This argument is not very sound. It ignores eg that native Americans had domesticated dogs (like the Hare Indian), the domestication of caribou in the north, the presence of mountain goats and bighorn sheep, etc etc etc. It's like the author thinks the only large mammals in the new world were bison and llamas.
Dogs do not provide food and barely add additional energy (except in Arctic conditions).
>the presence of mountain goats and bighorn sheep
Perhaps you should watch the second part, which is about domestication. He addresses this point in this part (you seem to have missed it) but explores it more in the second. Some animals are not domesticatable (e.g. zebras) despite seeming that they could be. It isn't like he came up with his list of potential targets of domestication off of the top of his head. There's a reason stuff like bears and deer aren't on it. And he only used bison as an example of something that would be profitable if it was domesticated, but it can't be by pre-modern societies.
Sorry, I was going off the transcript, not the video. In the transcript he talks specifically about the benefit of the domestication of dogs for old world peoples[1], while ignoring the fact that new world peoples also had domesticated dogs.
1: "With dogs, herding sheep and cattle is easier. Now humans have a buddy to keep an eye on the clothing factory, and the milk and cheeseburger machine, and the plow-puller."
That is technically true, but (1) this labor isn't hugely impactful or population enabling and (2) in this case it is being used as an amplifier for other domestication efforts, and without already having other domesticatable animals around you are only getting sled pulling (limited to the Arctic), hunting (helpful, but nothing compared to agriculture), and "plow-pulling" (which seems of dubious value).
Compare and contrast with pigs, chickens, sheep, cattle, horses, dogs, cats, and so on. There were far more in Europe/Asia that lived in close contact with people.
He also ignores that cows were domesticated from Aurochs before the Bronze Age. Aurochs were as wild as American Bison and (depending on the variant) were the same size or larger.
A 'further reading' is not a reference; 'further reading' means 'here are additional sources you might find relevant about material not covered here'. Which of 'Triumph of the City', 'The Ghost Map', and 'Guns, Germs, and Steel' did the stuff about animals come from, if you hadn't already read them? That's right - you don't know! Because he's not giving a reference.
I really dislike this style of narrative heavy pop sciency stuff. It's incredibly antithetical to the very principle of science (rigorously prove each and every step in an argument, don't rely on narratives, go where the evidence leads you rather than picking and choosing evidence to back up your pre-existing narrative). CGPGrey really is smart enough that he should know better than to fall into this trap, but it can be oh so tempting.
The Guns, Germs, and Steel narrative is an interesting one with some intriguing ideas but it does not stand up to rigorous scientific scrutiny well. At best it's a theory, at worst it's a story that people tell because it's interesting and not explicitly completely and utterly ruled out by the facts.
The overall theory relies on several key ideas, none of which have been validated scientifically. First the idea that there are more "good domesticable" animals in the old world than the new. Second that it's the domestication of animals which leads primarily to higher rates of endemic diseases. This is one of those ideas that has a bit of truthiness to it (since it's very much true for some diseases like the Flu or SARS) but is nowhere near a sufficiently fleshed out nor sufficiently verified theory. Third, implying that the impact of a disease on a civilization wide basis has only to do with the disease itself and nothing to do with the details of the civilization itself is a casual assumption of the underlying narrative though it is blatantly false. Perhaps enough to completely invalidate the rest of the Guns, Germs, and Steel argument, but since the "argument" is presented as a narrative rather than a scientific theory it doesn't even present anything to be falsified in that regard.
On the whole, while there are some decent thoughts in there, the overall narrative is bad history and even worse science. And it's really gut wrenching to see this sort of thing gain so much uncritical attention.
I think it's absolutely inarguable that the germs from the Old World devastated the New World after first contact. All at once, the New World got malaria, yellow fever, smallpox, the list goes on. Meanwhile, the only disease that we think (but don't know for sure) that the Old World got from the exchange is syphillis, which can only be trasmitted sexually, and is nowhere near as devastating.
I also think it's inarguable that people had domesticated more animals in the Old World. The Old World had cows, pigs, sheep, goats, chickens, cats, dogs, falcons, horses, oxen, camels, turkeys, just to name a few. The New World had dogs and llamas... and honestly I'm drawing a blank for more than that. I'm sure there were other ones, but there was nothing equivalent to horses. Whether there were more "good domesticable" animals or not is irrevelant-- we know for a fact that not as many animals were domesticated.
