Rating: 
Summary: A plausible story waiting to be corroborated
Review: In this treatise Jared Diamond tackles no lesser a question than how Eurasian civilizations outstripped the rest of the world in technological development, allowing them to achieve preeminence on the world stage. Everyone knows that the West employed guns, germs, and steel to annex the Americas, Africa, and the Far East, but this book tries to explain why these advantages arose in Eurasia first. Diamond traces each of these advantages to one common source: the origins of agriculture first in Mesopotamia and China, not in Mexico or the Sahara or Australia. He attributes Eurasia's head start to more easily domesticated flora and fauna, a lengthy east-west access allowing the rapid diffusion of civilization, and the absence of significant geological barriers to stop this spread.Needless to say, this two sentence summary doesn't do justice to Diamond's argument. His conclusions have the ring of truth, such as his assertion that the success of Western civilization has nothing to do with race and everything to do with an environment conducive to the growth of civilization. However, Diamond's authoritative tone throughout the book belies the ultimately circumstantial nature of his evidence. In addition, he made his essay less formidable at the cost of omitting entirely citations and footnotes documenting the evidence he does present. The only references he offers are in his appendix of suggested readings for each chapter. Better late than never, in the epilogue Diamond instills confidence in his rigor as a scientist by discussing the difficulties with his methodology. At the same time, he credibly argues for the applicability of science to history. The epilogue also briefly treats an important topic for Diamond's theory: why China failed to maintain the technological superiority it held over Europe until at least the sixteenth century. This review has been mostly critical, but only because this book is essential reading for anyone attempting to understand human history at this scale. Diamond's characterization of history cannot be proved correct by science, but we can ill afford to ignore it. This seminal work provides a coherent explanation for perhaps the broadest and most important trend in human history, and for that Diamond deserves credit and merits your attention.
Rating:
Summary: Interesting thesis that missed a few important facts
Review: In "Guns, Germs, and Steel", the author presented many interesting notions on the fates of human societies. Yet, he appeared to be uninformed in a couple of centrally important facts. Guns and Steel were not European inventions. Aside from cast iron, steel swords and weapons were already existent in China in the first century A.D. (see Jacques Gernet's "A History of Chinese Civilization", for example) Firearms and cannons, not just gunpowder, were also invented and deployed in China in the eleventh century A.D. Both of which saw their usage against the Mongols during the 1200s A.D. In fact, Genghis Khan was mortally wounded by a cannon on one of his campaigns, thus leading to his premature death, which left the eventual completion of his quest for empire to his grandson. But firearms and cannons were also adopted by the Mongols, who were the first to use these weapons in Europe during their invasions of Hungary, which probably resulted in the transfer of these technologies to Europe. So here's the interesting paradox: China had long possessed guns and steel, two of the things in the title of the book "Guns, Germs, and Steel." Yet, they did not set upon the course of history that Europe did starting in the 1500s. Despite the omissions of facts, the author was able to offer a general explanation for the broader divergence in historical trends. He pointed to the fact that political unity in China, as opposed to political disunity in Europe, many times stifled the continuation of development because the decree of a despot could completely halt critical junctures in development in China, but similar decrees would have far lesser effects in a fragmented Europe. This notion is refreshing, but appears to be lacking in depth, since the author did not mention whether steel and firearms production was stifled in this way. And here's my important point: if these critical technological advancements were not left to rust by a Chinese despot, then Mr. Diamond's explanation seems to be insufficient. And I believe a fuller explanation of this case would have to include cultural and social factors. I think it was a regrettable failure on Mr. Diamonds part to neglect examining the stifling characteristics of Confucian culture, which have been the primary factor in limiting the ambitions of that country and its people. Another error, albeit a minor one, that I noticed was the author's reference to the "Greek" conquest of Persia and the Indus Valley in one of the last pages of the book. If he meant the exploits of Alexander the Great, then he should have known that Alexander was Macedonian, as were most of his armies. The distinction had already been well established in biographies and scholarships on the Macedonian king. At any rate, it would be no more justified to call the Macedonian conquests as Greek conquests than it would be to call the Mongol invasions of Europe as Chinese invasions.
Rating: 
Summary: 20 pages was enough for me
Review: As many reviewers have already pointed out, Diamond's hypocrisy begins to show very early. Any attempt at factoring in race as a determining factor would have quickly been condemned by the PC Nazi's as racist, so Diamond left those out. I have no problem with that. However, his hypocritical rant about how stupid Caucasians are in relation to the people of New Guinea was hard for me to swallow. In today's P.C. world a bit of hypocrisy is probably required, but Diamond's quick embrace of the politically correct view that racial criticism of Caucasians is OK was too much for me. It seems that other reviewers saw some good in later chapters. I have too little reading time to waste on hypocrites, though, so I quit before the end of the introduction.
