Rating: 
Summary: Magnificent cross-disciplinary synthesis
Review: In a world of myopic specialisation, here's a monument to informed generalism - and a book that makes both geography and liberalism respectable again. For Diamond argues cogently that chance geographical factors have strongly influenced the distribution of wealth and poverty in the world today. He believes, essentially, that the people of the Fertile Crescent, China and Western Europe were given the best opportunities to domesticate plants and animals - grains with harvestable seeds, animals which could be herded, and so on. They also had the best chance to build up resistance to diseases.The simplicity of the book's key ideas has no doubt aided its popularity. And Diamond downplays questions such as the Chinese Mystery - why did European prevail over that of China, which possesed a clear technological lead up to 1300 or so. Here Diamond simply offers up in brief explanation the new and credible orthodoxies popularised by Joel Mokyr's "The Lever of Riches" (a book of similarly detailed narrative style) and David Landes's "The Wealth and Poverty of Nations". Diamond's story is the story not of Britain's advantage over Shanghai, but of Eurasia's advantage over Africa, Australia and America. And in truth this is story enough for one book. Some on the political and cultural right seem annoyed that Diamond is undercutting conservative stances on race and culture. There's more than a little irony here: 20 years ago Diamond's thesis would have been considered deplorably right-wing, neglecting the malign influence of European colonialism and neo-colonialism as documented by Marx and his successors. Now that the Berlin Wall's demolition has transformed Marxsts and post-modernists into fringe players, we're finally able to start an intelligent, nuanced discussion of global history.
Rating: 
Summary: Interesting and Informative (audio version)
Review: If you don't expect any book to be completely without mistakes, and you don't feel any book you buy must be the be-all-end-all on a subject, you will certainly enjoy Guns, Germs, and Steel. I found it fascinating to learn the details of the accidental domestication of crops (e.g. how poison wild almonds became delicious edible almonds); about the "big 14" -- the few ancient animals that were suitable for domestication, and why so many other species were not suitable; about diseases from the microbes' point of view; and so on. I had heard the basics before, but the details in this book and the way they are presented make it worth the purchase price. (I got the audiobook version from the library, but plan to buy the softcover). The reader isn't bad. Although his intonation can be strange at times, he has the ideal voice for lengthy works (11 x 90 min) -- low pitched, unhurried and not overly dramatic. Who cares whether or not this book is too politically correct? Don't be discouraged by a top 1000 reviewer. This book is not perfect, but it is rich in information and ideas, and I really enjoyed hearing it.
Rating:
Summary: A Major Addition to Our Knowledge of Human Development
Review: Jared Diamond's Pulitzer-Prize Winning book has drawn a great deal of attention, and sparked a huge controversy. Part of the problem is that neither side in the debate really understand what the books purpose is, and what the limits to the theory are. Diamond tries to explain human development in terms of structural-environmental factors. Most important among these are the development of agriculture through cultiveable grains and domesticeable animals. The rise of agriculture leads to tremendous advantages for those societies, in terms of numbers, inventions, manpower, disease-resistance, and weapons. Those societies then go out and conquer large areas, especially in the case of Europe since 1500. There are limits to this theory, however. While it explains the broadest patterns and outlines of history, why civilizations rose where they did, and why they conquered other peoples, it does not explain the nature of each civilization. Certainly variables like religion, culture, ethnicity, and the like come into play in explaining the sub-set of characteristics displayed by different societies. They may even explain larger phenomena, but they alone cannot account for why civilzations rose up in the first place. The real problem with this theory has been with its supporters. It has been misused by politically correct leftists whose goal it is to prove that all societies and people are equal, and even the same. This is not the purpose of the theory. Believing in the propositions put forth here does not mean that one cannot allow for other factors to enter in explaining human development. It just means that they are not as important as the ones described by Diamond.