I also disagree that domesticable animals are "key" to Diamond's theory. A larger and more dense population can just support more diseases. It's simple mathematics-- if a disease that kills its hosts can't spread before its hosts die, it dies out. It's the same reason why half a pound of uranium might go critical, but a few molecules won't. The reaction (disease) cannot sustain itself without a certain density. This is also the idea behind "herd immunity."
Third, implying that the impact of a disease on a civilization wide basis has only to do with the disease itself and nothing to do with the details of the civilization itself is a casual assumption of the underlying narrative though it is blatantly false.
You can use as many $10 words as you want, but I'm pretty sure wiping out 90% of the people in any civilization will have a catastrophic effect. Remember that the Black Death in Europe "only" killed 1/3 of the population.
>Third, implying that the impact of a disease on a civilization wide basis has only to do with the disease itself and nothing to do with the details of the civilization itself is a casual assumption of the underlying narrative though it is blatantly false.
What does this even mean? The point about the impact of the disease is that when the Old World and the New World first contacted each other, something like almost 90% of the New World population died out in the subsequent century or so. This has nothing to do with "details of the civilization" and the "casual assumption" is something that is technically untestable but so blatantly obvious that it is basically undeniable.
Good science does not accept "blatantly obvious" as any kind of proof. Reasoning alone just gets you hypotheses. Good science then rules most of them out based on evidence. And if we can't get that evidence because it's lost in history, then too bad: it'll have to stay unprovable hypotheses.
There is no such thing as "basically undeniable" in science; only "unproven" and "backed by so much evidence in specific context as to be considered proven in specific context". And even if it's the latter, it can still be completely wrong outside of that context.
The extrapolation you are making here is that historical studies are essentially pointless. For most of history we have a few rock scratchings or a one sentence accounts of major figures doing something. The bar for almost everything accepted as "historical fact" is far below the "blatantly obvious" statement that I threw out there.
>Good science does not accept "blatantly obvious" as any kind of proof. Reasoning alone just gets you hypotheses.
If accepting the idea that a 90% population reduction was a pivotal factor in the balance of New/Old World power is simply an "unprovable hypothesis", then sociology might as well be ignored.
Maybe instead of latching onto the fact that I used words that are unpleasantly unscientific and pretending that my statement is bunk, you should actually examine the claim that I was making out to be "blatantly obvious". Because it is. Semantics will not change that. Getting high and mighty about what is "good science" or not regarding this claim is just nonsense objections made because you didn't like my wording.
> ... when the Old World and the New World first contacted each other, something like almost 90% of the New World population died out in the subsequent century or so.
True. Now: Why did that happen, rather than 90% of the Old World population dying out? Well, because the Old World had nastier illnesses, pre-contact, to pass on to the New World. And why did it have those, without them destroying the Old World? I think that's what InclinedPlane is getting at. For "the details of the civilization itself", you might think about housing, sanitation, diet, proximity of animals, practice of medicine...
If you get cholera you'll probably be ok. Because you have easy access to food, water, and other sources of hydration as well as good sanitary facilities (read: modern toilets). You'll take time off work, you'll spend a while being miserable in bed or on the couch, you'll drink a lot of liquids, and then you'll get better. Worst case you'll feel so bad you need to ask a friend to take you to the hospital, or call an ambulance, and then you'll get IV fluids and you'll still be ok. Less than 1% of cholera cases involve fatalities when people have access to modern treatment options. Does that mean that the fatality rate of cholera is less than 1%? Not at all, in situations where cholera is left untreated, in areas without access to clean water, modern sanitation facilities, and medical facilities the fatality rate is about 50-60%.
That's true of many other diseases as well, from the Flu to measles to smallpox. The spread of disease, it's lethality, and it's impact on society and civilization as a whole are all dependent on factors beyond the characteristics of the disease itself. Just as today the lethality and impact of cholera on society is very different in, say, Canada versus Mozambique.
Yes, we know that there was a massive die off of indigenous populations in the Americas (and Australia) that occurred in large part due to diseases spread from the old world. The idea that the mere existence of certain diseases was sufficient to doom those populations to the fate they had is what is called a "theory". Diamond and CGPGrey, and others, treat it as some incontrovertible fact. It relies on the fatality rate and spread of diseases being unconnected with technology, society, culture, etc. And it relies on the assumption that certain death tolls will necessarily lead to civilizational collapse. Both theories have numerous counter-examples.
Syphilus was brought back from the new world and killed lots of people.