Rating: 
Summary: My Title: "Agriculture, Geography, and Population Growth"
Review: This book attempts to explain the current social-racial-political state of the world as natural endpoints from goings-on in prehistory. Although my title is obviously less sexy than Mr. Diamond's, anyone who has read this book will agree it is certainly more accurate of the content. Jared Diamond applies a very rational, non-racist*, evolutionary-like hypothesis to peoples and their surroundings. He correctly downplays individual great leaders of history as inevitable by-products of circumstance. And he ignores the influence of the great religions, I suspect, because his timeline for the workings of complex culture goes much further back. It got the Pulitzer prize for good reason. However, one small sentence in the introduction bothered me. In discrediting racial superiority and inferiority for the entire book, *he feels the need to tell the reader he thinks the average Papuan New Guinea native is intellectially more capable than the average European. Now why would he go say a thing like that? Mr. Diamond's dream is to have enough of his ideas put into a "formula" for explaining successful nation-peoples. Scholars will always argue and explain-away the past, but predicting the future I am afraid won't be possible. It is one thing for Mr. Diamond to take all the known earthy facts of the last 13,000 years (from archeology, genetic crop analyses, linguistic clues, ect.), organize them, and then say "Told you so" as if he knew all along everthing would happen as it did. It is quite another thing to predict, borrowing from evolutionary tenets, as his predecessor at Natural History Magazine, Stephen J. Gould, is well aware, when that randomness is by definition unpredictable, and never can be accounted for in history. That would be dull determinism, which has been disproved a credible philosophy since quantum theory. To his credit, Jared Diamond admittedly tells us his own theories would have led to misguided conclusions if he were to make them at various time stops in history. All in all though, it seems more than reasonable that the world was moved by "Big Ideas" applicable to the long run. I found the book to be highly readable, a seminal work of importance; and further recommend it to any scientifically curious person.
Rating:
Summary: Interesting and detailed
Review: This is really quite an interesting book, but many of the premises it offers I had covered in two units of Anthoropology at University. However it is peppered with enough interesting "incidents" from world history to make it worthy of a read even if you had no real interest in the subject matter.It is reasonably technical, and may be considered "heavy going" by someome disinclined to tackle such a volume. However it is still popular science, and takes a look at what are fundamentally interesting questions such as "Why did some people develop steel weapons and others kept rock?", and the bits I find most interesting, "Why did some societies have the really evil germs and others not?". All in all it is easy enough to read to be of interest to almost anyone. And it is, after all, quite interesting in a world which may shrink from asking some of these questions because of perceived "political correctness"!
Rating: 
Summary: Well written but flawed
Review: Guns, Germs, and Steel is a good faith effort to solve one of the most controversial and enduring controversies in the history of philosophy and social science. However well written, however encyclopedic in scope, and however much truth there may be in this book about 10,000 years of human history, Diamond does not give his readers the whole truth and nothing but the truth. In fact, he gives them much less. Inexcusably for an evolutionary biologist, Diamond fails to inform his readers that it is different environments that cause, via natural selection, biological differences among populations. All of the Eurasian developments he described created positive feedback loops selecting for increased intelligence and various personality traits (e.g., altruism, rule-following, etc.). Indeed, Diamond's considered position on the reality and importance of racial differences is well stated on page 25: Authors are regularly asked by journalists to summarize a long book in one sentence. For this book, here is such a sentence: 'History followed different courses for different peoples because of differences among peoples' environments, not because of biological differences among peoples themselves." For the entire 425 pages of his text Diamond maintains this position, which can only be labeled biophobic-truly a surprising position for a biologist to take. Since about 1930, the biophilic position concerning breed-mg-group differences has led to a quite opposite conclusion. The theoretical reasons for this seem overwhelming to modem biologists, many of whom take precisely the reverse position from that assumed by Diamond: they put the burden of proof firmly on those who assert the unimportance of genetic differences between breeding-groups. Genetic differences are to be assumed unless and until the contrary position is rigorously established. Faced with that position on the burden of proof, biophobes have a tough job ahead of them. (Of course the observed differences between well-isolated groups may or may not be "significant." Significance is a much harder question to deal with.) Obviously the problem of significance becomes even more difficult once we focus on breeding groups (races) rather than individuals; but the solution of this problem will not be made any easier by basing the analysis on the contrary-to-fact assumption of