Rating: 
Summary: Monumental but Slow
Review: The book is a monumental work and goes were few books I have ever read have. It challenges a lot of cherished myths, challenges tradional worldviews, and egocentric prejudices which good science usually does. Its short coming is that the book is slow and tedious to read, at least for non-acemdemic like myself.
Rating:
Summary: Good with Caveats
Review: The fact that a book that claims to explain the origins of human society doesn't contain a *single* controversial statement from the perspective of the politically correct left should perhaps come as a warning sign that this book is less of a revolutionary exploration than a reflection of current academic biases.That being said, this is an incredibly good book.
Rating:
Summary: Old Arguement, New Format
Review: This is a clear and very readable book on the evolution of humankind, I really enjoyed it. My only comment is that it really only rehashes what scholars have been saying for decades. A good companion book is "The Rise and Fall of Great Powers".
Rating: 
Summary: Fascinating reading - and NOT "politically correct"
Review: I really enjoyed this book. The ideas are very interesting, and well presented. I must admit to being a bit shocked at some of the other reviews. It is true that the main thesis is that georgraphic factors predict success of a society, but I don't see how that qualifies as "politically correct" - it's just a hypothesis which may, or may not, be accurate. He doesn't suggest that it is wrong to have alternative hypotheses. The idea that it is "anti European" to me could only eminate from a reader who assumes European cultures are innately superior intelectually, because I see nothing anti-anybody in it. The local successes of a wide range of cultures within each continent are explained using the same ideas. There is a pretty large difference between being anti-European and suggesting that the success of European (Eurasian, actually) culture does not stem from innate superiority. Whether you end up agreeing with Diamond's views or not, I think there is much to enjoy in this book, and his thesis is at least worthy of consideration. Right or not, I learned a lot about the early histories of a lot of different cultures, about what is required for the development of agriculture, and was stimulated to consider the possible consequences of becoming an agriculture-based society.
Rating: 
Summary: An interesting thesis, but with flaws
Review: Jered Diamond's Guns, Germs and Steel essentially argues that geography rather than social influences is the primary determining factor in the development of conquoring civilizations. Europe and Asia, Jared maintains, have a geographical edge over civilizations that developed elsewhere because these continents have a "horizontal orientaiton of axes" - that is to say long, broad stretches of land in various climates rather than thin, narrow axes of climates as are found in the Americas and Africa. These axes, Diamond argues created "proximate factors" (more domesticable animals, greater variety of food sources for example) that in turn allowed civilizations to conquor other peoples - and eventually conquor the civilizations on other continents in turn. A final critical contributing factor resulting from the orientation of axes is the susceptability and ease of the spread of disease, a factor that was undeniably a factor in the conquest of the New World. At first glance, Diamond's argument seems unrefutable. In fact when I was reading this book I was reminded of Darwin's Orgins of Species. Indeed, he makes a good case for his position. However, further examination raises questions. For example, what of cultural influences? I find it interesting that the eventual "conquest" of the world is almost exclusivley the result of European efforts - including the subjugation of Asia, which acording to Diamond shares the same developmental axis of Europe. Why is it that only Europe "conquored" the globe and not both Europe and Asia? Or why was it not Asia who eventually conquored and subjugated the Americas and Africa? What about the role of religion? Certainly a driving factor in the explosive European colonization of the world was Christianity. What of other cultural factors like competition? In many cultures cooperation and group cohesiveness and unity is stressed rather than personal gain (in Asia as well as in the Americas.) Yet none of these cultural mores are even mentioned in the book. Diamond's argument has its merits - certainly geography has played a role in the eventual conquest of one civilization over others. However, I believe the impact of culture, religion and weltanschauuing - one's world view - play a larger role than is given credit for. Guns, Germs and Steel is certainly an intriguing book, and is not without its strengths. However I cannot help but feel that the development of mankind is greater than mere geographic happenstance.
Rating:
Summary: The greatest english book I have read in years
Review: I am from mainland China. I hope someone can translate it into Chinese. Though the title could be changed for better to "Guns, Germs, Steel and Bible: The Fates of Human Societies". Of course that indicates I'd want to point out the weakest point of this book - the author choose to ignore the the impact of religions. But over all, this is great book!
