Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies

Rating:
Summary: History as it should be taught!
Review: Unlike most of the "history" we were force-fed in school, "Guns, Germs and Steel" is at once thought-provoking, well-written, fascinating, and highly entertaining. Jared Diamond richly deserves all the accolades (and money), which he has earned! Hey, anyone who can make history interesting to millions of Americans raised on a thin gruel of rote memorization, boring textbooks, and self-serving propaganda (see James Loewen's "Lies My Teacher Told Me") has got to be doing something right!

As far as the critics of "Guns, Germs and Steel," at least as indicated by reviews here at Amazon.com, they basically seem to be arguing that the book is flawed because it is (choose one or more): "politically correct," "left-wing," not "original," "lacking in concrete evidence," overly deterministic in its focus on natural forces/factors, and -- a related criticism - neglectful of important "human variables," particularly "culture" and "religion."

OK, then, what about it, is the book "politically correct" or "left-wing"? Well, if by "politically correct" the critics are referring to a hypersensitivity to any criticism of the "in" group(s) of the day, and/or holding the majority (or an "out" group, like white males, in some people's view) to a far tougher standard than others are held to, I don't really see how that criticism applies to "Guns, Germs, and Steel". Reason? Diamond is not saying that Europeans are BAD because they conquered the Indians or Africans or whoever, he's just explaining WHY Europeans conquered the Indians or Africans or whoever. Huge difference there! Really, it's surprising that this book is criticized as "PC", because as far as I can tell it's basically arguing "survival of the fittest" on a racial level (although not for any "inherent" or "God-given" reason, but basically for totally natural/arbitrary/accidental factors), and I thought that "survival of the fittest" was an old favorite of many conservatives, even fascists. So, in sum, I just don't understand why this criticism is being made at all.

As far as "lacking in concrete evidence," I think that's kind of a silly criticism for a book which is written specifically for a mass audience, plus it's wrong anyway. Diamond presents PLENTY of fascinating, thought-provoking, entertaining evidence for his thesis, and if you want more you can read lots more about it all over the place!

As far as "ignoring human variables" (especially "culture" and "religion"), that gets to the heart of Diamond's whole argument, and people who make this criticism either don't get Diamond's argument or just don't LIKE it (probably because it implies that THEIR "culture" and/or "religion" are not inherently any more wonderful or superior to any others, although they certainly may be more adaptive in a Darwinian "survival of the fittest" sense).

The thing is, this whole question is a "chicken and egg" paradox. In other words, is northern European Protestantism (for instance) more powerful than, let's say, Native American religions, because it is inherently "better" in some sense, or is it more that northern European Protestantism HAPPENED to win out (for all kinds of reasons not under their control, like germs, which they didn't even know about), and as the victors they got to write history (and, not surprisingly, portray themselves in the most positive light). Just to take one powerfully intriguing example, what if Europeans had come over to America and been decimated by native American diseases instead of the other way around? That ALONE probably would have stopped the Europeans from defeating the Indians. Imagine if a few survivors had sailed back to Europe carrying these diseases and Europe had largely been wiped out as well. Among many other things, I don't think too many people would be making the argument today that European civilization was superior to any other, that's for sure!

Anyway, the bottom line here is that this is a great book. So, pay no heed to the ideologues and nitpickers, read the book for yourself, and enjoy a fantastic story!

Rating:
Summary: World history from 50,000 feet up
Review: Diamond probably should have named this book "Domesticatable Plants and Animals, Germs, and Migrations". Even so, it is one of the best histories of world I have ever read. He builds a convincing case for geographical determinism as the source of cultural and technological differences between the peoples of the world.

Diamond describes the widely different inheritances of edible plants and domesticatable animals in geographic regions. The inevitable force of human ingenuity led to a package of food crops, farm animals, and epidemic diseases posessed by the inhabitants of these areas. This inheritance enabled inundation and replacement of peoples who were less fortunate in what the earth offered them. If you have ever wondered why Europeans conquered the world in the 1800's, why China is relatively homogenous, why indigenous Australians were technologically backwards, why the Americas' indigenous people were virtually exterminated, and why Africans were not given the same treatment, this book is for you. A great rebuttal to racialist theories of cultural variation.

