一直没有欧亚大陆那么富裕，技术没那么先进。在外行的西方人眼中，这是一种流行的观点，在学术界也有一些支持，但在许多历史学家眼中这是错误的。例如，约翰·k·桑顿认为，非洲的不发达是人类历史上相对较新的现象。在18世纪以前，撒哈拉以南非洲相对于欧洲有许多经济和技术优势的(——约翰·k·桑顿的《大西洋世界形成过程中的非洲与非洲人》）即使是一些认为非洲一直不发达的学者，也会对非洲某些地区在某一段时期内的情况作出例外。例如，阿西莫格鲁和罗宾逊说，萨赫勒地区的文明在中世纪时期“与世界上任何地方的同时代人一样发达”，即使当时整个非洲是相对贫穷和落后的。(——阿西莫格鲁和罗宾逊的《为什么非洲贫穷?》）我只想说，如果戴蒙德的理论所解释的事情实际上没有发生，那么它的理论自然就不成立!然而，戴蒙德要么不知道，要么不关心有关非洲发展的辩论。这要么是懒惰，要么就是无知。
Another questionable claim that Diamond accepts is the idea that European colonization of the Americas gave Europe a definitive economic advantage over the rest of the world, leading eventually to the Industrial Revolution and the Great Divergence. As with the claim about Africa, this idea has some support in scholarly circles, but it is by no means universally accepted. Many historians argue that Europe gained no advantage from the Americas that, say, China did not gain from Manchuria and Mongolia, and thus that colonization cannot by itself explain the Great Divergence. Again, Diamond is either unaware of or unconcerned with the debate on this topic. He simply accepts it as true and proceeds to build an environmentalist argument around it.
戴蒙德接受的另一个有争议的观点是，欧洲对美洲的殖民使欧洲相对于世界其他地区拥有了绝对的经济优势，并最终导致了工业革命和大分流（译者加：欧洲占据了领导地位，其它地区没有跟上）。就像关于非洲的主张一样，这一观点在学术界得到了一些支持，但绝不是被普遍接受的。许多历史学家认为，欧洲没有从美洲获得多少优势，就像中国没有从满洲和蒙古获得多少优势一样，因此殖民统治本身就不能解释这种巨大差异。同样，戴蒙德要么没有意识到这个问题的争论，要么不关心这个问题。他只是简单地接受这是真的，并围绕它建立一个论点。
戴蒙德接受的另一个有争议的观点是，欧洲对美洲的殖民使欧洲相对于世界其他地区拥有了绝对的经济优势，并最终导致了工业革命和大分流（译者加：欧洲占据了领导地位，其它地区没有跟上）。就像关于非洲的主张一样，这一观点在学术界得到了一些支持，但绝不是被普遍接受的。许多历史学家认为，欧洲没有从美洲获得多少优势，就像中国没有从满洲和蒙古获得多少优势一样，因此殖民统治本身就不能解释这种巨大差异。同样，戴蒙德要么没有意识到这个问题的争论，要么不关心这个问题。他只是简单地接受这是真的，并围绕它建立一个论点。
Diamond's claims about Africa and colonization may be questionable, but at least they might be true; the same cannot be said about his argument about China. Diamond accepts a popular but now discredited myth about the Middle Kingdom: that during the Early Modern period, it became reactionary, inward-looking, and stagnant. This is demonstrably untrue. China continued to develop economically, technologically, culturally, and militarily throughout the period Diamond covers (c.f.- Pomeranz, "The Great Divergence: China, Europe, and the making of the Modern World Economy"). It was on the losing side of the Great Divergence not because it stopped developing, but rather because Europe began developing much faster. Diamond could have disabused himself of this myth by reading peer-reviewed historical research on the subject, or even just by comparing a map of China from 1600 to one from 1800, but he didn't do this. His scholarship is appallingly lazy.
戴蒙德关于非洲和殖民的说法可能值得怀疑，但至少他们可能是正确的;但他关于中国的观点却并非如此。戴蒙德接受了一个关于“中央王国”的流行观点，但现在已不可信。即:在现代早期阶段，中国变得保守、内向、停滞不前。这显然是不真实的。在这一时期，中国在经济、技术、文化和军事上仍在不断发展。（——彭慕兰的《大分流:中国、欧洲和现代世界经济的形成》）它在大分流中处于劣势，并不是因为它停止了发展，而是因为欧洲开始以更快的速度发展。戴蒙德本可以通过阅读有关这一课题的同行历史研究，甚至仅仅通过比较1600年至1800年的中国地图，来澄清这一误解，但他没有这么做。他的学识极其懒惰。
戴蒙德关于非洲和殖民的说法可能值得怀疑，但至少他们可能是正确的;但他关于中国的观点却并非如此。戴蒙德接受了一个关于“中央王国”的流行观点，但现在已不可信。即:在现代早期阶段，中国变得保守、内向、停滞不前。这显然是不真实的。在这一时期，中国在经济、技术、文化和军事上仍在不断发展。（——彭慕兰的《大分流:中国、欧洲和现代世界经济的形成》）它在大分流中处于劣势，并不是因为它停止了发展，而是因为欧洲开始以更快的速度发展。戴蒙德本可以通过阅读有关这一课题的同行历史研究，甚至仅仅通过比较1600年至1800年的中国地图，来澄清这一误解，但他没有这么做。他的学识极其懒惰。
3. Asserting convenient but unsubstantiated theories
Diamond is not entirely unaware of the weaknesses in his thesis. At several points, he attempts to pre-empt his detractors by anticipating their obxtions and showing how they don't refute his thesis.
