Rating: 
Summary: A different outlook on the World
Review: I thought that this book really put a spin on the way that I viewed the world. I was willing to accept the ideal of evolution but it never made so much sense to me until I read this book. The ideas behind how societies developed really surprised me. I did not expect it to be based so much on food production and animal domestication. The thing that surprised me most about this book was that before the Europeans arrived there were no horses in America. Finding out how people progress because of East West alignment as opposed to North South alignment made perfect sense to me. I never knew how many people were killed off with the germs from other societies. I was surprised by how many people were in the Americas and were killed off in order for the most immune race to survive.I got a little dull near the end when he was talking about the New Guenea stuff but besides that it was an interesting read.
Rating:
Summary: Detailed, Interesting but Repetitive
Review: I always have a high expectation when reading a book that has won the Pulitzer Prize. For better or worse, I am expecting a stay up all night, can't put down type of book. Well I have to admit that this book did not fulfill this expectation. To put my review in context I have an interest in general history but not so much in science. That probably explains why at times I felt this book dragged or just buried me is too much detail. The author was making a case for his theory, therefore, he had to spell out the many examples for his work to be accepted. It is just that for a general reader it was a bit much. I must say that the book is full of interesting historical facts and stories. I found my self saying, "so that's what happened" a number of times. The author also lays out his theory very well and I found myself agreeing with it. The author does write in a user-friendly way. My one complaint with the history is that I felt he was a little too kind to the European explores and following armies that decimated the populations of the Americas. It was just that for me, this subject has a marginal interest therefore, the massive amounts of detail slowed me down. If you fall into the same category as myself then make sure you put aside a good amount of time for he book.
Rating: 
Summary: A must read.
Review: I will not summarize the book, since others have done a good job on that matter. Rather, I would like to focus (1) on the strenghts, and (2) the weakneses of this book. (1) It has been a challenge for scholars to explain the state of the world without making simplistic assumptions about human nature or culture (some races are inherently superior to others, some countries exploit others, some religions or languages promote technological change better than others, etc.). In this respect, Diamond proposes an alternative (very simple and intuitive) framework with which to study humanity's early development. His proposal is that geographical-environmental factors imposed constraints and therefore determined the opportuinity of any given human group to achieve societal or technological break througs. To name just a few of them, he presents very compelling evidence that a region's size and climatical characteristics determined the probability of the evolution of relatively high-yielding grain crops, which in turn increased the chances of any given human group to discover agriculture and to find it worth his while to switch from a hunting-gathering lifestyle to a life of farming. An agricultural life style, with its higher output of food per unit of surface would also result in higher population density and food surpluses, which in turn would create both the need and opportunity for achieving labor specialisation, which resulted in breakthroughs in government, science and technology (both commercial and military), and business. In this same manner he comments on the impact of the availability of domesticable animals (like horses and cattle) in some areas, which in turn helped to increase productivity in farming, transport and the military, not to mention that the parallel coevolution of such groups and beasts resulted in the development of diseases that wiped out competing societies that lacked immunity to it. You might be convinced by this arguments or not, but I believe that anybody with an interest in human history should read them very carefully. I personally believe that the evidence presented is massive but worthwhile. In this respect, I simply don't undestand those people who think that the book is too long. I agree that it is a bit repetitive on its main thesis, however, it couldn't be helped. As it is, the topic is extremely complex (not to mention controversial), so the only way to build a good case is to analyse the available data in the most thorough manner. (2) I am sure that a book of this scope, which combines evidence from so many fields (archaeology, anthropology, epidemiology, geography, ecology, etc.) must be weak on some areas, although as a whole, the general hipothesis seems very compelling to me. I don't agree with other reviewers that believe that he ignores all evidence that contradicts his thesis, although, I think that it is true that he failed in is intent of explaining why Europe beat China to the modern age, through geographical-environmental factors. This does not mean that his main hipothesis is wrong, it only means that he didn't know when to quit. At the present time, in which it is economically feasible to transport corn from one side of the world to the other at negligible prices, it is obvious that institutional factors (like trade barriers or an inadequate judicial system) are far more important than geographical factors in determining any country's economic success. Well, although that certainly was not the case in the 1500s, that was the time in which other forces, like technological breakthrougs in transport, trade, the military and political organization, among others, started to dominate the future of mankind (at least temporarily) rather than geography and environment. Nevertheless, I believe that this is one of the best books that I have read in a very long time.
