Rating: 
Summary: YOU WILL LOOK FOOLISH IF YOU DISCUSS HISTORY W/OUT THIS
Review: ESSENTIAL INFORMATION Whether you agree with the thesis or not, this information is essential to any discussion of history before the Middle Ages. If you don't already know this information, this a great place to get it.NOT POLITICALLY BIASED Personally, I agree with the thesis. I have yet to read a critique that gives a valid reason for disagreeing with it. The critiques I've read posted on this site are aimed at things the critics read INTO the text, not things they read IN the text. You can claim Diamond had a political agenda of thats what you're looking for, but its entirely unnecessary. I beleive he maintained his objective scientific integrity throughout, in spite of the fact that he's a White European-American (what a crime!) and in spite of the fact that he thinks his New Guinean friends are frequently more intelligent than those of his own race, an anecdotal aside which he never claims to have any bearing on his argument. Also, his Natural Sciences thesis is well supported; he doesn't delve into factors such as religion and culture because thats not what the book is about. Those factors of societal evolution are on a different plane and belong in another discussion. EAY TO READ One of the best pieces of non-fiction I've ever read. Unlike many books I've read, GG&S gives interesting and new information and ideas every page, compelling the reader to turn the page. It never fails to explain things in ways I can easily understand, clearly answering the questions it sets out to answer without ever getting bogged down. Every history or non-fiction should look to this as an example; too many of them are overly repetive or convolute their arguments. I've had to slog through too many books just to get the dribbles of information I'm searching for, like juicing a banana. Only in the final section does it begin to get redundant for a few pages. Once you realize this, you can skip over the arguments you've previously read.
Rating: 
Summary: One man's slant on history
Review: Why did European civilization become dominant? The author thinks it has to do with animals, plants, trees, dirt, and rocks. It's because of the environment he believes. As if it was only the Europeans who lived in a suitable environment. How does this explain then the ancient civilization of Mohenjo-daro in the Indus River valley, which had underground plumbing and was a highly advanced society more than 4000 years ago? What about the Inca empire? The Incas developed their own highly advanced culture despite their climate. They also created such marvels as Macchu Picchu and Cuzco. Also, what about China? China invented countless number of things (right now I cannot remember which though). Moreover, when the Aztecs were at their prime Europe was in the dark ages-- the church was ruling Europe with an iron hand and burning people at the stake who didn't accept holy doctrines. (Look up the word "Inquisition" for further information). There were plenty of civiliztions who had scientific know-how back then. Why, then, does the author believe that it was only the European CLIMATE which had anything to do with their technology or culture? Well, obviously he's not looking at the whole picture. During the Renaissance, people in Europe continued what the philosophers of Athens started over a thousand years earlier: SCIENCE, PHILOSOPHY and DEMOCRACY! The author believes that since people in Europe had domesticated animals they should be masters of the univerivse! I guess domesticated animals equal Roman Empire or something! During the middle ages though we had domesticated animals, however, they didn't seem to help us any, because we were still toiling in the fields of our feudal lords! Now, are you gonna tell me it was the livestock's idea for the Renaissance? It couldn't have been. Thus, it must've been something else! Could it not have been that people were curious about their world? The Greek physician Hippocrates laid the foundations of scientific medicine by freeing medical study from the constraints of philosophical speculation and superstition. Aristotle, the pupil of Plato, and the tutor of Alexander the Great, and the author of works on logic, metaphysics, ethics, natural sciences, politics, and poetics, profoundly influenced Western thought. In his philosophical system theory follows empirical observation and logic, based on the syllogism, is the essential method of rational inquiry. Show me any other culture which produced this.
Rating:
Summary: intellectually honest treatise
Review: Diamond deservedly won the Pulitzer Prize for this extremely insightful treatise that dispels the prejudicial notion of racial superiority. Guns, Germs & Steel is fact-based, detailed and thorough - without being overly scientific - and gives us an intellectually honest, totally plausible explanation for the uneven rates of development among the world's cultures. I consider this book a 'must read' for anyone interested in a deeper understanding of human history.
Rating:
Summary: This book will make you think
Review: I would classify myself as the quintessential "lay person" when it comes to evolution and world history. This book is jam packed with facts and theories that were news to me. I was presented with lots of good information that I consider myself better now to know. Let's just say that the average high school education does not do this subject area justice. The book is well written, very easy to read. While Mr. Diamond does sometimes try to drill a point home through repetition, I absolutely could not put the book down. It was way too interesting. Once I was finished, I did not agree with 100% of Mr. Diamond's conclusions, especially his omission of what I consider a giant factor in European expansion, their culture. But that does not take away from the fantastic read I had, and the valuable information I feel I have gained. This book makes you think. What more can you ask for? I would recommend this book to anyone.
