Rating: 
Summary: The Power of the Press Overlooked!
Review: An interesting read that misses, in my opinion, one of the more fundamental reasons for the rise of Europe versus the other cultures - THE PRINTED WORD! Ironic that a "book" is written that overlooks the value of "books" in cultural development. There was a good reason why "Time" magazine, in naming the most influential people in the last millenium named Guttenberg as #1. China, the Middle East, and South Asia all had well defined advanced cultures to Europe. One can trace the beginning of the divergence to the establishment of the printing press and the mechanical reproduction of words. Through this process alone came an explosion in scientific inquiry and discovery, as well as the development of an educated ruling class. China, Middle East, and South Asia societies remained dynastic based on the monopoly of the written word in the hands of these dynasts. Africa, Asia, and the the Americas remained for the most part agrarian and tribal where experience was based by word of mouth with all that interpretation and memory flaws have still to offer mankind. There is certainly much in what Diamond has to say, but one must look at the issue of "conquest" when one thinks of "divergence". Was - or is? - man fundamentally different between Asians, Africans and Europeans? To quote Shylock: "If you prick them, do they not bleed? If you tickle them, do they not laugh?" What, then, suddenly happened to provide Europeans with the means to conquest? Advance in technology over both the Middle Eastern and Chinese cultures were only attained by the spread of knowledge, and this through the invention of movable type that provided for the exponential expansion of knowledge. And this is where Diamond is wrong on the comparison of the people of New Guinea and America; America is based on a learned society through the printed word. That is why America landed on the moon and New Guinea still hasn't gotten off the ground. The books is, nonetheless, fascinating in drawing many themes together in a coherent whole. Indeed, without the skill Diamond has shown in doing this, none of the rest of we reviewers would have been able to come up with the criticism we have in pointing out deficiencies. It, too, is a function of the intellectual development of the West - as is this internet - that has provided for the core cause of the dominance of the West. As we've seen from just the 20th Century - esp. in China and India today! - when knowledge is disseminated in the form of the printed word, cultural gaps narrow to nothing. Nothing is more indicative of this than the history of Japan since Commodore Perry "opened" them up in 1854 to where they are today. This, truly, is the power of the press that Diamond overlooked.
Rating: 
Summary: Old theme presented on a larger stage
Review: That geography and ecology were a major determinant of human history is nothing new. However, Diamond presented the thesis in a way that is sweeping in scope and coherent in logic. For those unfamiliar with the theme, it should be an interesting read. For those who have been exposed to this kind of research, the book has left something to be desired. I found the writing style of the author to be a little ponderous, making certain passages difficult to grasp, unless the reader concentrate on the long sentences and the author's particular way of putting a sentence together. The book is repetitive on its major points. For example, that the emergence of food production is the single most important factor in human history is belabored at least 20 times in the book. More seriously, I found the book to be a little unbalanced. I am ready to accept that the author's view of environmental determinism is broadly valid. However, explicitly or implicitly, the author consistently denies that racial differences played any role in the vast disparity between civilizations. The most he came to acknowledge the obvious fact is to grant that within a continent (read race), there are groups that are more innovative than others. If this is true, it is hard to see why, with the humanity taken as a whole, some races are not more innovative than others, in a well defined narrow context. I am not implying racial differences are a major factor. I repeat that I agree with Diamond's view that geography and ecology were probably far more important. However, this does not mean some slight difference in racial characteristics (even if shaped by environmental factors) has not played any significant role at any time in history. To hide this issue under the rug is not what scholarship is about.
Rating: 
Summary: Essential Reading for Everyone
Review: I loved this book! It starts at the beginning presenting a history of human evolution that rings true for me. The book is divided into different subject areas all designed to support the theory that the Eur-Asian continent provided white men with significant advantages over folks on continents that are taller than they are wide. The book includes the progression of man from hunter-gatherers to farming, the qualities that make a good domestic animal (cow), the origins of the written word, etc. He supports his theories with an abundance of research which at times caused me to think "I'm sold. Let's move on." Overall it was an easy read and the information was valuable on so many levels.
Rating:
Summary: This book isn't for people who have an axe to grind.