equality. (One can easily mount a plausible argument for the inequality of any two groups.) Whatever we mean by "IQ intelligence," we are measuring qualities that are selected by what we call "civilization." The Chinese can plausibly claim to have been "civilized" for thousands of years longer than Europeans. If the result surprises us we can set about altering it-by establishing more severe conditions of social selection for the characteristics we choose to define as "civilized." Breeding alone does not produce the difference in means, but we are not surprised when a longer endurance of a particular set of social conditions has more effect than a shorter. We need not be the helpless victims of "nature's" selection; the human choice we empower in the generation of domestic plants and animals could, theoretically, be turned loose on the human species itself. (But would such a choice be wise? That is the question that underlies eugenics.) The breeding of domesticated animals in experiment stations has revealed general truths whose direct discovery in human beings is forbidden by our taboos against using human beings as experimental animals. A mountain of evidence indicates that every particular allele of a gene, though it probably has one primary chemical effect in cell development, has many effects on the entire organism- many bad," with perhaps one "good" one. When the latter is very good from a human point of view-say increased milk production by a cow-we breed the animals so as to select for the good. Pretty soon we have a strain of cows that are great milk producers. We succeed in this endeavor by carefully controlling the conditions of life for the high producers. Now for a further experiment. Turn the breed of high producers loose in meadows that are untended by human beings: what happens? The answer is simple: in the absence of human care, the previously human-induced evolution is soon undone. All the alleles involved in producing high-milkers produce other, often subtle, effects that are deleterious from a bovine point of view. Without the human selection of high-milking characteristics, the inherent cost of the other effects of these genes results in their speedy elimination. As our knowledge of genetics and its potentialities deepens, we take account of the new knowledge, threatening though it may be to many traditionalists. A new generalization emerges: A genotype determines the potentialities of a single man; but enduring societies of men can also, by controlling and altering environments, cause natural selection to select for different genotypes, for different forms of "success." These in turn require, for the fullest realization of their potentialities, different environments in which to mature. Guns is easily the one of the best environmentalist anthropology books ever written. But Prof. Diamond's scientific edifice stands on the usual moralistic foundation. He makes very plain his opposition to "racism." Unlike Stephen Jay Gould, Prof. Diamond is too honest to cheat for ideological reasons, but he so dislikes "racists" that he can't separate his desire to refute them from the happy feeling of actually having done so. I honestly wonder how Prof. Diamond would react if forced to deal with the detailed evidence of race differences that has been accumulating for the past half century.
Rating: 
Summary: Science and History Fused, and Racism Debunked
Review: This is one of the better books in the last ten years. It is best understood as a subtle and profound attack on racism. One of the traditional justifications for racism is the assertion that some peoples had slower technological progress than others because they were not as bright, not as industrious, or both. Diamond explodes the myth with an analysis of food sources and disease distribution which left some peoples in a better postion than others based on the physical and biological circumstances of where they lived. This book is not for those with a slender knowledge of either biology or history, but for those with even an average knowledge of both, it is profound and fascinating.
Rating:
Summary: How geography shaped history. Or did it?
Review: With so many reviews already available, there is no need to repeat main arguments of this extremely interesting and well-written book. I'll rather concentrate on several of the most controversial issues. It is impossible to write a comprehensive treatise on world history, which will not induce attacks on political and cultural grounds. Some critics blamed J. Diamond for advocacy of pure geographic determinism, that "culture doesn't matter" and so on. I think it is unjustified. He considered foremost the time before and during emergence of agricultural and, consequently, sedentary societies, not today's civilizations. When human population consisted of small bands and, later, tribes, their development was determined by environmental factors. Indeed, evidence from all continents suggests similarities in the emergence of domesticated plants, agriculture, and village life, starting about 10.000 years ago. The difference was in speed of this process - faster in places of benign environment, where food resources allowed denser population, slower in more adverse areas. As human societies grew in complexity and technological and cultural sophistication, more nonlinear interactions and feedbacks emerged. Then geography had likely to become less of a decisive factor, at least in a relatively straightforward way described by J. Diamond. Moreover, history of the last few thousand years didn't resemble anything like the linear ascendance of the Western Europe. Western civilization achieved its dominance right at