Rating:
Summary: A worthy reading
Review: I really enjoyed reading Jarel Diamond's Guns, Germs, and Steel. No doubt that the topic proposed by this book is fascinating, and the first pages very promising. Maybe because of that, as you go through you may feel some disappointment.

For people who, like me, might be not familiarized with History and Anthropology, the book is full of interesting anecdotes and stories. But, since the scope of the book is very broad, and J. Diamond himself is not a historian, it is likely that the book must contain many imprecisions that might irritate to some people familiarized with some of the topics. That should not concern to the reader. The important thing of this book is the methodology (an approach similar to the Natural History, based on ecological and evolutionary concepts) that he emplys to explain the course of the human history during the last 13000 years, and the generalizations that he provides to explain the outcomes of it. No doubt that some of the explanations provided by Diamond to some issues, for example for the flourish of European societies over China, or India, during the last centuries are clear oversimplifications, which are to be improved by other authors. In that sense, I also think that the reader should not worry too much about it, since this book must be regarded as a pioneer work, more than as a finished conclusion.

Among the main drawbacks, besides the oversimplifications (and omission of spiny problems), I would point that the book is too long, what seems unnecessary. The author wants to prove that were differences in the geographical features of the different continents what determined the different paces in "development"Eamong them. His idea is rapidly understood, but he repeats it too much. That's why you feel that the book is somehow loosing interest as you read. I also felt that his reasoning was deterministic in excess, not conceding the enough importance to random events (even with the same forces driving the course of the events, and starting from the same point 13000 years ago, our world today is just one of the many possible outcomes).

Overall, I think it is a very good book, and I recommend reading it to anybody who wants to spend some time thinking about the past and present of human societies. Even if you disagree with the author opinions, I am sure that it will be interesting for you.

Rating:
Summary: An opus of breathtaking scope worth multiple readings
Review: I read this book when it came out and saw Diamond on the lecture circuit when he plugged the book. I thought highly of it at the time. Seeing it still selling well four years later, I wanted to review it but felt a re-reading was in order. It was even better this time.

Diamond's central rhetorical device is answering New Guinean friend Yali's questions why Europeans have so many more goods than New Guineans do. The answer is location, location, location: location with lots of domesticable crops; location with lots of domesticable animals; and location with lots of productive acreage having 'Goldilocks' access to the rest of the world -- strong enough for crop and idea diffusion but weak enough to prevent political unification. The book is twenty solidly written essays like his 'Discover' magazine articles. Linguistics, evolutionary biology, history, archaeology, anthropology, epidemiology, agronomy and paleontology are just part of the palette from which Diamond draws for his sweeping portrait of the most recent 13,000 years of human existence.

There is hardly a wrong word written, a false step taken, or an error made in this exciting book, which delights in no small part by raising as many questions as it answers. Diamond knows a lot about a lot of things, and provides many an aha! moment. He also asks interesting questions about some things that neither he or anyone else knows about, and those questions are as interesting as any of his answers. He answers questions like: How did Africa become black? How did China become Chinese? and Why aren't Australia, New Guinea, and Malaysia Polynesian? One may not like the answers, but he takes a great shot at them, and I relish his doing so. He asks why proselytizing religion (Christianity and Islam) were driving forces for conquest among Europeans and West Asians but not Chinese. He also relates several interesting bits about his extensive field work (as an ornithologist) in New Guinea.

The best page of the book is page 87, figure 4.1, "Factors Underlying the Broadest Pattern of History." The entire book is spent explaining that diagram, which is itself an answer to What are the proximate, intermediate, and ultimate causes to history's broadest pattern? I would modify his ultimate factors to be geography (adding carrying capacity to his east/west axis) and, more controversially, co-evolution between humans and large animals (with respect to their availability and behavior). I am also surprised that he did not cite the island-area effect in species or cultural diversity. But perhaps that would have been gilding the lily. There is nothing in the author's framework that precludes a change in where the most goods are today. He notes carrying capacities and access have changed radically over the last 13,000 years, shifting the balance of power from time to time. 200 years ago, for instance, China had the most goods. 200 years from now it may again.