Rating: 
Summary: Oh Yes, Guns, Germs and Steel
Review: The plainly stated premise for this book is that there must be some reason provided, other than race, for the disparities we continue to see in the standard of living of various human populations. And we learn that it is guns, germs and steel that allowed some people to conquer others and not the other way around. Said guns, germs and steel having come into their possession first through having been luckier in where their ancestors happened to be living. Sounds reasonable at first. But having been conquered is not reason enough to give up on a good standard of living, and possession of guns, germs and steel is apparently not enough to guarantee a good standard of living either. Since everyone has guns, germs and steel now, do they not? And the French have been conquered at least every hundred years or so and continue to live like, well, western Europeans, so it is not merely being conquered that is enough explanation either. So just what is it? And I'll agree that it is not race. Perhaps it is that some people simply won't accept the personal responsibility that would be required to get their act together, en masse, and well, quite frankly we can't force them to. First of all it wouldn't work, this forcing them to. Second of all, it would take too much time, this forcing them to. What we are left with is, of course, their own personal responsibility to do it themselves or suffer the consequences. Once we get past the fact that Jared Diamond tells us that watching TV causes brain damage and makes western children stupider then New Guineans, rather than TV being an ideal medium for enhanced learning. Well, he's just mad because someone insulted his race and wants revenge on the matter, that's all, right? Because if we take him on his word, we must look at our children with wonder because of how well they can function despite the "irreversible mental stunting associated with reduced childhood stimulation" caused by their TV watching. We also must feel very sorry for how more backwards the New Guineans might become should they ever get TV's. But we hope that in this part of the book only, he's not a complete idiot but still just rightfully infuriated at racists and that since this is just the introduction, that this must be only the editorial portion of the book and not an indication of a similarly biased book to follow. He makes a lot out of plants that are domesticatable and those that are wild. By definition the difference between domestic and wild implies that someone spent some time doing the domesticating. While it is an appealing idea that some ancient primitives just happened to live near perfectly good grains such as in western Europe, well what about the Neanderthals? Their fossil evidence now clearly indicates that they did not ingest any grains. Were they blind? And one must immediately ask, is the same wild relative of the grain plant ever found in America as western Europe? A question he does not even address, taking it as a given. But the whole idea is absurd! All over the world, plants were domesticated, corn, wheat, rice, ad infinitum. Are we to believe that domesticating wheat is so much easier than domesticating rice or corn that a 10,000 year advantage was gained? Or the fact that wheat is now grown in Africa is proof that you cannot domesticate any African plants rather than that it was simply easier to bring some wheat seed with you, rather than start all over again from scratch? Not because there are no plants that couldn't be domesticated, something different then corn, wheat or rice, but that rather that once their neighbors had already done it that it simply wasn't necessary to reinvent the wheel? But what difference does it make anyway? Europeans are not white because they are of a different species, they are white because of the perpetual lack of sunlight in the northern climes, particularly during the winter months and not only that but they have cloud covered springs, falls and summers too. If two brothers, who both had the same mother, but each had different fathers of the same race, and one turned out to have invented a gun, and the other turned out to have been a shifty though intelligent bum. Then perhaps by Jared Diamond's example, the shifty one should write a book why his excuse for being a shifty bum is not in any way genetic, and at the same time smear his brother's reputation at every possible opportunity. I will admit that this book is fascinating in that he puts everything in terms of race. So you can see not only which civilizations prevailed but also whose race bred with whose. Unfortunately, he compiled these parts of the book from other people's historical works, although his one saving grace is that this was done rather well, since it makes an interesting read when compiled by virtue of race. His facts then should be read with interest, but his opinions and conclusions with a grain of salt. If you simply replaced every occurrence of contempt for eurocentrics with praise, and every occurrence of praise for New Guineans with contempt, and every instance of "luckier" with "smarter", then you would have the perfect book for the Reich mark to distribute to all newly married German couples along with their mandatory copies of Mein Kampf! In regards to your theories, why do you even care, Herr Diamond?
