Rating: 
Summary: Geography is destiny
Review: Geography is destiny is the moral of this book. At the beginning he relates a question posed to him by a New Guinea native: Why is it that the whites have all the cargo [technology] and his compatriots don't?Diamond boils it down to four key issues: the availability of plants and animals to be domesticated, the ease with which this domestication can be transferred (east-west being easier than north-south due to similar climates), isolation, and the size of the population. What we call western civilization emerged in the fertile soil of southwestern Asia, with a host of available plants and animals for domestication. It then spread rapidly along the east-west axis of Eurasia. This reliance on farming made a dense population possible, which along with the proximity of the domesticated animals led to a host of endemic diseases. These diseases, when brought to the Americas, did more to subjugate the natives than either the guns or the steel of the title. This thesis is explained in detail, first in overview and then with the quick example of the Polynesian islands. Part two of the book covers food production and the domestication of animals. Part three expands by covering the increase in disease and the spread of writing and technology based on the previous principles. And the final part provides a quick investigation of five parts of the world that demonstrate how geography affected their inhabitation and culture. It's a powerful and persuasive thesis, though Diamond admits that further investigation is needed. His prose is straightforward if somewhat rhetorical. He hews very closely to the advice that a writer should tell you what he's going to tell you, tell you, then tell you what he's told you. He's also quite fond of rhetorical questions, though this seems a useful device in this context. Overall, it's a fascinating and thought-provoking book, and includes an extension section on recommended further reading--all of which sound very interesting as well!
Rating: 
Summary: Tedious and thin on ideas
Review: If you are interested in this book, I would strongly urge you to buy his previous book _The Third Chimpanzee_ instead. _Guns, Germs, and Steel_ is merely a book length explication of the ideas contained in one 30 page chapter of that book. Unfortunately, padding them out to 350 pages didn't add much in the way of depth or interest to the ideas. Instead, Diamond goes through and repeats the same basic points 6 or 7 times over the course of this longer work. His writing quickly grew tedious as no new ideas emerged after page 40 or so--merely more repetitive hammering home of the basic points. Not that the core idea--that local biological factors had a decisive influence on the rise of early civiliations--isn't compelling. It is a fascinating perspective. But it's ultimately not enough to carry the entire book, and Diamond really has little else to offer. With _The Third Chimpanzee_ you get the same ideas plus about 15 other ideas almost equally interesting.
Rating:
Summary: Unconvincing
Review: Despite his erudition, Jared fails to support his thesis, which is that technological societies developed opportunistically and that race was not a factor. It is a thesis that is impossible to prove. If a racial group, given a set of propitious circumstances, develops advanced technology, that does not, and can not, prove that another racial group in the same situation would also advance. It is a well-written book but panders to current ideology.
Rating: 
Summary: The importance of initial conditions.
Review: My friend Roger recommended this book to me some time ago. I had added it to my wish list but never seemed to get around to ordering it, because I had such a tremendous pile to read already! He thoughtfully sent me a copy as a Christmas gift, and all I can say is, "Boy, Roger, this a wonderful book! Thanks so much for sending it." Never have I encountered such lucid reflection regarding a topic about which I thought I knew considerable already and such an innovative approach to a familiar subject within the confines of a single written work. I am definitely impressed. Diamond starts with the quarry, why did some national groups overcome others in their quest for space and the wherewithal of nature; why for instance did the Spaniards conquer the Inca and the Aztec, and not the Inca and/or the Aztec the Spaniards? It would appear self evident to most people, but when Diamond presents some of the rationales suggested by previous investigators (superior intelligence, superior culture, etc.) it rapidly becomes obvious that it isn't quite so clear cut after all. He knocks these theories over one by one like so many paper tigers. The author looks at the earliest evidence for human achievements in different areas, examines the potential of the environment for that achievement, then looks at other like environments where similar innovations did not arise to identify what was lacking. Agriculture, which appears to have arisen first in the area of the Fertile Crescent, seems to have arisen in an environment wherein useable plants occurred in abundance in a climate conducive to their growth and domestication. Furthermore, the simple stone technology and the capacity to undertake a settled existence in the area long enough for these advances to arise occurred at the same time. In looking at each area where agriculture arose independently this appears to have been the case. It did however require considerable time, and where ever conditions were slightly sub optimal but the region was not confined by geographical barriers, diffusion of the concept or of the actual agrarians themselves brought about the change before the indigenous population was able to create their own alternatives. This provided advantages for one group vise a vie another. Nor is agriculture the only innovation that arose and spread on similar principles. Pottery, writing, the wheel, draught animals, metallurgy, group structures, etc, all seem to have arisen in response to local conditions and spread from their point of origin to surrounding areas, providing similar