point framework leads to the collapse of a society because Anasazi definitely met four but they arguably met all five points. This chapter gained a little respect back from me because he was sticking with his framework that he set at the beginning of the book. However, he is very inconsistent because he has a strong example of a society that fails as a result of the five-point framework, which is immediately followed by a society that struggles to meet two or three of the factors. Jared Diamond’s five-point framework was not very effective in my opinion. Very few of the societies that he analyzed were affected by all of the factors. While he did explain the collapse of these societies very thoroughly, he did not fulfill his objective that he set in the prologue. He explained in detail how and why each society collapsed which was very interesting an informative but he set guidelines for his analysis and only followed them every once in a while. As I was reading, Diamond lost a lot of credibility in my eyes because his criteria for a failed society were not the same for each place. Since there are not really that many civilizations like the Mayans and Easter Island that disappeared off of the face of the earth, Diamond should have changed how he evaluated the collapse of each society to be more consistent. He would have had much more credibility if he would not have set the five-point framework as the standard for his argument in my opinion. If he had come up with a different framework that applied to every society it would have made sense as opposed to making a factor such as foreign enemies or climate change that applies only to only two of the societies that he discussed. The only way he may possibly gain more credibility would be if in part three and four that the issues that were not as frequent are much more common for modern societies than the ones that we have already read about.
This is the end of the preview.
access the rest of the document.