Rating: 
Summary: Certainly Eye Opening
Review: Jared Diamond makes a point of the fact that at the time he wrote this book, that Europeans who were living in New Guinea enjoyed a higher standard of living then even the native chieftains. Evidence of 'racism', yes? One gets the idea, though, that he would prefer the reverse. That is, that Europeans 'joined the club' and reverted to hunter gatherers. You will be told that the very same elements credited with the rise of western Europe "were developed by other peoples living elsewhere and were then imported to western Europe." However, he makes no attempt whatsoever to explain why these elements were of no use to their original 'developers'. Although he decries the idea that western Europeans have a higher intelligence for any genetic reason and calls this idea 'loathsome'. He nevertheless amazes the observant reader with a multitude of reasons why the reverse must be true! He states that "New Guineans suffered high mortality from murder, chronic tribal warfare, accidents and problems in procuring food. Intelligent people are likelier than less intelligent ones to escape those high causes of mortality in traditional New Guinea societies." Lest there be any argument that this is indeed a genetic cause for superior racial intelligence he makes it very clear by following this paragraph with this, "Besides this genetic reason..." I fail to see where he is going with this 'proof' since the same argument could be made on behalf of an 'antelope'! Although one not steeped in reverse prejudice would think that the extreme advantages that come in a western European civilization from mastering mathematics, literature and science would encourage these traits in the next generation, Jared Diamond instead informs us that, in a western European society, it is so easy to reproduce that one can reproduce no matter how low your intelligence! Since he can obviously offer no accomplishment to make his point of a higher intelligence by virtue of New Guinean race, he instead informs us that, as he judges it, the mark of intelligence is being "more alert, more expressive, and more interested in things and people around them then the average European or American is." Perhaps he should expect a look of utter and complete BOREDOM when in the company of a European or an American. This is all so idiotic that I can barely continue to read past page 25, although if I do, my criticisms are sure to be longer than his work. But for sure, this is not the book that ended racism. This is the book that replaces one group's racism for another's.
Rating:
Summary: Good Book
Review: Sometimes, an author writes a book and because you know so little of the subject matter, anything they write about is great because it is new to you. Sometimes, authors have the ability to write, and just write well. Jared Diamond has done so and more because he links the principles of selection, based on evolution into the social realm of humanity and its history. Great. Diamond also introduces readers to an environmental history of the world. Thanks. Cheers!
Rating:
Summary: Eurasia Dominates Because of East/West Orientation
Review: In this book, Diamond attempts to show why Eurasians came to politically dominate native Africans, Americans, and Australians--even though Africa has been human territory for a much longer time than anywhere else on earth. An over-simplified version of his argument is this: 1. The domestication of plants and animals was the first key to building a society that could dominate others over a wide area. Any society that domesticates a species (wheat, orange, horse, cow, etc.) can move that species with them as part of cultural or military conquest--but only to an area with a similar climate. Eurasia has a huge area of similar climate, and most initial conquerers moved between east and west in that same climatic zone. When an African or American society domesticated a species, they couldn't generally take it with them, because they usually had to move north or south--and thus into a different climate. (The Nile valley and all of Africa above the Sahara are part of the Eurasian climate zone, and generally shared its advantages.) 2. Eurasians were simply lucky. They had many more species of both plants and animals suitable for domestication. Even with modern technology and experience, there are many fewer species suitable for initial domestication in Africa, the Americas, and Australia. (Genetic engineering may change this, but the Eurasians control that technology too, at present. Could the hope of Africa be to become much more permissive and risk-taking with biotech?) 3. Once you've got agriculture, you get cities, and humans living close to animals. Initially, that makes people more exposed to mutations of animal diseases, but over time the survivors develop an immunity. When later the survivors make contact with other humans, those others die of diseases their ancestors never confronted. (90% of all Native American deaths after the European conquest were due to disease, not war.) It's fascinating speculation, and truly does try to address one of the great questions of history. For now, it's left to future research to try to prove or disprove the broad theory, if that can even be done. As others have pointed out, Diamond shouldn't have tried to guess why Europeans currently dominate Asians and Middle Easterners--all three of which had the same advantages. His arguments do better at explaining Euriasian dominance of others than they do at explaining the more back-and-forth between various Eurasian cultures. It's not clear to me that Diamond's forces are currently at work, in the sense that any new species domesticated now would almost certainly be transported easily all over the world. Eurasia has won and unless its culture destroys itself, others will have to join that culture to be competitive. (One possible exception is the AIDS pandemic. African societies may be forced, through lack of medication, to develop a genetic immunity to AIDS, where other parts of the world could end up treating the symptoms well enough that the genetic exposure remains.) I think the best way to view this book is as an explanation of the history of the last 500 years. If you like broad-brush speculation with a LOT of interesting facts across multiple disciplines, I think you'll love this book. I sure did.