Rating: 
Summary: Politically Correct History
Review: A little knowledge is a dangerous thing, but a little knowledge and a lot of bias is a very dangerous thing. Mr Diamond takes some solid scientific facts and some intuitive analysis and then extrapolates this to ridiculous lengths to reach a politiclly correct view of history. His basic premise is that the natural availability of both high protein cereals and herd and draft animals gave certain societies a competitive advantage. Jared extrapolates this to explain every feature of human history. His consistent message is that all peoples everywhere in history were not just equal, but identical, and that the European settlers of the western hemisphere were the evil and undeserving benefactors of a natural bounty of grain and goats. In his fervor to be anti-Western and anti-European, he completely neglects to apply his theory to such civilizations as the ancient Chinese, the Zulus, and the marvel of the Islamic empire at its' height. His views on epidemics, invention and other areas are interesting but they move steadily away from the facts and his comments become more editorial than analytical. The closing, in which he contradicts his own theory that we are all identical by extolling the natural virtues and implied superiority of the people of New Guinea, is a fitting end to this jaundiced view of human history.
Rating:
Summary: Biased but forthright, stuffed full of facts
Review: This book was awarded the Pulitzer Prize, and, to let you know where I'm coming from, I think that this is in large part due to the generally Left leaning politics that I believe the author adheres to, and with which I mostly agree. The author's premise is that environmental differences and NOT innate genetic differences explain the varing "success" and "failures" of native peoples to expand their geographical reach. (i.e. Europeans came to dominate the world, not due to genetic superiority, but for reasons having ultimate cause in environment). If the reader is aware of the author's bias, then he or she will get a lot out of it. That said, if you want to understand how civilizations arose over the course of the past 10,000 years... how human societies progressed from hunter gatherers, to agricultural societies, to the current state of the world, this book is a great place to start. This is definitely a "popular science" book, and as such, suffers from an unfortunate amount of repetition. Yet, this does give the reader the opportunity to mull over the author's propositions, rather than simply be introduced to them and not have time to reflect. These ideas are chiefly that geological happenstance and coincidence, along with ecological factors played a substantial role in the development of the world's different societies. Some of the most important factors include geological features that facilitated or impeded the diffusion of inventions/ideas and the relative abundance of native plant and animal species suitable for domestication. To cite one typical example from the book, Diamond argues that the America's smaller land mass coupled with the narrow isthmus of panama and the arid/semi-arid region separating southern mexico from the eastern United States effective fragmented the New World into several mini-continents. By contrast, the relative connectedness of the mediterranean, fertile crescent, India and even (occasionally) China, fostered an exchange of ideas, domesticates, and technology that gave Old World societies significant advantages in terms of technological innovation and increasing cultural complexity. Despite the book's verbosity and occasional dogma, it is still very much worth reading. I learned a lot about the rise of civilizations and the spread of humans throughout the globe. Hopefully others will similarly be rewarded for reading this book. Happy reading!
Rating:
Summary: A thought provoking review of compelling evidence
Review: A very satisfying read for anyone interested in history, anthropology, or the origins of man. Mr. Diamond does his epilogue justice, treating historical analysis as a scientific journey. As a bonus, the book is made all the more interesting by the author's personal perspective derived from spending significant time in very different cultures. There is definitely a focus on some of the author's life experiences (such as all the talk in many reviews about New Guinea). But this is used to strengthen theories put forth based on reasonable evidence, and provide anecdotal support for abstract theories. On the abstract theory side, the author's broad life experiences and diverse academic training allow the creation of a work that would likely have been impossible for someone with a narrower perspective. I strongly disagree with the hyperbole in some of reviews that implies a liberal political prejudice on the part of the author. Subjects are treated in a reasoned and balanced manner. Some of the conservative sounding railings against the book's statements about "the potential for superior natural selection of raw intelligence in New Guinea" are humorous. This statement could easily be used to support a view diametrically opposed to that which the reviewers are attributing to the author: a harsh condemnation of the trend in modern societies towards liberal socialism, because liberal policies squelch or reverse the process of natural selection. Also, if the author wanted to glorify New Guinean societies as the pinnacle of human achievement, he probably wouldn't have spent so much time discussing cannibalism in those societies. From my reading, these assumptions are in the reviewers minds, not the author's book. This book is not intended to be an exhaustive treatment on the origins of man, the rise of societies, or anything else; the author says many times that he's painting with a broad brush. The type of analysis done in this book HAS to be done at the high-altitude view, or you get lost in the details and don't see the large scale patterns. The book won't change your life, but it will give you a new perspective on some aspects of it.
Rating:
Summary: Is the Western man just a lucky monkey ?
Review: More on GG&S : I have just read the 99 most recent customers reviews on this book - Nobody has remarked that for J.Diamond the allotment of territories between peoples works like the attribution of seats in a movie theatre : who comes first gets the good seats, who comes later gets the bad ones and ( at least in our indecently civilized countries)everybody accepts the rule. Carthaginians had the better seat and Byzantines too.
| 