If you like history, evolutionary biology or (like me) both, read this book today!

Rating:
Summary: Science in the service of History
Review: In one compelling volume, the famous biologist Jared Diamond tackles the most important question of global history: Why did Europeans come to dominate the New World?

This question has been answered by others before; Diamond's idea that Europe's geography is the cause ("geographical determinism") has also been proposed before. Any student of history can drag up a case or two of this thesis. Baron Montaigne, for example, proposed that Europe's primacy stemmed from its superior government, which could be derived directly from the coolness of its climate.

The deep significance of this book is that Diamond's thesis is not simply idle speculation. He proves that the Eurasian land mass had by far the best biological resources with which to develop agricultural societies, and was thus more able to form large, coherent, and powerful social entities.

To support this idea, Diamond introduces thorough set of well-researched data on what kinds of plants and animals are necessary to support a farming society. He investigates the biological resources available to potential farmers in all parts of the world. The people of Eurasia had access to a suite of plants and animals that provided for their needs. Potential farmers in other parts of the world didn't-- and so their fertile soil went untilled.

After establishing this strong foundation, Diamond falls into repeating ideas about the formation of large-scale societies. These ideas, while unoriginal, are still compelling, and Diamond presents them in a very clear and well-written way.

His other major original contribution comes when he discusses the diseases that helped the Old World conquer the New. Building on his earlier chapters dealing with Old-World domesticated animals, he shows that these very animals were the sources of the major plagues (such as smallpox) which virtually annihilated New World populations. The fact that Old Worlders had immunities to these diseases was a direct result of their agricultural head-start.

Along with these monumental contributions to History, this book has its drawbacks. If you're looking for a narrative explaining Great People, Great Events, or Modern Ideas, you will be sadly disappointed. Diamond's thesis offhandedly assumes that it is difficult to believe Shakespeare's plays or Newton's laws could have been written by hunter-gatherers.

If you are looking for reasons why Europe came to dominate the world, rather than, say, China, Diamond presents mixed results. He mentions the 14th century self-isolation of China, but does not analyze it. He also brings up the odd theory about the relationship between the coastline lengths of Europe and China and trade potential; this idea is provably wrong.

If you are looking for a book that explains the world's history of the past 500 years, look elsewhere. Guns, Germs and Steel exhausts itself by effectively, coherently, fundamentally, definitively, and entertainingly explaining the preceeding 15,000.

I do not hesitate to recommend this book to anyone with an interest in world history. The scholarship is first-rate, and the thesis is incredibly significant. The technical details, while complete, are presented in a very easy to understand way, and Diamond's writing style is fun and engaging. It fully deserved the Pulitzer prize.

Rating:
Summary: This will change how you see the world
Review: Diamond's careful analysis of how geography influences the development of societies is one of those ideas that stick in your head and change your thinking on a whole host of other subjects. It isn't so much a new scientific theory, but a new way of looking at things. The feeling I came away from the book with is that the world is really a very small place: we may think that everything has been tried, and what succeeded was the best, but in reality the whole course of human history has been shaped by a handful of accidents, like the shapes of the continents, the social behavior of certain large animals, the nutritional value of certain plants, and so on. Along with Dawkins' The Selfish Gene and Ayer's Language, Truth and Logic this is one of those books I'll force my children to read.

