Rating: 
Summary: A page-turner
Review: If you read the reviews below, you'll have noticed that the reaction to this book was very polarized (I almost said "black and white"). Many readers enjoyed it thoroughly and found it very stimulating. A number of readers, however, savaged it in a fairly emotional tone. The readers who panned the book fall into several groups, dominated by the ones who just can't get past that off-hand comment in the introduction of the book concerning the author's conviction that his hunter-gatherer friends in New Guinea seem more intelligent on average than his friends of European descent. Lighten up. All he was saying was that he had difficulty with the thesis that agriculturally-based societies consistently trounce hunter-gather societies because of genetically determined intellectual superiority, given that hunter-gatherers have to live on their wits while in the case of members of agricultural, animal-domesticating societies, natural selection has operated more to favor immunity to the childhood diseases peculiar to those societies.So Diamond searched for another explanation, and came up with one that's consistently interesting, though obviously not foolproof: Eurasian societies happened to have access to a high-protein cereal (wheat) with a reproductive method amenable to quick and easy tinkering by humans, which grew in an area with few geographical barriers to east-west diffusion, thus avoiding the need for adaptation of the crop to the shorter or longer days of other latitudes. In the New World, in contrast, the available grain (ancestral corn) had lower protein, was more vulnerable to excessive hybridization by wild unimproved crops, and faced barriers to transmission along the predominantly North-South axis of the combined continents. Why the emphasis on cereals, a product of temperate climates, rather than the foods relied on by the original proto-humans in Africa? Cereal was critical because it was adapted to a climate with a severe dry season, which encouraged development of a plant whose survival strategy was become an annual that concentrated its food value in a rich seed that could survive a drought before resprouting, rather than a perennial that invested in permanent structure, bark, etc. This is the kind of food that permitted early humans to experiment with gathering and storing excess food. Why the emphasis on ease of diffusion? Because the author believes that cultural and technological innovation occur more quickly when large numbers of diverse, well-fed societies could experiment independently and then communicate with one another. You don't have to buy any of this, but his evidence for each proposition (and the many others in his book) certainly is worth a look. Another category of harsh critics points to the book's repetitiousness (a fair criticism) and to the popular-science approach of summarizing the work of other scientists in a Reader's Digest fashion. This may be a fair criticism, too, but unless you're terrifically well trained in a number of fields of science, do you think it is likely to bother you? Personally I'd have liked to hear more of the author's views on how to explain the dominance of the horse-mounted waves of Eurasian invaders. Clearly this book works best from the end of the last Ice Age through about 1 A.D., and for conflicts among continents rather than within each continent.
Rating: 
Summary: The Origins of Civilization
Review: Jared Diamond attempts to explain the entire development of humanity in the last 13,000 years in this volume, an overly ambitious project, no doubt. While the answer he provides contains a tremendous amount of truth and represents a major step forward in understanding human history, there are many variables that he leaves out. Diamond explains development in terms of biogeography, with cultivable grains, domesticable animals, and an East-West geographic axis. This combination leads to an agricultural surplus, larger populations, specialized occupations, and better technology. This powerful combination leads to farmer societies developing more quickly than hunter-gatherers. While his thesis is valuable and the new information he brings is astonishing, Diamond's theory is also deterministic and reductionist. There are too many other factors we also have to examine as well. One major factor is a culture's ability to harness its resources into a logical economic system. This has been discussed in detail by David Landes, whose work does not conflict with Diamond's but complements it. And ultimately, we cannot treat human beings as machines that are the same everywhere in the world, but that vary due to climate and geography, just like all other species. To explain human development, we also need to include humans in the discussion. This is a seemingly obvious point, but one that Diamond does not address since his goal is discount racism. But to say the races are different is not to say that one is better. If we refuse to look at race, we can't understand humanity.
To begin with, Diamond states technological change is due to the "inventor-genius," a lone individual whose innovation changes society. The larger the population, the more such individuals will be found. However, the populations in East Asia were always greater than in Europe. Despite that fact, most inventions came from Europe, particularly after 1500 AD. I suggest the answer may be that Europeans for some reason have a higher percentage of geniuses in their populations than Asians do, even though as a whole, Europeans might be slightly less intelligent than Asians. In general, Diamond cannot really explain why Europe developed before East Asia although his theory does explain why Eurasia developed before the rest of the world. At some point, however, we need to look at people if we are to understand history. At this point in our research on human biodiversity there are still many unanswered questions. But we should not shy away from asking more as Diamond does. For we may yet discover more reasons why Europeans developed before others. Ultimately, the major usefullness of this book is in explaining why civilizations developed where they did, first in Mesopotamia, and then east and west of that location. But it does not explain much after the origins of these civilizations: Why some areas developed quicker than others even after both had the requisite guns, germs, and steel remains unanswered by this theory. And it certainly can't explain the disparity in among modern societies.