Rating: 
Summary: Interesting, but fatally flawed
Review: Diamond labors hard to explain that geography explains all the differences in societies. He's like someone arguing that a person's lifespan depends only on nutrition and then supports the premise with countless stories of people who ate well and lived a long life, and of people with bad nutrition who died young. The presenter neglects any stories with factors like genetics, lifestyle, accidents, wars, or diseases. In a likewise manner, Diamond gives us a myopic view of the importance of geography, plants, and animals in history. He seems more intent on promoting a philosophy of historic racial equality than exploring all the facts. Diamond seems to say that "your ancestors are neither good or bad, but geography makes them so". For example, he states that civilization flourishes in areas with broad East-West land masses which encourage sharing of plants and animals developed for the same clime. Yet in the Americas the greatest civilizations, the Aztecs and Mayans, appeared near the narrowest point of the continent. They built amazing structures, developed astonishing mathematics, and achieved literacy without sharing plants or animals in the same latitude with far flung neighbors. He postulates that the sharing of ideas, plants, and animals within the Americas were difficult due to the geography of the Isthmus of Panama and the prairies in North America. This does not ring true since the isthmus can be over come by a short boat trip and the continent was traversed Lewis and Clark (perhaps Montezuma just needed a scrappy Native American guide like Sacajawea). Diamond dismisses politics, religion, culture, individuals, and timing. For an example consider Cortez's victory over the Aztecs. Cortez's victory was not assured. Many elements had to be aligned for a few hundred Spaniards to overcome a mighty empire. The odds were really in Montezuma's favor. Even with horses, armor, and guns, the Aztecs were easily a match for Cortez. The Spanish armor was superfluous. According to Keegan, they even shed their heavy armor in favor of the native quilt vests. The firearms at that time were not quick to reload, so sheer numbers could have overwhelmed the Spanish. The Aztecs lost because of politics, religion, and individuals. The brutal politics and religion of the Aztecs made their subjects hate them. The Spanish were immediately supported with armies and food by the smaller nations like the Totonacs that hated the Aztecs for their cruelty. The insatiable appetite of the Aztec gods for human sacrifices insured that Cortez found ready allies. If either Montezuma or Cortez had been composed of slightly different temperaments the war could easily have gone the other way. Had Montezuma been more decisive, he could have had Cortez killed at the coast. Had Cortez not been so incredibly determined to take the country, he could have just returned to Spain with a load of the early gold presents sent to him. History is determined by far more than geography, plants, and animals. Culture, religion, individuals, politics, and timing all play important roles. My dear fellow readers, please *think* before blindly accepting Diamond's grossly incomplete view of history.
Rating: 
Summary: Answers to Big Questions
Review: I read Guns, Germs and Steal to get some answers as to why the world seems so dominated by what is essentially Western Europoean Culture. Why did a small minority of dirty white people wind up dominating the world through technology and disease? Jared Diamond, goes to great detail to explain how goegraphic happenstance gave one group of people the ability to colonize the world to the detriment of all the others. After reading Guns, Germs and Steal the answers seem so obvious. This book is a great read for a mind curious about some of the big questions about why the world turned out like it is. If the book has one drawback, it is the ecrutiating detail provided. For example, Diamond spends many pages describing the various species of wheat grown throughout the world. Though, he is correct in mentioning it, I found these sections of the book to be more detail than I wanted,and frankly, quite boring. This book is not a page turner, but an intellectual workout. Nevertheless, like a good workout it is for the results one does the excercise.
Rating:
Summary: Environmentalist thesis actually enriches hereditarianism.