Rating:
Summary: Love it or hate it, you should read this book
Review: As an avid reader with absolutely no previous contact with the field of anthropology, I found this book to be mesmerizing. Justin Diamond has achieved great success with "Guns, Germs and Steel" (national best-seller, Pulitzer Prize), but it has also made him the target of strident, often venomous criticism... Diamond's general thesis is that the West conquered the world rather than vice versa because of a fluke of nature. In short, Eurasia was home to an important number of crops and animals that readily lent themselves to successful domestication. This domestication resulted in mass food production, which the author claims is the "ultimate" cause of Western dominance. Food production, in turn, led to a number of "proximate" causes related to the rise of the West: farms and animal herds led to stationary populations and excess food to support a specialized class of bureaucrats and soldiers; it also increased population density, which, along with close contact with animals, led to germs and the subsequent genetic resistance of Westerners to those diseases. Finally, Diamond concludes, the unique East-West axis of Eurasia and the absence of any impenetrable geographic barriers fostered the spread of new crops, technologies, etc., which gave rise to many competing communities, whose competition further increased the western lead over the rest of the world. Diamond's arguments are persuasive on the surface, and even the biggest skeptic will have reason for pause after reading his book. However, the final chapter reveals that he can't really resolve a fundamental question: why did Europe, rather than the Middle East, India or China come to conquer the world? Almost the entire book is dedicated to explaining why the Eurasian landmass was blessed with the prerequisites for large civilizations rather than the Americas, Africa and Australia. His terse explanation for why Europe in particular dominated leaves much to be desired and explained.
In this reviewer's opinion, the recent book by classicist Victor Davis Hanson ("Carnage and Culture") provides a plausible epilogue for Diamond's piece. Hanson completely and explicitly rejects Diamond's geographic determinism, but I don't think the two theses are incompatible or in any way mutually exclusive. In fact, it seems to me that Diamond and Hanson support one another, as the latter's assertion that the war-making efficiency of liberal democracies beginning in the Hellenistic period explains Europe's ultimate triumph. In closing, as an introduction to anthropology and a cogent depiction of one school of thought on the rise of the West this book is marvelous. Approach it with an open-mind, reflect on the thesis and the supporting evidence, and then draw your own conclusions. Love it or hate it, you owe it to yourself to read this book.
Rating:
Summary: Jared Diamond's Schizophrenic Work
Review: Diamond's book suffers from a bad case of schizophrenia. He apparently couldn't decide what he was trying to write. It isn't really a book and it isn't really a scientific paper. As a book, it suffers from an almost total lack of editing and organization. Diamond must have labored under the false impression that he was getting paid by the word. His writing is stilted, rambling, and simply atrocious. A ruthless editor could have pared this down to a readable, interesting book of about 100 pages. As a scientific paper, it is laughable. Of course, by publishing his personal guesses and speculation intermixed with generally accepted science, he neatly avoided experiencing a humiliating peer review and rejection. Diamond begins his investigation with a concious bias-- he clearely stated that his purpose was to parry the "race- based" view of civilized development. He then builds his case by accepting that which bolsters his arguments and discarding that which disagrees with his thesis. This approach "ain't science." I can't argue with Diamond's conclusion but his case is weak. Outside of his New Guinea experiences (which we hear about ad infinitum) and his area of expertise, he is simply speculating on the possible causes of a known result. Diamond is trying to build a whole dinosaur out of a tiny bone fragment. The concluding remarks include the obligatory appeal for "further funding"-- the usual self-serving phrase heard so often these days. Diamond reveals his desire to elevate weak "scientific" disciplines to the level of hard science-- math, physics, chemistry, etc. and this harebrained idea simply diminishes his stature and-- indirectly-- his scientific credibility. As for the glowing reviews from others-- P.T. Barnum was right!
Rating:
Summary: Why aren't aboriginals running the stock market right now?
Review: Guns, Germs and Steel is a well reasoned volume that presents its ideas clearly. It may get you to think for the first time about questions to which you thought the answers were obvious, but upon reflection, you find are not. In reading this book, you'll learn why it was so easy for a tiny Spanish force to conquer a comparatively huge Aztec empire, why Europeans ended up with all the resistance to common infections, and why having the right plants and large mammals on your continent makes all the difference. It turns out that dominating the world comes down to a geographical luck of the draw. The reason for knocking a star off of the rating of this book is its length. Towards the last quarter of the book, you begin to feel that the author has already made all of the points that he has to make and that continued reading is just subjecting you to repetiton of the same themes.
| 
