Guns Germs and Steel: the Germs

[Tero]

The part I am interested is the germs. Smallpox/cowpox is obvious, but the other diseases are not:

In the later context of the European colonization of the Americas, 95% of the indigenous populations are believed to have been killed off by diseases brought by the Europeans. Many were killed by infectious diseases such as smallpox and measles. Similar circumstances were observed in Australia and South Africa. Aboriginal Australians and the Khoikhoi population were decimated by smallpox, measles, influenza and other diseases.[7][8]

How was it then that diseases native to the American continents did not kill off Europeans? Diamond posits that most of these diseases were only developed and sustained in large dense populations in villages and cities; he also states most epidemic diseases evolve from similar diseases of domestic animals. The combined effect of the increased population densities supported by agriculture, and of close human proximity to domesticated animals leading to animal diseases infecting humans, resulted in European societies acquiring a much richer collection of dangerous pathogens to which European people had acquired immunity through natural selection (see the Black Death and other epidemics) during a longer time than was the case for Native American hunter-gatherers and farmers.

He mentions the tropical diseases (mainly malaria) that limited European penetration into Africa as an exception. Endemic infectious diseases were also barriers to European colonisation of Southeast Asia and New Guinea.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guns%2C_Ge ... teel#Germs

Did anything further develop on this since 1990s? I have read an Elizabeth Fenn book:
https://www.amazon.com/Pox-Americana-Sm ... 605&sr=8-1

[Tero]

OK, so the issues are
1 immune systems of various peoples (isolated populations)
2 population studies (the people easily infected were small, isolated groups)
here there is a crowded population factor
3 despite having economic success (cities, crops, wealth) the European populations had maybe 10 kids if they wanted 2 to survive. Those two perhaps had better immune systems, or the epidemics of their childhood diseases were milder

[Galaxian]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guns%2C_Ge ... teel#Germs

Did anything further develop on this since 1990s? ...

Yes, it came to pass that our hoaxer stated that there's only one race. That there's no distinguishing factors between different populations of people.

Then he changed his mind in the case of the Jews (of which he's supposedly one); that DNA can clearly distinguish who is Jewish & who is not. And that was to justify Israel letting certain people immigrate to the stolen lands simply based on their genetics.

Well, I suppose you can't have your cake & eat it too, unless you're a Chosenite Jared Diamond.
https://davidduke.com/wp-content/upload ... ocrisy.jpg

[Tero]

Yeah, that was not the question. The question had to do with germs. Several authors have addressed this. The immunity of a population is a rather odd thing. Not sure you can have immunity to a thing before you are exposed to it, but resistance to diseases does vary among isolated populations. In fact some resistance always develops to things such as malaria. That said, surviving malaria does not help one survive it a second time. Only genetic changes, one of which is sickle cell anemia, can help. You need only one gene and it does not ruin red blood cells too much. Two copes does.

[Svartalf]

well, 'immunity' is a big word to use for what actually takes place... I mean, sure, smallpox killed affected Amerindians more often than Europeans, because the latter had built up defences while the former had none, but Europeans were by no means immune, the disease did kill a noticeable proportion of affected people, and even survivors could suffer grievous sequels... and what about African populations whose main defence against malaria is that they developed sickle cell anaemia?

[Tero]

I'm kind of wondering if Europe was not just able to produce more children. You suffered the diseases in childhood, in more crowded cities. The surviving men in adulthood were then sent to invade foreign lands. A very small number were infected as the ship left and survived the trip long enough to land. But passed on the small pox to a few others (the rest were immune.) Only a few had to carry the disease to the new world, and as soon as a native was infected, it passed quickly among them.

[Hermit]

I'm kind of wondering if Europe was not just able to produce more children. You suffered the diseases in childhood, in more crowded cities. The surviving men in adulthood were then sent to invade foreign lands. A very small number were infected as the ship left and survived the trip long enough to land. But passed on the small pox to a few others (the rest were immune.) Only a few had to carry the disease to the new world, and as soon as a native was infected, it passed quickly among them.

Maybe I misunderstand what you are trying to get across, but there is no evidence indicating a greater fertility rate in Europe than anywhere else. Also, the great plague killed somewhere between 75 and 200 million people, approximately 30% to 60% of Europe's population in the 14th century, most of them between 1346 and 1353.

[Tero]

The period if interest is past 1500, so mostly viral diseases like small pox and measels.
I don't know if there are any statistics on births per woman in the New World. Childhood was a struggle to survive right through the end of 1800s. The last big epidemic in Europe was cholera. Unlike small pox, or rabies, there was no vaccine.

[Woodbutcher]

Cholera was widespread from 1830s to1850s. They actually punctured mailed letters and disinfected them with sulphur dioxide or formaldehyde. I have seen some letters go for sale in Finnish stamp auctions.

[laklak]

Would that be a stamp auction in Helsinki or an auction of Finnish stamps?