it's interesting to me that, on one hand, you seem to be relying on a claim made by a yt content creator (whom i greatly enjoy, btw) to dismiss diamond as a reputable author, while on the other hand, that same yt content creator has documented that the failure of the greenland vikings was a direct result of their inability to adapt to, and overcome, the clearly-established criteria for collapse that is discussed in diamond's book:
I have never watched this Youtube content creator, I know about it because I enjoy reading about topics like this. In any case, the assertion is false. The majority of the Greenland Norse diet by the 14th century consisted of dairy, seal, and reindeer.
- self-inflicted environmental problems? yep, they deforested the land for pasture and firewood.
That's a better argument for Iceland's problems but is irrelevant to Greenland. There was a single forest in all of Greenland, and it was barely worthy of the name. Yes, it got chopped down, but it didn't contribute to any particular issues since the Greenland Norse mostly used driftwood, dung, and seal oil (oil lamps have been discovered in ruins) as fuel, and probably also transported wood from Labrador. That goes against the assertion that the Greenland Norse somehow didn't know how to adapt. As for the issue with pasture, that's also completely false since the claim is based on a 1940s era study which the archaeologist himself said "the erosion may have come from a modern Inuit sheep farm" (but of course wasn't allowed to confirm it because that would mean the Danish government was doing sheep farming worse than medieval peasants). Modern studies of glacial lakes show the erosion rate only slightly increased in the Norse era and the greatest erosion came from modern sheep farming.
Any claim that the Norse pastures were destructive can be proven dead wrong by simple pictures. The fertile areas were the most intensely used pastures, made fertile because they mixed manure and seaweed and spread it all across there every spring for centuries.
- climate change? yep, temperatures dropped, sea ice expanded, and soils became more salinized.
There are ditches at Greenland Norse farm sites used for drainage because the same technique was used in coastal Norway since the Bronze Age. The temperature would not have been a problem because there are always warm years among the cold years and they barely grew grain to begin with. The increase in sea ice only shortened the sailing season by a few weeks and closed a route rarely used (the Iceland - Greenland route), so was insignificant on the ability to obtain food or even trade goods.
- problems with friendly trade partners? yep, the materials from europe ceased with the arrival of the plague.
- problems with neighboring enemies? yep, with the indigenous of both greenland and north america.
This is mostly true (Europe stopped sending ships because the Hanseatic League were greedy bastards not willing to help Denmark trade with Greenland) and the real reason behind the collapse of Greenland. There is archaeological evidence of destruction and there is written evidence from European sources and oral evidence from Greenland Inuit stories.
- political, economic, and social problems? yep, they failed to adequetely adapt their culture to their needs.
Which is false because they raised fewer cattle and more sheep/goats, stopped growing grain, hunted more seals, and even tried to avoid conflict with the Inuit by hunting seal, walrus, etc. in Labrador instead. It's also known that some Greenland Inuit tools (IIRC their nets) are borrowed from the Norse and originated as imitations of nets they stole.
So overall Jared Diamond's point in regards to Greenland is false. Much like how his Easter Island hypothesis also has serious holes in it.