Review: This book was originally recommened to me by a colleague - a PhD in environmental toxicology and statistics - who said she was intrigued by Diamond's thesis but found the reading "too heavy going" for her. I'm so glad that I kept with it past the first few chapters, because it's a book that rewards the diligent reader with remarkable and provocative answers to the question: "Why are we modern humans one way and not another?" Remarkable and Provocative. It is remarkable how Diamond wields competence in technical fields as diverse and widely separated one from another as linguistics and agriculture, or sociology and animal husbandry. He draws from what appears (to this layman, anyway) to be a sizable swath of modern academic thought in the fields of history, anthropology, horticulture, genetics, lingusitics, sociology, and archeology to make his points. Even more remarkable, in my opinion, is the extent to which Diamond never swerves in guiding the narrative of the book as if he secretly needed to grind one side or another of some particular dogmatic "axe." Diamond may be the most refershingly honest and starightforward academician writing today; particularly because he doesn't appear to have much of a covert agenda. Provocative and Remarkable. In the end, what is more provocative even than Diamond's thesis is the underlying simplicity of the concepts themselves: continental geogrpahy is the dominant determinant of long-term societal development; original genetic diveristy (both plants and animals) at the continental level outweighs most human efforts to engineer lasting changes to societies. I had the feeling after reading Diamond's book that, "Yeah, I could have figured that out myself if I'd thought about it a lot." Of course that's silly; I couldn't have even scratched the surface of the puzzle that Diamond tries to crack. But that's the simple beauty of Diamond's thought: after being lead on an enormoulsy entertaining journey through man's history on virtually every continent, one is left with the sense that: "Hey, things do fit toegether after all and they really do make pretty good sense. It's for good reason that we moderns are where we are today." Maybe equally provocative is the fact that Diamond resists the urge to climb onto a soapbox (or behind a pulpit) and interpret his conclusions in terms of what modern man should do with them to solve modern problems. Spare me! ... and there you go, Diamond does just that.
Rating: 
Summary: Inconclusive
Review: While this is an interesting book - it has no end. It is as though the writer was afraid to offend anyone and, while interesting points are made about civilizations and accessibility, it failed to state with any opinion how this reflects on modern society(ies). As race and cultural clashes our a part of everyday life, it would have been far more interesting to bring this research forward to a useful conclusion.
Rating:
Summary: The missing link between Darwin and Skinner
Review: UCLA biologist Jared Diamond presents a wonderfully coherent argument setting the foundation for a truly "hard science" view of the behavioral History of human populations. The cornerstone of his position are the principles of Variation and Selection, first applied by Charles Darwin to the expression of biological traits of species and later by B.F. Skinner to the behavior of individuals, each birthing respectively the fields of Evolutionary Biology and Behavior Analysis. Perhaps even without knowing it, the author has bridged the gap between those two fields to the extent that a unified framework for understanding complex systems now seems to be entering maturity by creating a new precedent for the applicability of Selectionism. Diamond translates this framework almost flawlessly to the problem of scientifically explaining historic events. One example of the profundity of his approach is his explanation for why Europe instead of China, despite their shared Eurasian advantages, became the dominant global influence from the 15th century onward. The geography of Europe is sufficiently disjointed that political unification of the area is difficult and impractical allowing for a higher degree of Variation in political stances among the various political entities of the region. China, however, has a river and canal system extensive and navigable enough that it became politically unified very early in its history. The implication in the latter case is that political unification leads to a homogeneity in its characteristics at any given point in time, reducing regional Variation of a population's behavioral characteristics substantially. Consequently, when the eunuch ruler of China was deposed in the early 15th century, the decision of his successors was to undo the technological and maritime advances he had supported. Water clocks were smashed and the navy was scrapped. Because China was a unified political entity (due to its vast river system), diffusion of this new anti-technology characteristic was wide and swift, effectively stalling progress throughout the entire region. This is a prime example of how concrete geographic variables give rise to the topography of a population's behavior which in turn dictates what variants are available to be selected for. Jared Diamond's Guns, Germs, and Steel is an innovative work and is undoubtedly only the beginning in what will surely be a slow and tedious revolution in the way we view History. The paradigm of Selectionism operating on the behavior of populations has a long road ahead of it because it basically amounts to the unpopular and unsavory philosophy of "Geographic Determinism." Just as Darwinian evolution has been vehemently resisted within some religious circles and Skinnerian behaviorism resisted by mainstream Psychology, Diamond's masterpiece will take some time before being widely accepted by the general population, although its parsimony will bear it through. This classic book belongs on every persons' shelf right next to The Origin of Species and The Behavior of Organisms.