3.主张一些方便但未经证实的理论
戴蒙德并非完全没有意识到他文中的弱点。在某些方面，他试图先发制人，通过预测他们的反对意见，并展示这些反对意见为何不会反驳他的论点。
Diamond is not entirely unaware of the weaknesses in his thesis. At several points, he attempts to pre-empt his detractors by anticipating their obxtions and showing how they don't refute his thesis.
3.主张一些方便但未经证实的理论
戴蒙德并非完全没有意识到他文中的弱点。在某些方面，他试图先发制人，通过预测他们的反对意见，并展示这些反对意见为何不会反驳他的论点。
Take Diamond's treatment of the Middle East. If he is right that civilizations with early advantages in food production tend to become dominant, the Middle East presents a problem: it was the first region in the world to develop agriculture, yet it is by no means militarily, economically, or culturally dominant in the modern world. To explain this apparent contradiction, Diamond points to an ecological disaster that occurred in the region around the time of Alexander the Great's conquests. The area's fragile ecology, combined with poor water use and over-farming, rendered Middle Eastern civilizations poor and backwards. This explains Alexander the Great's conquest of the Achaemenid Persian Empire, as well as all subsequent European advances over the region.
以戴蒙德对中东的态度为例。如果他的观点是正确的，即在粮食生产方面具有早期优势的文明往往会占据主导地位，那么中东就出现了一个问题:它是世界上第一个发展农业的地区，但在现代世界，它却绝不在军事、经济或文化上占据主导地位。为了解释这一明显的矛盾，戴蒙德指出，因为在亚历山大大帝征服期间，该地区发生了一场生态灾难。该地区脆弱的生态环境，再加上用水不足和过度耕作，使得中东文明贫穷落后。这就解释了亚历山大大帝征服阿契美尼德波斯帝国，以及随后欧洲对于该地区的所有优势。
以戴蒙德对中东的态度为例。如果他的观点是正确的，即在粮食生产方面具有早期优势的文明往往会占据主导地位，那么中东就出现了一个问题:它是世界上第一个发展农业的地区，但在现代世界，它却绝不在军事、经济或文化上占据主导地位。为了解释这一明显的矛盾，戴蒙德指出，因为在亚历山大大帝征服期间，该地区发生了一场生态灾难。该地区脆弱的生态环境，再加上用水不足和过度耕作，使得中东文明贫穷落后。这就解释了亚历山大大帝征服阿契美尼德波斯帝国，以及随后欧洲对于该地区的所有优势。
This would be convenient for Diamond if not for one problem: the Middle East didn't stop being dominant at that time. For nearly two thousand years after Alexander's conquests, the region remained a world leader in economic, technological, and cultural developments. The Parthian and Sassanid Empires, the Umayyad and Abbasid Caliphates, and the Ottoman Empire were at their respective heights at least as advanced as European civilizations; it isn't clear that Europe definitively surpassed the Middle East until the eighteenth century. Unless Diamond can explain how an ecological catastrophe took two thousand years to affect the region, this defense is merely a pathetic attempt to bandage a hemorrhaging thesis.
这将是一个很方便的解释，如果不考虑下面的问题的话：中东当时并没有停止占据主导地位。亚历山大征服后的近两千年里，该地区在经济、技术和文化发展方面一直处于世界领先地位。帕提亚和萨珊王朝，乌玛亚德和阿巴斯哈里发，奥斯曼帝国各自的鼎盛时期至少和欧洲文明一样先进;直到18世纪，欧洲才明确超过中东。除非戴蒙德能够解释一场生态灾难是如何花了两千年的时间才影响到这个地区的，否则这种辩护只不过是一个可悲的尝试，目的只是为了给这个大出血的论点包扎了一个小绷带。
这将是一个很方便的解释，如果不考虑下面的问题的话：中东当时并没有停止占据主导地位。亚历山大征服后的近两千年里，该地区在经济、技术和文化发展方面一直处于世界领先地位。帕提亚和萨珊王朝，乌玛亚德和阿巴斯哈里发，奥斯曼帝国各自的鼎盛时期至少和欧洲文明一样先进;直到18世纪，欧洲才明确超过中东。除非戴蒙德能够解释一场生态灾难是如何花了两千年的时间才影响到这个地区的，否则这种辩护只不过是一个可悲的尝试，目的只是为了给这个大出血的论点包扎了一个小绷带。
Another such bandage is placed on India, which provides a powerful counter-example to one of Diamond's arguments about China. As previously mentioned, Diamond parrots the discredited claim that China became a stagnant society, and offers the following explanation: China's geography predisposed it to political unification. Unification meant no competition, which meant China had no incentive to continue developing as a civilization. Even if we exclude the fact that China did not stagnate, it's not clear that political unification was the problem. India, after all, was politically fragmented for most of its history, yet it was no more successful than China.