Rating:
Summary: Far from a complete argument , but a very facinating read
Review: With so many reviews, it hardly seems necessary to give a synopsis of this book. I will reiterate a common compliant, it is a bit too long because some items are rehashed. It doesn't take into account (or give enough value to) some things, culture and religion being among them, and there seems to be some items that are missing and some contradictory. That being said, I really did enjoy reading this book, it is for the most part well written and well thought out and it tackles a very big and compelling question. I will state my beliefs here, only because they provide a lens for me, and that lens colors how I see the world. I am a believing Christian, one that takes for granted that God created the world, not necessarily as it is, but as it once was. I state that because, upon reflection, I think of Mark Twains' 'Letter's From Earth', and the bit there where he chastises God for creating such wonders as the tsetse fly and ring worm. I think that Diamonds explanation of how some dreadful diseases jumped from animal to man, either because of ignorance in husbandry practices, lack of cleanliness or by sexual contact explains how perhaps there can be harmony in the belief that God did create a good world, but that over time it was indeed corrupted. I also bring up the subject of my beliefs to simply say that is is a very scholarly work and well received by myself, even though, it seems, my beliefs may be at odds with any researcher or writer that places belief in evolution and natural systems as the only answer to questions that we all have inside. I found the discussion in this book where it relates to animals, mammals in particular, to be very interesting. I never before had reflected upon the fact that even though zebras seem to be much like a horse, the fact that they cannot be domesticated and humans were well into modern history before parts of Africa saw a horse had a huge impact upon history. Having lived in Hawaii, I knew that the introduction of disease wiped out vast numbers of natives after the arrival of Europeans, but Diamond explains in detail how and why these diseases cultivated themselves in human populations and why the natives all over the New World were totally unprepared for the arrival of them. There is a big deal of writing on the axis of continents and how that had a huge effect upon the development of cities and large populations. Diamond perhaps goes over this part of his theory too much, and may put too much emphasis upon it, but the study of the effects that it had upon crops and the jump from hunter gathers to tribes to cities still makes a good and interesting read even if a bit labored. All said and done, this is a good book. It is highly readable, which for a science/history/text book type of work is a very good thing. I highly recommend it to anyone interested in it's driving question, "why did some people (in the world) end up with all the cargo?".
Rating:
Summary: Insightful, but ultimately tedious
Review: In Guns, Germs and Steel, Jared Diamond explores the reasons why some societies have prospered and others haven't. Why was it that Europe conquered North America and not vice-versa? Jared shows that the causes date back to the origins of humanity. The reasons Diamond describes are several but primarily focus on geography, botany and zoology, in particular the shape of the major continents and the availability of easily domesticated plants and animals. The areas that had the proper combination had people who shifted from nomadic hunter-gatherers to sedentary farmers. While this book is good, eventually Diamond repeats himself, and he hardly states anything original in the second half of the book. Thus, while the first half is intriguing and education, the second half is redundant and tedious. The five star quality of the first half and two star quality of the second half balances to 3.5, which I have rounded up. Diamond also has something of a bias against civilizations, often referring to them sardonically as kleptocracies; on the other hand, he reveres the simpler societies and seems to lament their inevitable decline. This slant may turn off some readers, but if you can overlook this bias, you'll find that this book is very insightful. And if you only read half of it, that will be enough to get all you need from it.
Rating:
Summary: A book that makes you understand things from new viewpoints.
Review: I love books like this - that get you looking at things from a perspective that is totally new. So why did you not have Africans, mounted on zebras or rhinos, colonising Europe? How was it that the Incas did not occupy Seville? For that matter, how did the Spaniards, thousands of miles from home and vastly outnumbered, manage to subjugate a well-organised kingdom? Plus a thousand other questions that would never have occurred to me to ask but, once asked, there has to be reason.... Jared Diamond asks the questions and then lucidly explains the answers. This is book I have enjoyed reading and re-reading time and again. I recommend it without reservation to anyone who wants to understand better and from unexpected new viewpoints, why the world is how it is.
Rating:
Summary: agrono-geography
Review: This is a fine book, which attempts to push back the moment of "pre-history" another 10,000 years. In essence, Jared Diamond argues that the development of human civilization is a product of ecology and geography. Diamond's history of civilization turns out to be a history of agriculture and animal husbandry. This is a beautiful and convincing argument. I found the epilogue quite annoying. Mr. Diamond is a genius (as he himself notes) and gets a little ahead of himself with his perscriptions for creating a "new" type of history. Personally, I think he holds a grudge against historians who are too hamstrung with nailing down facts to see The Big Picture. It's easier to juggle millennia than decades, but the study of each should not be counterposed. I also thought Diamond absolutized the "continental axis" thing. Are the lowlands between Monterey, Mexico, and Beaumont, Texas, really the great barrier to the spread of civilization that Diamond argues? I doubt it. I mean how did people end up in Tierra del Fuego in the first place if northern Mexico and the Isthmus of Panama are such effective barriers. The Steppes of Russia are a great land bridge east and west. Duh. Apart from this minor quibble of mine, this is a book everyone should read and enjoy.