Rating:
Summary: I bet this guy would rule at Civilization II
Review: I found Guns, Germs & Steel full of profound insight into human prehistory and history. Diamond's overriding thesis is that accidents of geography are among the chief root causes in why civilizations in different parts of the world achieved varying levels in different factors important for societal survival and competitiveness - factors such as guns, germs and steel. This gets much more involved and convincing than I had thought of on first impression. For instance, one of the first factors enabling greater population growth was the domestication of cereals, which depended on having access to wild cereal plants predisposed for successful domestication and nutritive value. That access in turn depended largely on how great a contiguous area of similar climate was available. In that regard, Eurasia had a vast advantage over sub-Saharan Africa and the Americas. The domestication of cereals is thought to have taken place independently in the Fertile Crescent, with wheat and barley, and in China, with millet on the Yellow River and rice on the Yangtze River. Meanwhile, the Americas were so lacking in a decent cereal that the natives around southern Mexico domesticated corn, which had to change a great deal more than its wild ancestor, and which even then remains nutritively inferior to wheat, with its significant protein content. Meanwhile New Guinea is thought to have developed agriculture on its own as well, and domesticated sugarcane, but simply had no option of a cereal or good plant protein source to cultivate. On it goes, into domesticable animals, developing epidemic germs that evolved from germs affecting the those domesticated animals, and simply having the great contiguous stage of Eurasia in which inventions and ideas could disseminate from a vast pool of experience. Diamond emphasizes the falsehood of the common rationale of racism, that historical differences in hallmarks of civilization are due to differences in inate ability between different ethnic groups. Instead, any redistribution of our ancestors ten thousand years ago among the different parts of the Earth would likely have led to the inhabitants of the same areas developing similarly more sophisticated civilizations and similar competitive advantages, based on geography, rather than on the remarkably little genetic diversity there is between different human populations. He also emphasizes the historical universality, if tragedy, of tilted competitive readiness between interacting societies leading to epidemic, subjugation, and sometimes annihilation of the less competitive group. Far from the sort of view expressed by George Carlin's tirade against blue-eyed invaders, ethnic displacement is not a sin unique to Europeans, but also took place in the invasion of the Chatham Islands by the Maori of New Zealand, by repeated invasions of southeast Asia and the Pacific islands by natives of southern China, of southern China by northern China, of the Congo and Kalahari areas of Africa by Bantu Africans originating from what is now eastern Nigeria and Cameroon, and even of the ancient Middle East by Ethiopians, in the origin of the Semites - both Jews and Arabs included. Tragic aspects of human history are easier to remedy when their reality is better understood. Diamond seems ambivalent on the "progress" of civilization - as he insists on putting in quotation marks. He sets forth convincingly how large-scale societal structure is an absolutely inevitable consequence of high population density, and frequently characterizes it as the rise of a parasite class of leaders, bureaucrats, and priests who leach off the productive capacity of the food producers and make large-scale war possible. On the other hand, he characterizes - again, convincingly - stone age cultures, including the few remaining today and the ones that included all of humanity in prehistory, as being dominated by violence between and within the tribe, claiming that the two most prevalent causes of death in pre-civilized cultures are tribal warfare and homicide. With that perspective, he indicates organized society's greatest strength as its ability to deter war and violence through military strength and effective law enforcement and administration of justice. Diamond's quest is to make history a true historical science, on par with geology and astronomy. Unfortunately, he detracts from his proclamation of this agenda in the last chapter by launching an ill-informed denigration of the physical sciences as uninterested in purpose and function or in root causes, which was enough to break the appearance of omniscience created by his earlier mastery of so many disparate fields - he is apparently an active researcher in both physiology and evolutionary biology - and indicate that there are after all some scholarly fields about which he is ignorant. He also admits that his emphasis on geography as the prime driver of human civilizations has no power to explain some historical quirks, such as the historical voluntary abandonment by entire societies of fantastic competitive advantages, including the abandonment of pottery by the Polynesians, of guns by the Japanese, and of ocean-circumnavigating fleets by the Chinese. But despite these shortcomings, this book could represent another example of Edward O. Wilson's Consilience in making dramatic new progress in a field by synthesizing learning from disparate fields together. I tend to see the hand of Wilson everywhere, but the connection is too appropriate not to point out. For that is the program that Diamond follows, drawing on advances in archaeology, linguistics, and especially genetics, subjected to new applications of analysis and logic, in synthesizing a study of history based on analytical patterns of causation. This study provides wonderful dividends of insight into the grand sweep of human affairs. Finally of course, I have to pose the question: if the ultimate success or failure of any human society throughout history is consistently decided on the geographical resources available to it, more than any other factor: what does that have to say about the first-ever opportunity of our own civilization to colonize other worlds away from Earth?