Review: Jared Diamond, a physiology professor at UCLA, is a strict follower of the Stephen Jay Gould school of environmentalism. In this, his Pulitzer Prize reducing "Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies," he attributes European technology, influence, and efficiency, not to European ingenuity or genetics, but to plants, wildlife, and geography. Diamond also asserts (with a straight face) that all racial groups are of identical average intelligence--except for New Guineans fresh from the stone age who "in mental ability...are probably genetically innately superior to Westerners." (It's highly questionable to this reader whether Diamond actually believes a word of what he wrote in this book.) Prof. Diamond is no doubt right that a large industrial society cannot form without plentiful food, compliant animals and contact with outside areas. The descendants of a band of Europeans stranded on a Pacific atoll 5,000 years ago would not be building moon rockets today; a potential Newton would be too busy gathering coconuts to wonder why they fall. But it does not follow from this near-truism that just any human group with crops, animals and outside contacts will rise as high as European man--that, given these factors, civilization is automatic. It certainly does not follow that any two human groups will exploit these resources to precisely the same extent. In fact, different groups as they now exist plainly do not respond identically to identical inputs. The Japanese played no part in the creation of modern science, but once exposed to it they embraced it, and now lead the world in making cars, computers and other high-tech gadgets. Africans have been aware of European technology for just as long, but microchip firms have not sprung up in Kenya. Prof. Diamond replies that unlike Kenya, Japan can build on "a long history of literacy, metal machinery, and centralized government," ultimately traceable to flora, fauna and stimulatinmg ideas imported earlier. However, the "history" of any individual begins at birth, so Diamond's theory predicts that Kenyans reared in the west should be just as adept at technology as the average westerner. But we do not find this. Descendants of Africans have lived in the US for ten generations, and have been immersed in its culture (and unconnected with Africa) for at least five. Yet black contributions to technology remain negligible. As is well known, American blacks reared from infancy in middle-class white households show adult levels of IQ and scholastic achievement barely above the American black mean. Current members of different groups do not exploit resources, including knowledge, with equal efficiency, and there is no reason to lie to ourselves (unless we're former Republican Majority Leaders--in which case, the habit is unbreakable), thinking they did so in the past.
Rating:
Summary: A worthy book that dodges a tough question
Review: I thoroughly enjoyed this book. It provides a compelling, non-racist argument as to why the world's dominant culture arose on the Eurasian landmass. The book is worth reading simply for this reason. On the other hand, Mr. Diamond seems to dodge the more difficult question of why it was the European culture, rather than the Arabian or Asiatic, that came to the forefront - for all three had the same advantages according to Diamond's thesis. Still, this book is well written, interesting, informative, and a great conversation starter.
Rating:
Summary: This book is cool
Review: I find the book very comprehensive and easy to read. Mr Diamond does not try to hide under so called Christian Superiority, but lays bare all the scientific facts. His approach is way different from others on this topic. As other reviewers have pointed out that his conclusion is not new. But his way of taking you through all the clues of history is un-paralled. He wrote about touchy subjects like race without raising any dispute. Some has said that he has omitted religion and european zest for discovery in this book. Well, this is scientific book and not a Arabian Nights' Tales. In all, a superb book and must read for any student of history.
Rating:
Summary: Amazing
Review: Logically, but without being pendantic, Diamond addresses the critical issue of why western culture dominates the world. Starting from the observation that the people he observes in New Zealand are no less intelligent that those in more "developed" cultures, he formulates his theory. Marvelous.
Rating:
Summary: One half of the story of human civilization
Review: The basic premise of this book is that the global dominance of Western societies can be traced to geographic advantages at its roots, rather than to biological or social superiority. Jared Diamond presents a well documented, coherent case that Western civilization was predisposed to success by an abundance of food crops, domesticatable animals, and a geography that facilitated migration of these skills and people. He presents those points well, and if you have not encountered discussion of the effect of geography and natural biology on the growth and development of civilizations, this book will present the basic ideas to you in a clear, if a bit rambling, style.
Unfortunately, the author overplays his hand in several ways. This book explicitly aims to repudiate western civilization's claim to superiority. Much of the discussion is subordinated to this political aim, and as a result turns into a polemic against cultural arrogance, rather than attempting a balanced discussion of possible and likely effects. In the service of equalizing moral stature among all civilizations, we are told that western domination is only the result of incidental geographic circumstances. Western civilization is winning because the deck was stacked in its favor from the start, the author argues cogently - and therefore any superiority of its cultural institutions and traditions is only a "proximate cause" of success, and thus to be disregarded as secondary and unimportant. That last jump does not compute. Still, this is a good book, and an enjoyable read. Jared Diamond may be ignoring half of the story of civilization - cultural institutions, religion, the role of doctrine and tradition - but he presents his half well, if a bit over-zealously. Try to take the facts without the political payload, and you will benefit as well enjoy yourself.
|
