Rating: 
Summary: A Fantastic Read for Anyone Interested
Review: I think just about everyone wants to know: Why DID we turn out the way we did?In short, Diamond's work does a great job of answering this question. His analysis is in depth, and, despite the number "obviously"'s and "clearly"'s, relatively convincing. So, if you've ever asked the question above, buy the book; it's enlightening.
Rating:
Summary: Very good at what it does
Review: First, a quick description of what this book does and what it does not do. Diamond presents an excellent summary of ideas on why native Eurasians came to dominate native Americans, Africans and Australians. He explains some existing theories clearly and relatively concisely (despite some repetition)and adds in some plausible new ideas of his own. His main thesis is that geography and an abundance of domesticable plants and animals gave the Eurasians a clear advantage over others. Contrary to what some critics seem to have been expecting, "Guns, Germs and Steel" does not explain why Europeans came to dominate rather than Indians, Chinese or other Eurasians. Although the European conquest of America is used as an example throughout, the Europeans are intended as representatives of Eurasia rather than as a distinct culture within the continent. This book takes the reader up to the point where nations and empires developed (about 3000 years ago in Eurasia). For further examination of how different societies within Eurasia developed beyond that point I recommend David Landes' "The Wealth and Poverty of Nations". Within the scope of what Diamond addresses, I found the book to be very informative and well written, in an easy style that combined theory with examples from history and the occasional anecdote. As other reviewers have said, there are plenty of other books that contain more detail for those who want it, but as a newcomer to the subject I learned a lot from this book. The one drawback I found is that the reader is asked to accept a lot of information merely on the word of the author. If Diamond had added references to other books and journal articles as notes to the text he would have greatly enhanced the authority of the book.
Rating:
Summary: Nice Work
Review: An excellent text. 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.
Rating:
Summary: Engaging
Review: Packed full of interesting information. 3,000 years of human society around the world. It would be foolish to spend much looking at the points where his thesis may fail instead of spending more time marveling at the mighty achievement he did accomplish. Of course, taking such a large chunk of history and creating a theory to explain all of its shifts will not always be a perfect but it is wonderful to see just how much of history can be explained by his wonderfully all-encompassing ideas. With the soul of a scientist, Jared Diamond has created a wonderful synthesis to explain the development of writing, agriculture, conquest, disease and many, many other factors. Historians may balk at the largeness of such ideas, not seen Karl Marx found a convenient explanation for all human history, but it is a wonderful book to read, whether it is delighting or frustrating. It gives the reader much to think about and hopefully allows a new perspective to blossom among all of one's older, inherited ideas. A marvelous book.
Rating:
Summary: Huh?
Review: I'm puzzled as to why this book conjures such spitting-mad reviews when it is little more than a scholarly proposal, as opposed to a political line-in-the-sand. It certainly has little to do with the Bell Curve. I suppose the explanation might lie with the moral character of the incensed. I believe that any thoughtful person will find this to be an interesting book.
Rating:
Summary: Fine Book, Interesting
Review: MacArthur fellow and UCLA evolutionary biologist Diamond takes as his theme no less than the rise of human civilizations. On the whole this is an impressive achievement, with nods to the historians, anthropologists, and others who have laid the groundwork. Diamond tells us that the impetus for the book came from a native New Guinea friend, Yali, who asked him, ``Why is it that you white people developed so much cargo and brought it to New Guinea, but we black people had little cargo of our own?'' The long and short of it, says Diamond, is biogeography. It just so happened that 13,000 years ago, with the ending of the last Ice Age, there was an area of the world better endowed with the flora and fauna that would lead to the take-offtoward civilization: that valley of the Tigris and Euphrates rivers we now call the Fertile Crescent. There were found the wild stocks that became domesticated crops of wheat and barley. Flax was available for the development of cloth. There was an abundance of large mammals that could be domesticated: sheep, goats, cattle. Once agriculture is born and animals domesticated, a kind of positive feedback drives the growth toward civilization. People settle down; food surpluses can be stored so population grows. And with it comes a division of labor, the rise of an elite class, the codification of rules, and language. It happened, too, in China, and later in Mesoamerica. But the New World was not nearly as abundant in the good stuff. And like Africa, it is oriented North and South, resulting in different climates, which make the diffusion of agriculture and animals problematic. Funny, I didn't see this as the so-called "Politically Correct" (which seems to be a meaningless and trendy term used by intellectually lazy folks to dismiss what they don't agree with) thesis that some have frothed at the mouth about. It's a rationale and intelligent dialogue. Unlike the Bell Curve, it relies upon reason and not fatally flawed statistical smoke and mirrors. While you have heard many of these arguments before, Diamond has brought them together convincingly. The prose is not brilliant and there are apologies and redundancies that we could do without. But a fair answer to Yali's question this surely is, and gratifyingly, it makes clear that race is not the ultimate determinant of who does or does not develop cargo. Alternative explanations are always interesting and welcomed by those with intellectual curiosity and open minds. This book should have some appeal to these minds.
