1. Reflection on Yali's Question

Diamond provides sufficient evidence as to why the average New Guinean is smarter, both genetically and non-genetically, than the average European and American. For example, he states that New Guineans have a greater need for genes promoting intelligence than the average European or American, due to the need for survival-of-the-fittest in the jungle. He also states that European and American children spend hours in front of televisions, whereas New Guinean children do not have access to such items. This leads me to my point. Europeans and Americans (pre modern era) used their intelligence, which was probably equal to the New Guineans current intelligence, to build revolutionary inventions such as the TV and radio. By doing this they lowered their own intelligence because they changed daily life from using their intelligence to survive to activities that did not require their intelligence. I believe one of the reasons they are the ones who have the "cargo" and not the New Guineans is because they introduced a new, exotic and appealing life to many nations and people. But this leads to another question. If New Guineans and Europeans/Americans were more or less equal in terms of intelligence, pre-modern era, why was it the Europeans and Americans who decided to use their intelligence to revolutionize life? It all goes back, I believe, to where they are located globally as well as population size. New Guinea, as Diamond said, is a place where people are geniuses at surviving. Making homes, following trails, etc. However, in my opinion, it sounds like a harder life style to survive in than a typical European/American life style, even before the modern era. Terrain wise, compared to Europe or America, where there are no jungles, it is harder to survive with the basics, let alone creating revolutionary inventions. In Europe/America it is (and was even before the modern era) easier to survive, which meant creating hypothesis and revolutionary ideas was easier. I understand that pre-modern era there were undoubtedly more wars and political conflicts going on in Europe/America than New Guinea (considering New Guinea is so secluded). However while the army of a European country was off fighting or defending, there was still time for scientists and scholars to work without harm. Even if they were captured, such as during the era of Ghengis Khan, they still were able to work and develop ideas. Diamond also states that a possibility for the European/Americans revolutionary creations, was because they were in need for complicated and working irrigation systems, or ways to stay warm, in the hot/cold climates in Europe. However didn’t New Guineans need to survive and provide for themselves in similar ways as well? Yes, but they have, according to Diamond, a much smaller population than Europe/America. With a smaller population it is harder to have enough people making food and providing for basic needs, plus a whole other set of people who can develop revolutionary ideas. In nations such as Europe and America with larger populations, it is easier to have a certain group of people providing basic needs, as well as another group of people creating revolutionary ideas. I am not stating that Europeans/Americans are smarter than New Guineans; on the contrary I am saying that Europeans/Americans live in a place where it is easier to use their (possibly lesser) intelligence to a more revolutionary extent. “History followed different courses for different peoples because of differences among peoples’ environments, not because of biological differences among people themselves.” –Diamond pg. 25. On the second to last page Diamond poses the question, “the open question concerns how much effect, and whether geography can account for history’s broad pattern.” In answer to his question, I believe, yes. Geography can account for histories “broad pattern.” All nations start off in different geographical places. Some places are easier and some places are harsher. This is similar to how today people are born into different social classes. The truth is that some people are born into better situations than others. We as global citizens must confront these inequalities that people have been born into and provide ways (such as affirmative action) to make everyone, no matter what background, as equal as possible.