Rating:
Summary: A wonderful book, particularly if you skim near the end
Review: This is a wonderful book, on the whole clear, insightful, and a pleasure to read. The major points are well argued, clearly presented (perhaps too clearly), and completely fascinating. If you've ever wondered why our world has come to be the way it is, why some groups prevailed over others in the slow clock of history, this book provides an excellent platform for exploration. Mr. Diamond's analysis of food production and the beginnings of farming, of why some animals can be domesticated and others not, and ultimately of why fifteenth and sixteenth century Europeans "won" and Native Americans "lost" are engrossing. These sections of the book are truly "page turners". For me, the book falters in the last third, repeating again and again material already covered, and perhaps becoming too fascinated with the author's own travels and experiences. In the end, though Mr. Diamond describes and wishes for a "science" of history, his own approach to some of the material is what really cries out for such an orientation. He has clearly done the homework and gathered the data for a rigorous mathematical analysis of why things have come out the way they have. Yet, such work is missing from the book. It is ultimately an interesting, thoughtful, and logical conjecture based on a thorough study of the available data and years of experience. A truly scientific approach could have really changed how we study history.
Rating: 
Summary: Repetative
Review: VERY easy reading. As one reviewer already mentionned, it seemed from the get go that the Mr. Diamond had ulterior motives for writing this book. Motives that had more to do with combatting racism than seriously contemplating the historical nature of the effect of Guns, Germs and Steel on the worlds civilisations. Unscientific is the adjective that came to mind most often whilst reading this book. Several interesting points were raised but they were not properly referenced. This made it seem as if the entire book was a thought experiment on his part. If you have a spare night to kill, go for it.
Rating:
Summary: Good book - but don't read too much
Review: A think this is an excellent book that provides a very thoughtful analysis of what drives development in human history. To 'A Reader' who said that "It proves the Bell Curve to be totally false" - that's not the point of the book. The conclusion is that the differences in development between societies was not driven by differences in intelligence. Societies still MAY or MAY NOT have differences in intelligence. It still MAY have happened that different groups developed differing intelligence levels - maybe Native Australians are more intelligent than Europeans, or maybe they are not. That's best left to the empirical testing of statisticians with all their flaws. All that you can hope to get out of the book, besides a good read and some fascinating history is that you can't say "Aboriginals are stupid because they were still living like savages when whites arrived". DON'T READ TOO MUCH INTO THIS BOOK.
Rating: 
Summary: Disappointing political propaganda
Review: I sensed from the begining that there was something wrong with this book. The author was making his objective quite clear and it was not to search for the truth. It was to fight racism, which is certainly a worthy goal. Unfortunately, his weapon in this fight is to present some fascinating facts and then in a most unscientific manner reach a conclusion that is merely a possiblity but that is not proven. The key technique of argument is repetition and the demonization of Eurepeans. In a most bigoted way the author lumps all Europeans as one group. No attempt is made to explain why there are significant differences between various European groups. Why Norway is so different than Albania despite the fact that both had domesticated animals and practiced farming.
Rating:
Summary: Encyclopedic
Review: Professor Diamond makes a very convincng argument for the compartively "accelerated" development of the Western world. How others miss his thesis - that ethno-geographical factors rather than cultural or evolutionary factors led to the Western conquest of the world - is a mystery to me. He states his thesis and clarifies it several times. (I guess some people don't read very deeply.) Of particular personal interest was his discussion of disease and its evolution, although I must admit I found his discussion of fodd producing societies versus hunter/gatherer societies facinating. Certainly a must read for anyone interested in World History, and a strongly recommended book for those interested in anthropology and ethn-biology.
Rating:
Summary: The Ultimate Text on World History
Review: This book should be required reading for all serious students of World History. It is a panoramic view of the history of humanity which is told in detailed, meticulous, and often fascinating fashion. Though it is difficult to understand at times, it is well worth the effort. Far more than most books, reading this book requires an open mind and a willingness to look at all aspects of a situation. For this reason, it has been criticized by some who lack the attention span required to understand the themes of this book and by others who subscribe to the "whites superior and dark skinned people inferior" "theory" of human nature. It proves the Bell Curve to be totally false. Guns, Germs, and Steel is must reading.
Rating:
Summary: Outstanding
Review: The criticisms of Guns, Germs and Steel are well taken: Diamond makes a gratuitous remark suggesting New Guinea tribes people are more intelligent, on average, than Westerners, there's lots of redundancy and it fails to meet the standards of scientific literature. Finally, his "PC" refrains help get the book sold to high school and university programs, but is redundant to a theory that is inherently "PC." Nonetheless, this book is outstanding. Foremost, for me, Diamond provides a rich, highly readable survey of current scientific literature on human development from a range of disciplines. His fundamental theory that agricultural assets led to powerful societies is not original, but presented with greater depth and insight than elsewhere, reflecting access to new tools in microbiology and other fields of research. The underlying theory and supporting evidence give me the sense of greater understanding of human history and society.
Rating: 
Summary: Engaging in parts, but quite overrated
Review: Having read several of Diamond's previous books, I was pleasantly surprised by this one -- though largely for avoiding the obvious faults of those other works. Diamond's writings are remarkably repetitive, and he is conspicuously lacking in the 'ear' that makes the work of, for example, James Gleick so extraordinary. This book has been praised to the skies by two types of people: those knowing little of science (so that they think this is it), and those who know that Diamond has his science correct in broad outline and are glad to see even this velveetized version of it achieve popularity. As a substitute for closely-reasoned historical analysis or an impartial rendering of a difficult interdisciplinary scientific enterprise, this falls far short of what might be expected to garner a Pulitzer Prize (something denied the infinitely superior 'Feynman' of Gleick, or Kanigel's book on Ramanujan). As perfect fodder for condensation, one hopes Diamond could write a 16-page version of his thesis, which could be compressed to this extent and lose little in the way of completeness.
|
