I'll just refer you to my previous comment: There's no way to make a rigorous (to the "prove" level) argument from history on racism.
However, these factors do appear to provide sufficient non-race based evidence to explain the outcome. That's a reasonable way to read the claim that the book "debunks the idea that race was a factor in the development of modern societies".
> The very fact that you listed multiple factors admits that multiple factors may have combined to cause it. It could just as well have included race too.
Since the factors are based around geography, and race is also based around geography you sure would expect to see a correlation!
The explanations in the book give a causal link between geography and outcomes. There will be a large number of other factors correlated with that. A good example is "was beer drunk in country" - countries where beer was drunk were much more successful than countries where it wasn't. Race appears to be the same - dependant on geography, but not part of the causal chain of factors mentioned in the book.
However, these factors do appear to provide sufficient non-race based evidence to explain the outcome. That's a reasonable way to read the claim that the book "debunks the idea that race was a factor in the development of modern societies".
> The very fact that you listed multiple factors admits that multiple factors may have combined to cause it. It could just as well have included race too.
Since the factors are based around geography, and race is also based around geography you sure would expect to see a correlation!
The explanations in the book give a causal link between geography and outcomes. There will be a large number of other factors correlated with that. A good example is "was beer drunk in country" - countries where beer was drunk were much more successful than countries where it wasn't. Race appears to be the same - dependant on geography, but not part of the causal chain of factors mentioned in the book.