Rating: 
Summary: A good effort, but fatally flawed
Review: Pulitzer prize winner or not, physiology professor or not, I have serious problems with the logical processes and conclusions of Doctor Diamond. The book starts with Diamond walking along a beach in New Guinea, where he happens on a "remarkable local politician named Yali." The chapter is titled "Yali's Question." Yali's question was, "Why is it that you white people developed so much cargo and brought it to New Guinea, but we black people had little cargo of our own?" "He and I," Diamond explains, "both knew perfectly well that New Guineans are on the average at least as smart as Europeans." Cargo, Diamond interpreted, was the colloquial expression for "steel axes, matches, and medicines to clothing, soft drinks and umbrellas." Apparently, this politician of superior intelligence was of necessity reduced to pidgin English to express his profound question. Diamond gives a one sentence summary of the book: "History followed different courses for different peoples because of differences among peoples' environments, not because of biological differences among peoples themselves." In other words, all races are equal when it comes to intellectual vigor. We must not question that! Like we are all equal physically: blacks do not, on average, have longer limbs; the Japanese are not, on average, shorter in stature. It's all only skin deep. Is it okay if some of us have blond hair and blue eyes? Is that where the racial differences begin and end? It's the diet that makes the percheron bigger and stronger, the green pastures it's raised in that makes the thoroughbred fast--but, it is certainly not its genetic inheritance! All that effort to breed for speed is wasted. Professor Diamond ascribes it all to guns, germs and steel, and to the luck of the draw. "The peoples of Northern Europe contributed nothing of fundamental importance to Eurasian civilization until the last thousand years; they simply had the good luck to live at a geographic location where they were likely to receive advances (such as agriculture, wheels, writing, and metallurgy) developed in warmer parts of Eurasia." Warmth apparently, according to Dr. Diamond, was an important factor: "The sole North American societies to develop writing arose in Mexico south of the tropic of cancer." So, why did the sub-Saharan Africans not develop writing, or the wheel, or metal weapons and utensils on their own, while the ice-bound Scandinavians did? They certainly are from a warmer climate. He says "the proximate explanations are clear: some peoples developed guns, germs and steel, and other factors conferring political and economic power before others did; and some peoples never developed these power factors at all." In that, of course, he is right. Where he is wrong, I submit, is in his conclusion that individual racial characteristics had nothing at all to do with it. The fact is that the original inhabitants of sub-Saharan Africa, even after a couple hundred years of intimate familiarization with modern machinery and European colonization in, for example, the Belgian Congo, when they achieved their "freedom" and took over the established infrastructure, defecated in and made campfires in the halls of plush hotels, and sold human body parts in their marketplaces. When the machinery ran out of gas, they simply left it where it stopped, unable or unwilling to maintain it. After ten or eleven generations in the United States, people of black African extraction still, on average, test out 15 points below European Americans on the Stanford-Binet IQ scale. In Africa, where there is little or no infusion of Caucasian genes, they test a full 30 points lower--on average. Asians test higher than Caucasians. Of course, intelligence is only one characteristic that varies from race to race: athleticism is another. Is it sheer coincidence that black athletes dominate many sports in the United States? Or is it because they are genetically superior to Caucasians in athletic prowess? Why do Asians, although a minority, attain more PhDs in physics and math? Is it unreasonable to grant that they are mentally superior in those areas, as a race? Racism is one thing. (The term was coined in the mid-twentieth century.) Denial of the obvious, and exercising convoluted reasoning and indulging in unreasonable, unsustainable theorizing in an attempt to avoid facing the truth in the name of Political Correctness is idiocy. This book is well-written and nicely edited, but the arguments presented are so full of holes that any freshman can see through them, without putting on his rose-colored glasses. Joseph Pierre