advantages to migrating groups. Even crowd diseases, though hardly what one would classify an "advance," arose among people who lived in close proximity to domesticated animals, becoming immune to or at least more tolerant of diseases arising from these animals. Naive groups were therefore at risk of near total annihilation when these diseases were introduced suddenly, as native Americans, native Australians and Polynesian populations among others discovered to their great disadvantage. In areas where non-crowd diseases occurred to which local inhabitants might be immune, the technologically "superior" groups often found it difficult to make headway, as for instance against malaria by Europeans attempting to take control of New Guinea. One of the more interesting of Diamond's concepts (at least to me) was his examination of the barriers that might prevent dispersal of cultural traits: especially geography, past practice, utility and ideology. I was most impressed by his discussion of the simple concept of latitude as a promoter or inhibitor of disbursal. Limiting factors arose due to the human tolerance of ultraviolet light, a need for or toxicity from vitamin D, the ability of plants to adjust to different temperature, light intensity or daylight duration, or to the seasonal fluxuation in temperature, and so forth. His examination of the east-west verses north-south axis of orientation among the continents as a factor effecting numbers of species of plants and animals available for domestication was also informative. Another key point, certainly one crucial to our own age of environmental mismanagement, is the importance of starting conditions and of the effects of decisions made by early people on the state of affairs of their descendants. Large mammals that might have been used as domesticates by early Australians, New Zealanders or native Americans may have been, in fact almost certainly were in some circumstances, hunted to extinction or displaced by non-native animals introduced by early people arriving on islands and continents previously uninhabited by humans. Their initial decisions reduced the options of their descendants in serious ways. Probably one of the most important points in Diamond's discussion is that much of what we see as "primitive" or "backward" about the indigenous cultures of some of the losers in the colonialization confrontations of the 19th and early 20th centuries were in fact a reflection of the skill, adaptiveness and creativity of earlier settlers in dealing with difficult terrains with a limited technology. Furthermore, much of what we consider the "progressive" and "superior" characteristics of the winners' cultures were in fact shearly the luck of the draw. In my opinion this book would make a terrific text for a course in anthropology, history, sociology, or political science. Because it presents the information in a clear and simple manner, it might also be a welcome addition to a high school social science course. I know there are several people with a variety of backgrounds who have qued up at home and at work to read my copy. You have definitely brought it to the attention of a multitude, Roger, believe me!
Rating:
Summary: A short history of everybody over the last 13,000 years
Review: That's the author's tongue-in-cheek claim for his book. The sub title for 'Guns, Germs and Steel' is 'The Fates of Human Societies' and any study, whether history or science that touches upon the nature of differences amongst people, is potentially frought with danger. Diamond recognizes this and is very direct, not at all tongue-in-cheek in stating "in case...you shudder at the thought that you are about to read a racist treatsie, you aren't". The different stories of human history have nothing whatsoever to do with human racial differences. This book is truly interdisciplinary and that is both it's strength and weakness. Strength in that it draws upon geography, archaeology, anthropology, biology, genetics, epidemology, physiology and of course history. It's a weakness in that no one person can be an expert in all fields and Diamond certainly is not. Strength again in that he recognizes this and confesses his biases - towards physiology and the influence of geography, more broadly - the power of environmental factors. Very early on in the book we are told about the battle of Cajamarca. On November 16 1532 a small Spanish army met up with an Incan army 500 times it's size. There were 168 conquistadores, (only 62 on horseback) and approximately 80,000 Incas led by their king - Atahuallpa. Before nightfall on the day of the battle, the Spaniards had killed over 7,000 Incas without the loss of a single man. How? Certainly the Spaniards of the day claimed a miracle, afterall it was Atahuallpa's snubbing of a Bible that precipitated the attack. Diamond offers a more prosaic yet equally powerful explanation. According to Diamond there were 'proximate causes' and underlying these are 'ultimate causes' This pattern of causation, some of it purely accidental, was true then and has remained true throughout human history and is the basis for his theory of why people are different. Back to Cajamarca for a minute to explain. The proximate causes were guns, germs and steel - "immediate reasons for Pizzaro's success included military technology based on guns, steel weapons, and horses; infectious diseases endemic in Eurasia". But why did these advantages come to reside with the Europeans rather than in the new world? Answering that is a matter of developing 'chains of causation' and Diamond spends the greater part of his book discussing the consequences of them. Basically it boils down to the following: food production, unequal distribution of resources, differential rates of diffusion of innovations, domestication of crops & animals and developing immunities to their diseases and finally differences in geography and environment affecting population size and strength. I have given these factors short shrift here but Diamond puts his facts and evidence together in a coherent, plausible and thankfully, very easy to read book. Thoroughly enjoyable and educational.