Rating: 
Summary: 13,000 Years in 400 Pages
Review: In the introduction to this Pulitzer Prize winning book, author Jared Diamond recounts a 1972 conversation with a Papau New Guinean leader who asked why Europeans came with all their technology to "discover" New Guinea, instead of the other way around. This was a question Diamond had already considered, because to his mind native New Guineans were at least as intelligent as Europeans. Twenty-five years later, Diamond had an answer for that question, and it is a good one. According to Diamond, the domination of the world by European culture since 1500 (and the US is culturally an extension of Europe) is the result of three proximate factors: military and political developments up to and particularly since 1500; the ravages of European based disease on newly-met peoples; and the development of technology. He summarizes these three factors in the three words of his title. He explains how these proximate causes developed from root causes in a review of biological, climatological, geographical and other trends and events in the 13,000 or so years since the end of the last ice age. In his review, he specifically addresses the so-called "genetic advantages" which have been cited by some to claim "racial superiority" as a root cause for "white" domination of world events, and gives a plausible explanation of why there is no such thing. Unfortunately, people who would espouse that reasoning are not likely to work through this book to discover why they are wrong. Readers will have to work to finish this book, but they will be rewarded when they do. It is dry reading, and very repetitive. It is, however, well worth the effort. Diamond looks at why, if Africa is the source location of humanity as we know it, Africa has continued to be the least developed continent, and perhaps the one with the most human problems today. He provides explanation of why the "Fertile Crescent" was the source of western civilization, but became the far-from-fertile political problem area it is now; why development moved westward from the middle- and near-east into Europe; why China, with a highly developed culture thousands of years ago, stultified and only recently entered the modern age; and why European-based diseases wiped out other cultures but their diseases seldom (but not always) had little effect on Europeans. This book does not give us any indications how cultural and economic differences can be addressed today, but perhaps if we better understand how they came to exist if the first place, then maybe we can come up with a way that they can be addressed. This book does help us with that better understanding.
Rating: 
Summary: Interesting, but is it true?
Review: I enjoyed reading this work and reviewed the contained conclusions with keen interest. Even though the author presents many compelling arguments for the diversity and range of social and technologicl evolution of the world's peoples, I believe he provides no proof that these geo-biological circumstances account for all of the disparities betweem cultural and scientific advancements. What mention of the base genetic proclivities of diverse human populations and their resultant adaptability to environmental choices and options???
Rating:
Summary: devils advocate
Review: I'm cynical about everything, but Diamond proposes good thoughts all Still there are leaps in logic not sufficiently explained. If we take his facts as given, his arguments why some cultures readily absorbed more advanced culture's advantageous factors, while others did not is thin at best and lacking any empiricism. His explanation is that such cultures either were resistant to change or preferred their own cultures limited state to the other cultures advancements. ???? For my rebuttal I defer to Mrs. Gump: "Stupid is as stupid does." While the author's goal is to discount genetic differences for causation, he immediately contradicts himself saying that natives of New Guinea are genetically smarter than Europeans due to two factors: 1] In populous societies inferior intellects are able to breed diluting the racial genetic intelligence, while in small primitive societies only superior intellects breed, and 2] Westerners further diminish thinking skills by watching so much TV, while primitive societies must think constantly [p 18-20]. Thank you Mr. Diamond! You just proved natural selection for Homo sapiens and negated your premise for the whole book in the first chapter! Maybe advancement has nothing to do with creating a factor for advancement, but having the common sense [intelligence?] to recognize a good thing and improve it? The Japanese may be the prime example. In the past millennia they've snookered Eastern and Western societies. Things that make you say hmmmmm... Good book, but find an editor that won't let you invalidate the whole thing:-)
Rating:
Summary: Devils Advocate
Review: I'm cynical about everything, but Diamond proposes good thoughts. Still there are leaps in logic not sufficiently explained. If we take his facts as given, his arguments why some cultures readily absorbed more advanced culture's advantageous factors, while others did not is thin at best and lacking any empiricism. His explanation is that such cultures either were resistant to change or preferred their own cultures limited state to the other cultures advancements. ???? For my rebuttal I defer to Mrs. Gump: "Stupid is as stupid does." While the author's goal is to discount genetic differences for causation, he immediately contradicts himself saying that natives of New Guinea are genetically smarter than Europeans due to two factors: 1] In populous societies inferior intellects are able to breed diluting the racial genetic intelligence, while in small primitive societies only superior intellects breed, and 2] Westerners further diminish thinking skills by watching so much TV, while primitive societies must think constantly [p 18-20]. Thank you Mr. Diamond! You just proved natural selection for Homo sapiens and negated your premise for the whole book in the first chapter! Maybe advancement has nothing to do with creating a factor for advancement, but having the common sense [intelligence?] to recognize a good thing and improve it? The Japanese may be the prime example. In the past millennia they've snookered Eastern and Western societies. Things that make you say hmmmmm... Good book, but find an editor that won't let you invalidate the whole thing:-)
Rating:
Summary: Interesting - but not prove his thesis
Review: As most have agreed, GG&S is a well written, far reaching, powerful book. I certainly learned quite a bit about wheat, about the fertile crescent, and about the Australian Aborigine. However, I take issue with the thesis presented in the first chapter about this book dispelling racisim. I can believe Diamond's entire theory about seeds, beasts, east-west axis, and larger populations and still come to the conclusion that Eurasians have greater average intelligence. Why? Because living in densely populated farming communities would exert very different selection pressures than living in small bands of hunter-gatherers. Diamond claims that disease is the major killer among civilized people. I don't know if that is historically true. But even if it is, human sex-selection provides many opportunities for better endowed men to sire and support more children on average than their lesser peers. If those qualities are heritable, they will become more and more prevalent in the population. This selection has been going on for nearly 10,000 years in parts of Europe and Asia, and those populations, with their food production and technology have been the conquerers more often than the conquered. Unfortunately for the lesser endowed of humanity's ancestors, the millenia of history could well be recorded in our very genes.
Rating:
Summary: This is the BEST book I have ever read!
Review: This book is a complete eye opener on why certain civilizations are more advanced than others. It flys in the face of bigots and supremacists. This book should be required reading. Jared Diamond is an excellent, clear writer. When he begins writing about a new idea he starts by summarizing what he's going to talk about, then he talks about each item, then he summarizes what he just said. For the brilliant mind, this might be too redundant, but for most of us nonbrilliant types it's great! Like a good professor in collage!
|