Rating: 
Summary: Impressive Achievement
Review: Jared Diamond's Guns, Germs, and Steel sets out a huge goal for itself, the examination and explanation for the direction of 13,000 years of human society around the world. It would be foolish to spend much looking at the points where his thesis may fail instead of spending more time marveling at the mighty achievement he did accomplish. Of course, taking such a large chunk of history and creating a theory to explain all of its shifts will not always be a perfect but it is wonderful to see just how much of history can be explained by his wonderfully all-encompassing ideas. With the soul of a scientist, Jared Diamond has created a wonderful synthesis to explain the development of writing, agriculture, conquest, disease and many, many other factors. Historians may balk at the largeness of such ideas, not seen Karl Marx found a convenient explanation for all human history, but it is a wonderful book to read, whether it is delighting or frustrating. It gives the reader much to think about and hopefully allows a new perspective to blossom among all of one's older, inherited ideas. A marvelous book.
Rating:
Summary: Magnificent cross-disciplinary synthesis
Review: In a world of myopic specialisation, here's a monument to informed generalism - and a book that makes both geography and liberalism respectable again. For Diamond argues cogently that chance geographical factors have strongly influenced the distribution of wealth and poverty in the world today. He believes, essentially, that the people of the Fertile Crescent, China and Western Europe were given the best opportunities to domesticate plants and animals - grains with harvestable seeds, animals which could be herded, and so on. They also had the best chance to build up resistance to diseases.
The simplicity of the book's key ideas has no doubt aided its popularity. And Diamond downplays questions such as the Chinese Mystery - why did European prevail over that of China, which possesed a clear technological lead up to 1300 or so. Here Diamond simply offers up in brief explanation the new and credible orthodoxies popularised by Joel Mokyr's "The Lever of Riches" (a book of similarly detailed narrative style) and David Landes's "The Wealth and Poverty of Nations". Diamond's story is the story not of Britain's advantage over Shanghai, but of Eurasia's advantage over Africa, Australia and America. And in truth this is story enough for one book. Some on the political and cultural right seem annoyed that Diamond is undercutting conservative stances on race and culture. There's more than a little irony here: 20 years ago Diamond's thesis would have been considered deplorably right-wing, neglecting the malign influence of European colonialism and neo-colonialism as documented by Marx and his successors. Now that the Berlin Wall's demolition has transformed Marxsts and post-modernists into fringe players, we're finally able to start an intelligent, nuanced discussion of global history.
Rating:
Summary: Interesting and Informative (audio version)
Review: If you don't expect any book to be completely without mistakes, and you don't feel any book you buy must be the be-all-end-all on a subject, you will certainly enjoy Guns, Germs, and Steel. I found it fascinating to learn the details of the accidental domestication of crops (e.g. how poison wild almonds became delicious edible almonds); about the "big 14" -- the few ancient animals that were suitable for domestication, and why so many other species were not suitable; about diseases from the microbes' point of view; and so on. I had heard the basics before, but the details in this book and the way they are presented make it worth the purchase price. (I got the audiobook version from the library, but plan to buy the softcover). The reader isn't bad. Although his intonation can be strange at times, he has the ideal voice for lengthy works (11 x 90 min) -- low pitched, unhurried and not overly dramatic. Who cares whether or not this book is too politically correct? Don't be discouraged by a top 1000 reviewer. This book is not perfect, but it is rich in information and ideas, and I really enjoyed hearing it.
| 