Rating:
Summary: A Different Look at History
Review: Guns, germs and steel takes a different look at why Western Europeans went on to dominate all of the known world. Dr. Diamond's main thesis is the domestication of certain species of plants and animals. Because, Europe is connected to Asia. Eurasia had a larger pool of large animals and plants to domesticate. Also, Europe's moderate climate help Europeans go from a hunter-gatherer society to a sentary society. As a society become more sentary the larger the population grew and evolved into a more complex one. In these complex societies, Dr. Diamond points the advancement of politics, inventors and trade with other countries. Dr. Diamond, also points out in later chapters that Europe surpassed societies such as China and India because Europe was never politically cohesive. Countries such as England, France, Netherlands and Spain competed for the riches of the New World, Africa, and Asia. Therefore these countries invented better steel products, bigger ships and more advanced weapons. Dr. Diamond does make strong agruments and dispels a lot of myths on why certain societies advanced faster than others. However, there is one part of the book were Dr. Diamond believes that natives of New Guinea are more intellectual than today's Americans. I found that extremely absurd. But, I would recommend this book as another alternative on world history.
Rating:
Summary: Great thought provoking book
Review: There is little question that this is an entertaining and thought provoking book. The author starts out by describing a conversation that he had with a person from New Guinea. The conversation was why New Guinea had by comparison little cargo or wealth compared to other countries. The author has considered this statement and found that it raises an interesting question. He for some reason or other is of the belief that the inhabitants of New Guinea are of a higher intelligence than other people and their poverty is thus unusual. The book is an attempt to find an answer. The main argument of the book is to look at the conquest of the America's by the Spanish. When Cortez and Pizzaro conquered the New World they did so with comically small armies. The reason they succeeded was due to a number of factors. It is worthwhile discussing these factors a little as they form the analytical basis of the book. When the Spanish came to the New World they immediately and unintentionally infected the local populations with a range of diseases. The local population had no resistance to those diseases and the effect on the local population was catastrophic leading to declines of population of 70% to 90%. This made it very difficult for the Aztec and Inca states to resist the invaders, or after the initial conquest to mount rebellions. The Spanish also had superior weapons. In reality the main advantage in these struggles seems not to result from firearms but the use of sharp edged weapons made of steel, swords and spears. The horse was also vital to the military effort. Lastly the Spanish were more Machiavellian than their enemies. If we look at the history of the New World it is clear that the Aztec and Inca civilisations were successful in developing cereal crops which allowed large concentrations of people to live of the land and for cities to be established. The civilisation did not develop metal working and its society was static. Both the Inca and Aztec civilisations were basically stone age. In a later chapter the author looks at New Guinea. One of the key aspects to New Guinea is that it developed the use of a form of subsistence agriculture. Its overall development lingers behind that of what the Americas achieved. If this is compared with Europe it is possible to see why there were forces at work which gave it an advantage over the Americas. These advantages are geographic and are seen to be the key to what the author sees as the development of civilisations. These basically are that Europe arose on a huge land mass which gave all societies certain advantages. If a development occurred in Siberia it could be taken up in Europe. If a development occurred in India it could be taken up in China. The author then goes on to discuss how the production of cereal crops, the domestication of animals occurred and how they spread over the Eurasian land mass. The development of high populations then led to the development of cities and the sort of intellectual progress which leads to technical innovation. The problem with the theory is that it is strongest when it looks at societies which were cut of and in which these forces could interplay. Thus the thesis is excellent when it examines the conquest of the Americas. It becomes weaker when it looks at other areas. If we had looked at the world in 1400 Europe would look to be a backwater. The most powerful and advanced