Rating:
Summary: How Eurasian societies came out on top.
Review: How did the Eurasian societies come to dominate the peoples of North and South America, Africa, and Australia. Diamond places a number of nice theories on how Eurasia came to dominate and colonize those of the other continents. They are all very plausible, and that is why this book offers such a vast vault of information. In fact, there is a lot of info in these pages, so the reader may be placed on overload just trying to understand all this.
Some of the theories focus on the geography of the Eurasia compared to the others. Eurasia spreads east and west and in many cases, weather was duplicated from one place to the next. The other continents were spread north and south. The peoples of Eurasia built cities and were more concentrated than other societies and thus were more immune to diseases. When these diseases came into contact with people from other continents, there was no one who was immune. Big tamed animals and plants were more plentiful in Eurasia than elsewhere. There is so much more in this book that is all very valid. That is why Eurasian societies ended up with more of the cargo.
This is a great read. Allow some time to understand all the theories because there is plenty of meat in this book.

Rating:
Summary: Geography, not genes
Review: The great question the book tackles is why today's modern world bears the stamp of western society.

The answer is partly found in the book's title: the west rules because the west had guns, germs, and steel. Diamond's insight (not in the title) lies in why the west got these before other societies. The answer is surprisingly simple: geography.

First, the fertile crescent, located in modern Iraq, held most of the important domesticable large animal and plant species. Second the east-west orientation of the large Eurasian land mass offered a better environment for spreading societies than did north-south orientation of the Americas or the restricted area of Africa and Australia.

The east-west orientation means large areas with more or less identical weather in which domesticated plants and animals could be moved, which in turn favoured the spread of farming and other technologies, including writing. The same east-west orientation also enabled diseases to spread easily along with the cattle that often incubated them. The populations of the Eurasian land mass were thus immunized against most diseases while those of less spacious Oceania and north-south America were not.

Ultimately the coastal people (e.g. Spain, England) of the Eurasian land mass were favored over the inland people (e.g. Persia) so that only the Europeans and Chinese were left as possible world conquerors. The Europeans went for it, the Chinese did not. The book resorts to an interesting but unconvincing political explanation for this: China was politically stable so had no need to go overseas to build its empire, while the European nations did. This feels like an oversimplification.

Nevertheless, the fundamental insight of geography being the determining factor, rather than genetic or racial superiority, into why the world is as it is, makes this an important book destined to remain on reading lists for a long time to come.

Rating:
Summary: Amazon book reviews as social science
Review: Why is it that most of the people that denigrate this book use poor grammer?

Rating:
Summary: Culturally Significant Book
Review: What processes enabled certain societies to become powerful and innovative? Why did Europeans come to dominate much of the world and the New World? Why did history unfold differently on different continents? These are the questions that this culturally significant work sets out to answer. For the most part the author does a good job. Without going into detail some of the reasons are; the east-west axis orientation of Eurasia as compared to the north-south axis orientation found on other contients like Africa and the Americas, Eurasia's abundance of plants and animals available for domestication as contrasted to the scarcity of them elsewhere, Europeans resistance to germs that were never encountered till modern times by native american peoples, and agriculturally producing societies with dense populations that could support a sedentary lifestyle where people were able to innovate and create new technologies. These explanations for why certain peoples displaced others or why certain peoples such as European colonists who settled Australia were able to form literate agriculturally producing societies in contrast to Aborginies who had been there for 1000s of years and never managed to do it are much better than previous outdated ones. The causes and reasons leading to different histories of different peoples have much more to do with geography and environment as opposed to being caused by innate differences in the peoples themselves. The author has obviously researched the subject in-depth (as far as possible upon him) and presented his findings in several chapters. The chapters take these reasons and expound upon them while offering evidence and showing different chains of causation. I found the book mostly interesting and lively although it read somewhat slow because of the statistics and facts contained throughout. By the time you get to the end of the book you will definitely have the themes of it pounded into your head as the author details them over and over. In my opinion it would have been better to condense redundant details but still a fantastic book that's definitely worth a read. Sometimes I found myself getting a little dulled because in the latter part of the book the author focuses on the expansion of languages and the conclusions we can draw from them as to whom settled where and when. Some of the other parts of the book were a little techincal as well but there were also some fascinating chapters that kept your attention like the ones talking about the Spanish invasion of Incan lands. I recommend this book for its ability to change racist (and incorrect) views of human history and also its ability to enlighten and hopefully educate humans to the point of understanding causes of events and outcomes better. Good read.