Rating: 
Summary: Politics masquerading as Science
Review: This book is basically politics masquerading as science. Hence it's appeal to left-wing campuses and all the hoopla that goes with such success. If true then affirmative action can be considered likely to succeed, but if it is based on exraordinary assumptions then failure is to be expected. These assumptions are that man arriving in the various continents had no impact on the survival or extinction of the various edible and otherwise useful plants and animals to be found in his area. Man, in each case, Diamond assumes worked optimally with what was there. Since in Australia for example there are very few indigenous edible plants today, the macadamia nut, he simply assumes despite the paleobiological evidence that this has always been the case, that men simply didn't send some useful species into extinction in some places and not in others as he overused that commodity, whereas elsewhere as in Eurasia and MesoAmerica, it was deemed useful to save some to regenerate more later. Perhaps Neolothic Eurasians reacting to IceAge conditions, evolved- see Meme Machine, Blackmore - the ability to plan ahead, noticing the connection between seed and future food. Australians by contrast- see Descent of Man, Darwin - burnt the green forests for the short term gain of catching edible kangaroos escaping, so changeing the forest to desert or to fire tolerant eucalpytus. Who knows what possible edible plants, or animals with beast of burden potential, went extinct in the process. Diamond blithely assumes that none of this should be considered as he develops his political ideology.
Rating:
Summary: Diamond has an excellent hammer that he uses too often
Review: As the saying goes, when you have a hammer, everything looks like nails. I found Diamond's basic hypothesis that the march to civilization is accelerated (if not determined) by availability of useful, domesticable plants and animals and a geography suited for the transmission of the plants and animals (and later ideas) over a large distance very compelling. The two places he fails in what would otherwise be one of the best books I've read is he seems to be working toward a personal agenda, and he applies his theories to inappropriate situations. His personal agenda is not hidden, with his discussion of New Guinea's tribesmen fairly glowing. I guess it's better to have it out in the open than hidden, but it makes the work seem like a justification for his preconceptions rather than an unbiased research into the broad strokes of history. His very compelling basic point is that when numerous small groups (tribes, etc) compete, the rate of adoption, modification, and usage of available resources will be fairly constant across any group of people. The rate is only modified by the quality of those resources and the number of people with access to them, because if one society fails to use its resources at the best rate of human invention, a competing society will force the adoption either through competition or conquest. The problem is, and he acknowledges it in one sentence and ignores it in another, is that when societies (especially dictatorial ones) no longer feel competitive pressure, they can behave in largely unpredictable ways governed only by happenstance and psychology. He tries to explain the failures of the Aztecs and (especially) the Incas to use the wheel by describing them as "Island Cultures" since they did not have competing societies nearby. He later uses the same argument about China. The problem is that there is a range between small tribes and enormous islands where his theory only partially applies, and where much of written history has occurred. His arguments to explain why Europe was not one big island (meaning politically unified) were not very compelling, but given the fact that Europe wasn't unified his theory does explain why the West outpaced China in the past 600 years. His troubling assertion that the fertile crescent couldn't compete with Europe in modern times merely due to resource depletion (since it had been civilized for so long) was only in passing and lacked much backing in statistics or research. Unlike some other reviewers, I don't feel he was too hard on the West's modern conquest of the native peoples of the Pacific, the Americas, and Africa. He points out that disease made the lands empty, and that much of the pushing out of the natives was inadvertent due to the actions of people behaving just as our prehistoric ancestors did (and every other continent's ancestors did) for thousands of years. And when he chooses the words "exterminated" (in modern colonization) over "displaced" (in prehistoric colonization) he does it because he has the historical facts to back him up in one case, and only conjecture in the other, and he acknowledges the difference at least a few times. I definitely recommend this book if you are unfamiliar with the geographical element of the prehistoric move to civilization. Just keep in mind this is a theory that by nature no longer applies, and stopped applying somewhere between 100-600 years ago as modern communication destroyed geographic separation.
Rating:
Summary: wonderful
Review: guns germs and steel is an enthralling book that reads like a novel. it is also a terrific argument against there being a superior race. what i am waiting to see now is what arguments, research and writing it will generate.
| 