the moment when advances in ship-building and navigational technology brought the era of "great geographic discoveries" starting in 1492, which led to colonization of much of the world. Had seafaring been more developed before, during the Islamic dominance of several centuries earlier, or had China not scrapped its fleet and long-range exploration plans in early XV century, the world history of the last five hundred years could be very different. Some readers took issue with the author's statement that "average Guinean is probably smarter than average westerner". It is indeed highly debatable, even with the notion of "smartness" very different for different people. However, if one puts aside cheap chauvinism, one can see that there is something to this statement. A Guinean lives in a very diverse natural environment. He constantly needs to actively process (in contrast to, say, watching TV) large amount of information relevant to his essential survival and well-being. Another reason is that the Darwinian "survival of the fittest" mechanism still works in tribal New Guinea, while amenities of the modern consumer society allow procreation of relatively unattractive, inept and stupid people. Primary enabling factors of early civilization developments was the availability of domesticable plants and animals. Interestingly, the role of animals, as follows from the author's discourse, was much greater in this respect. Indeed, domesticated plants number many hundreds species, with each major agricultural regions having at least several developed crops. In contrast, large domesticable animals good for field work and transportation, are much rare. American continent and much of Africa didn't have suitable animals at all. Domesticated animals not only provide muscle power, but also make humans adaptable to germs. This allowed expansion into new regions with different germ population, which was one of the crucial factors in rapid conquering of Latin American territory by Spain. In Jared Diamond view the ultimate cause of Eurasian (and later European) domination is the extent of the East-West axis - largest for Eurasia and much smaller for other continents. Latitude stretch of Eurasian landmass certainly did play a role, but it is likely overstated by the author. Total East-West extent of the Eurasia was probably irrelevant, and the history of Sumerian and Egyptian empires would likely have been similar even without the Europe west of Greece and the Asia east of Persia. The crucial property was the Mediterranean and the Middle East juncture (Fertile Crescent and neighboring coastal territories). Was it latitudinal dominance or a fractal coastline? The role of a long, winding coastline could be a very significant one. It provides a lot of beachfront and river estuary water resources, temperate seashore climate, great variety of flora and fauna from sea level to mountains nearby. All this ensures richness of resources sustaining high-density human population. At the same time such topography allows easy interaction, trade and exchange between settlements, while preserving pockets of diversity and preventing easy conquering and destruction by a dominant tribe, unlike in areas of open mid-continent plains. Indeed, it is evident in this book that the Fertile Crescent and two-river delta in China are the only places having this combination of climate, topography and biological resources. To stress the importance of geographic factors and in particular availability of domesticable animals, the author mentions a curious fact - the absence of wheeled transport on American continent. To J. Diamond the failure of relatively advanced Mesoamerican cultures to develop wheeled transportation was due to the lack of any domesticated animals, which could be used to power them. Indeed, he argues, they had used wheels in toys, therefore they didn't lack technological creativity in this respect. I disagree with the author on this issue. There is a huge difference between a toy wheel - something rotating on an axis - and a working tool for transportation. The latter needs much higher degree of sophistication than many other contemporary technologies. A wheel even in a simple wheelbarrow must be very round and well-balanced on an axle, have a very sturdy and low-friction axle and hub, firm but light and flexible stress-distributing spokes and stress-tolerant outer edge. A transportation carriage in addition to that needs to have a sophisticated amortization system for a smooth ride, and a suitable harness for the animal. Manufacturing an inexpensive, sturdy and reliable wheel for hauling and transportation was a very tough challenge. Still, the question of why Mesoamerican cultures hadn't developed a wheel requires further scrutiny. Perhaps the reason was related to available material technologies and quality of soil less suitable to build roads.
Rating:
Summary: Now this is my kind of technical book!
Review: I have never reviewed a book before, but wanted to put my 2 cents in for this one. Being a voracious reader, but little more than a high school education, it was a pleasure to read a scientific book that I could understand. Archeology and paleontology has always fascinated me but most books on these subjects leave a lot of unanswered questions. "Guns, Germs and Steel" has answered some of them. I have underlined sentances, written in the margins, made lists of more questions. The origin of cultures, yes, even races, languages and technology are all addressed in this book. Now I know where we have been and can catch a glimmer of where we might be going. For us lay persons, this book turns technicalese into plain, understanable english.