印度也被贴上了类似的绷带，这有力地反驳了戴蒙德关于中国的论点。正如前面提到的，戴蒙德相信一个不可信的说法，即中国变成了一个停滞不前的社会，并给出了以下解释:中国的地理位置使其倾向于政治统一。统一意味着没有竞争，这意味着中国没有动力继续作为一个文明国家发展。即使我们排除了中国没有停滞不前这一事实，也不清楚政治统一是否是问题所在。但毕竟，印度在其历史上的大部分时间里都处于政治分裂状态，但它也并不比中国成功。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
印度也被贴上了类似的绷带，这有力地反驳了戴蒙德关于中国的论点。正如前面提到的，戴蒙德相信一个不可信的说法，即中国变成了一个停滞不前的社会，并给出了以下解释:中国的地理位置使其倾向于政治统一。统一意味着没有竞争，这意味着中国没有动力继续作为一个文明国家发展。即使我们排除了中国没有停滞不前这一事实，也不清楚政治统一是否是问题所在。但毕竟，印度在其历史上的大部分时间里都处于政治分裂状态，但它也并不比中国成功。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
To address this counter-example, Diamond suggests that just as too little fragmentation is a problem, so is too much. Indian states were so fragmented and so small, he asserts, that they were unable to develop effectively. There is, then, an ideal level of political fragmentation, which Europe possessed. China and India represent the two harmful extremes.
为了解决这个反例，戴蒙德提出，就像碎片太少是一个问题一样，碎片太多也是一个问题。他断言，印度各邦如此分散，规模如此之小，以至于无法有效发展。因此，欧洲拥有一种理想的政治分裂水平......
为了解决这个反例，戴蒙德提出，就像碎片太少是一个问题一样，碎片太多也是一个问题。他断言，印度各邦如此分散，规模如此之小，以至于无法有效发展。因此，欧洲拥有一种理想的政治分裂水平......
Diamond, of course, does not give detailed explanations of how political fragmentation affected India, let alone develop a theory for how we can assess the effects of fragmentation based on its degree. But there's a more basic problem with this argument: it's not clear that India was more fragmented than Europe during the period he's describing. Before the British conquest, the dominant power in India was the Maratha Confederacy, a state that was roughly five times the size of contemporary France. Even smaller Indian states, such as Mysore, still compared favorably in size with smaller European states like the Dutch Republic. It's not at all clear, then, that India's states were too small or too fragmented to function; they appear to have been quite similar to European states in this respect. Once again, Diamond proves that he's more interested in bolstering his thesis than in gathering and assessing facts.
当然，戴蒙德没有详细解释政治分裂是如何影响印度的，就更不会提这个理论是如何根据分裂的程度来评估分裂的影响的。但这种观点有一个更基本的问题:在他所描述的时期，印度是否比欧洲更分散还不清楚。在英国征服印度之前，印度的主导力量是马拉地帝国，这个国家的面积大约是当代法国的五倍。即使是像迈索尔这样的较小的印度王国，与荷兰共和国这样的较小的欧洲国家相比，在面积上仍然是更大的。现在还不清楚，是不是印度的邦国太小或者太分散，导致无法正常运作。但事实上在这一方面，它们与欧洲国家十分相似。戴蒙德再次证明，他更感兴趣的是支持自己的论点，而不是收集和评估事实。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
当然，戴蒙德没有详细解释政治分裂是如何影响印度的，就更不会提这个理论是如何根据分裂的程度来评估分裂的影响的。但这种观点有一个更基本的问题:在他所描述的时期，印度是否比欧洲更分散还不清楚。在英国征服印度之前，印度的主导力量是马拉地帝国，这个国家的面积大约是当代法国的五倍。即使是像迈索尔这样的较小的印度王国，与荷兰共和国这样的较小的欧洲国家相比，在面积上仍然是更大的。现在还不清楚，是不是印度的邦国太小或者太分散，导致无法正常运作。但事实上在这一方面，它们与欧洲国家十分相似。戴蒙德再次证明，他更感兴趣的是支持自己的论点，而不是收集和评估事实。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
很赞 6
收藏