countries at that time would have been China and the Islamic states in the middle east. Over the next three hundred years Europe was to become powerful. One explanation for this is the development of military technology. Around 1700 Europe developed the use of the flintlock musket and armed sailing ships. These gave it an edge which was illustrated in wars between Austria and the Ottoman Empire. These technologies however were picked up by other nations. One reason for the success of Europe was its policy of Imperialism and Conquest. The basis of this policy was for European states to over time use naval technology and the concentration of force to conquer overseas possessions. This led to a gradual increase in their wealth and power. If we examine the history of Holland, Spain, Portugal, France, England and Russia all acquired significant empires. The acquisition and the administration of empire meant that each of these nations had to keep on top of technical developments. One only has to read about the reign of Peter the Great to see how European Nations were continually modernising to ensure military strength. The importance of military development was something which dragged along technology. Despite these minor quibbles the book is a great read entertaining and one of the more thought provoking in some time.
Rating:
Summary: This book won the 1998 Pulitzer Prize for non-fiction
Review: I thought customers may want to know that this book received the Pulitzer in 1998. It won for non-fiction -- I didn't see any reviews that mentioned this!!
Rating:
Summary: My Title: "Agriculture, Geography, and Population Growth"
Review: This book attempts to explain the current social-racial-political state of the world as natural endpoints from goings-on in prehistory. Although my title is obviously less sexy than Mr. Diamond's, anyone who has read this book will agree it is certainly more accurate of the content. Jared Diamond applies a very rational, non-racist*, evolutionary-like hypothesis to peoples and their surroundings. He correctly downplays individual great leaders of history as inevitable by-products of circumstance. And he ignores the influence of the great religions, I suspect, because his timeline for the workings of complex culture goes much further back. It got the Pulitzer prize for good reason. However, one small sentence in the introduction bothered me. In discrediting racial superiority and inferiority for the entire book, *he feels the need to tell the reader he thinks the average Papuan New Guinea native is intellectially more capable than the average European. Now why would he go say a thing like that? Mr. Diamond's dream is to have enough of his ideas put into a "formula" for explaining successful nation-peoples. Scholars will always argue and explain-away the past, but predicting the future I am afraid won't be possible. It is one thing for Mr. Diamond to take all the known earthy facts of the last 13,000 years (from archeology, genetic crop analyses, linguistic clues, ect.), organize them, and then say "Told you so" as if he knew all along everthing would happen as it did. It is quite another thing to predict, borrowing from evolutionary tenets, as his predecessor at Natural History Magazine, Stephen J. Gould, is well aware, when that randomness is by definition unpredictable, and never can be accounted for in history. That would be dull determinism, which has been disproved a credible philosophy since quantum theory. To his credit, Jared Diamond admittedly tells us his own theories would have led to misguided conclusions if he were to make them at various time stops in history. All in all though, it seems more than reasonable that the world was moved by "Big Ideas" applicable to the long run. I found the book to be highly readable, a seminal work of importance; and further recommend it to any scientifically curious person.
Rating:
Summary: Interesting and detailed
Review: This is really quite an interesting book, but many of the premises it offers I had covered in two units of Anthoropology at University. However it is peppered with enough interesting "incidents" from world history to make it worthy of a read even if you had no real interest in the subject matter. It is reasonably technical, and may be considered "heavy going" by someome disinclined to tackle such a volume. However it is still popular science, and takes a look at what are fundamentally interesting questions such as "Why did some people develop steel weapons and others kept rock?", and the bits I find most interesting, "Why did some societies have the really evil germs and others not?". All in all it is easy enough to read to be of interest to almost anyone. And it is, after all, quite interesting in a world which may shrink from asking some of these questions because of perceived "political correctness"!
| 