Rating: 
Summary: Convincingly argued, but marred by bias
Review: According to Diamond, four factors are responsible for all historical developments: 1) availability of potential crops and domestic animals, 2) the orientation of continental axis to facilitate the spread of agriculture, 3) transfer of knowledge between continents, and 4) population size. Diamond, therefore, argues that all differences between the world's societies can be described by geography. However, there's something a bit fishy about his logic. At one point he rejects a potential theory simply because it is not geography-based. Classic circular reasoning. In that Diamond conveniently discards any evidence that indicates that factors other than geography might have influenced the course of history, he is essentially ensuring, sight unseen, that he will arrive at the desired conclusion. Diamond states that "those four sets of factors [above] constitute big environmental differences that can be quantified objectively and that are not subject to dispute." Fair enough, but what *is* subject to dispute is that there might be some other factors at work. Thomas Sowell in Race and Culture does a good job of developing the thesis that the exchange of information among European cultures, facilitated by Europe's plentiful navigable rivers, was the key to Europe's technological and economic rise. David Landes in the Wealth and Poverty of Nations attributes China's conscious decision in the 1400's to isolate itself form other nations as the key event (decision) that caused it to lose it's technological advantage and fall behind Europe. (Diamond briefly touches on 15th Century China in the final chapter, but manages to boil this as well down to an accident of geography.) This is unfortunate, because the book contains a wealth of excellent material which is excellently explained. Many of the core causes which Diamond explores ring very true, and his points are persuasively argued. The connection between the development of agriculture and the subsequent unequal rise of military capability worldwide is very convincing. But convincing though they may be, reading these theories one can't shake the sneaking suspicion that Diamond is selectively presenting evidence which he's has found to support his previously drawn conclusion, and neglecting evidence which runs counter. Diamond plants these doubts through his sometimes-careless prose. Consider the following statement, which he includes in the introduction to his chapter on the rise of food production: "My fellow farmhands were, for the most part, tough whites whose normal speech featured strings of curses, and who spent their weekdays working so that they could devote their weekends to squandering their weeks' wages in the local saloon. Among the farmhands, though, was a member of the Blackfoot Indian tribe named Levi, who behaved very differently from the coarse miners - being polite, gentle, responsible, sober, and well spoken" I thought for a moment that I'd wandered into the script for "Dances With Wolves." Note that had this statement been turned on it's head (had he, for example, recounted an anecdote about "fire-water drinking Indian drunks" or "lazy black layabouts") my instincts, obviously, would immediately warn me that the author's biases might be influencing how he chooses to present the evidence. I myself am a Black American, I'm all too painfully aware that we've had to wade through some pretty grim stuff penned by authors clutching at straws to support their racist white supremacist views of the world. In this case Diamond does the reverse by aiming his negative bias towards Caucasians, but if I'm truly interested in unbiased science then my skepticism should remain the same. That I lead with these criticisms is evidence of my disappointment in what could have been an excellent book, and indeed much of it *is* indeed excellent. This is a book that taught me much and has indeed changed my view of world history in many ways. I do recommend this book - the details are good and many of the theories ring true, but in the same breath I would warn against accepting Diamond's conclusions in their entirety without a bit of skepticism. In summary, Guns, Germs, and Steel contains an important feature which David Landes's Wealth and Poverty of Nations so conspicuously lacks: a grand unifying theory which links the disparate growth rates of diverse societies worldwide. But Diamond's tidy conclusion that world history is simply a deterministic result of geography and nothing else is not entirely satisfying, especially in that it might cause us to be complacent about the future. I accept that accidents of geography have had a huge effect on mankind, and Diamond convincingly argues this. But culture and human decisions do matter. Diamond argues that human ingenuity is simply the result of the accident of having a larger population from which to draw innovations - but societies that internalize this philosophy do so at their considerable peril.
Rating:
Summary: Written by the pound
Review: The thesis is quite interesting, but Diamond uses ten words when he could use one, and of those ten words five of them are either "I", "me", "mine". I can't believe this book won a Pulitzer. I was under the impression that the *actual words* counted, not the actual *word count*.
Rating:
Summary: Stunning Grasp of History
Review: History has never come alive as well as in this book. I've read numerous books on history including Conquests & Cultures, but I've never read so stunning a discussion as this one. His life experiences and first hand accounts throughout the globe tied in with other's research made for a compelling and well thought out book.
Rating:
Summary: Incredible
Review: This is the best history book I have ever read. It tackles a monumental task to explain how some societies became dominant over the entire course of human existance. The theories do begin to break down when they get into the past two centuries, but up until then (most of the book's content) they are very persuasive. Each chapter is written as a fairly coherent whole. You can read the history of writing in one chapter and then decide to backtrack and read about the history of plant domestication in another chapter. Some of the last chapters that told the history of specific geographical regions were a bit repetative of earlier material in the book, but still it was an extremely engaging read.
|
