Status Updates From Questioning Collapse: Human...

Drexel Woodson makes nice points about the determinist arc to be found even in the "choices" Diamond asserts societies make. This seems to run counter to previous articles, which argued for less determinism than Diamond applied.

It's clear that this book was written as "damage control" against the perceived over-simplified and overly conclusive account Diamond massively popularized. This makes it a kind of strange book - it makes no counterarguments, so its conclusions are all "no one knows; it's complicated" and never "Diamond's explanation was wrong; here's a better explanation:" Also curious that no one mentions Tainter's DMR thesis.

Mike Wilcox's critique of Diamond's interpretation of the Chaco canyon collapse seems a bit shrill. He may or may not be spot on in his specific factual critiques - I have no real reason to believe his assertions over Diamonds or vice versa - but his insistence that environmental determinism is an untenable explanation because it removes human agency is just baffling. What alternative does he propose? None.

Skimming. The authors in this volume make some good points (Diamond's flip-flopping determinism v. "societies choosing to fail/succeed is rather unfortunate) but they do often seem like they have a serious chip on shoulder. Some of it seems pleading, like the insistence that the Greenland Norse decided to leave rather than were forced out. As Tainter says, collapse happens when it's the cheapest option.