Most arguments I have seen rebutting geographical determinism state that societal development is not solely determined by geography, and while certainly influenced by it, development is contingent on many other factors: culture, the societies unique history, the achievements of individual people etc. However, aren't all of these in turn determined by Geography? Sure, two different societies in the same place will develop differently, but, assuming no external influences, won't the same place always develop the exact same society? I'm assuming I'm wrong, as geographical determinism is seen (probably for good reason) as outdated by historians, but why is that?
While there's always more that can be said, there might be something of interest in:
After glancing through all the Jared Diamond rebuttals on this sub's FAQ, it seems as though geographical determinism is largely discredited. But I don't understand how that can be the case, what else is there? with contributions by u/reedstilt and lots of other people
as well as the Jared Diamond section of the FAQ in general.
Why did an Egyptian-like civilization never rise in the Colorado River Valley? What differs it from the Nile River Valley? by u/Alkibiades415
Is geographic/environmental determinism seen as problematic or racist by historians? by u/sagathain
Why is Environmental Determinism wrong? with contributions by u/Holokyn-kolokyn and u/ohsideSHOWbob among others