Rating:
Summary: Brilliant, eclectic panorama of the past 13,000 years
Review: This intriguing and expansive book gathers knowledge from a number of fields (archaeology, anthropology, ecology, evolutionary biology, horticulture, and more). Its novelty is not in the details, any of which can be found in other books, but in the synthesis of 13,000 years' worth of human history. Diamond argues that many (but not all) of "the striking differences between the long-term histories of peoples of the different continents have been due not to innate differences in the people themselves but to differences in their environments." Diamond covers so much material that any attempt at summary would be imprecise. The sections I found most compelling dealt with agriculture and animal husbandry--two topics that would have probably induced sleep if covered by another author. For example, he presents the fascinating background that the dominant five "large" domesticated mammals--sheep, goats, cattle, pigs, and horses--originated in central Eurasia (and that no easily domesticated, large mammals were available, for example, to North Americans or Australians); that these animals include the world's only widespread "beasts of burden," giving their human handlers additional advantages in mobility and farming; and that most of the world's lethal diseases resulted from proximity to the barnyard, gradually providing Eurasians with immunity to illnesses that later wiped out entire societies upon first exposure. The minor mammals (camels, llamas, reindeer) were too limited by geography and climate to affect the course of history outside their confines. As for zebras, bears, giraffes, tigers, hippos--to this day, nobody has been able to domesticate them. While this seems intuitively obvious, no writer has so clearly and irrefutably connected the dots, showing how access to these animals gave early chiefdoms an insurmountable advantage over those human societies without them and allowed them to develop surpluses and commerce that supported the world's most enduring civilizations. Comments made by the author's critics, while few in number, nearly prevented me from reading this book and need to be addressed so other readers won't be similarly discouraged. A few readers seem offended by Diamond's self-mocking and somewhat tongue-in-cheek assertion (in the Introduction) that the natives of New Guinea have certain advantages that make them arguably more "intelligent." Yet these commentators are willfully ignoring the context: Diamond admits that "New Guineans tend to perform poorly at tasks that Westerners have been trained to perform since childhood," yet he is quite aware of how "stupid I look to New Guineans when I'm with them in the jungle." That is, if one defines "intelligence" not as the knowledge needed to use a computer or write a book review but, rather, as the ability to survive in the wild ("following a jungle trail" or identifying poisonous mushrooms, to cite two of the author's examples), then the New Guineans win hands down. To make a similarly lighthearted argument: when the house of cards we call "civilization" is threatened by the least misfortune (economic recession, power blackout, bad weather, the death of a British princess), a frightening number of otherwise "intelligent" people, instead of relying on their wits and survival skills, rush straight for their therapists. Likewise, anyone who accuses Diamond of "geographic determinism" cannot have read the epilogue, in which he clearly rejects such an extreme position. He admits that individuals and cultures--and, for that matter, pure chance--can also influence history, but "that some environments provide more starting materials, and more favorable conditions for utilizing inventions, then do other environments." The author's argument is unambiguous: while culture, as well as individual inventors and rulers, certainly influence history on a microcosmic level (during spans of centuries or millennia), there are larger factors, such as geography and ecology, at play when human history is considered as a whole over the last 13,000 years. Diamond is looking at the forest rather than the trees; thus, to fault the author for ignoring such factors as religion and politics is off the mark, since such belief systems didn't exist in anything remotely resembling their present form for most of the period under discussion. Furthermore, to identify human advances in terms of culture still fails to explain how differing cultures arose in the first place. Finally, and more easily dismissed, are those hecklers who howl "political correctness." Such critics seldom identify flaws in the author's arguments or even tell us what they insinuate by this increasingly meaningless term. Since the book's span is so sweeping and since many of Diamond's hypotheses are offered tentatively (as suggestions for a new "science" of history), there are bound to be statements or implications that may eventually prove inaccurate or too simplistic. I strongly suspect, however, that his overarching thesis will withstand the test of time; at the very least, "Guns, Germs, and Steel" will inspire open-minded thinkers to consider human history--in its broadest sense--in a whole new light.
Rating:
Summary: A great foundation of understanding, however, with flaws.
Review: Let me start by prefacing with "I enjoyed this book." It was interesting and informative, however, it is not as Earth shattering as some here may want you to think, and it is not as "reverse-racism" or lacking in fact as others here may lead you to believe. It is somewhere in between. Jared Diamond attempts to refute racist theories of why each society became what it was, and why people of Eurasia, specifically of Europe, became the dominant people, while other aboriginal people such as Native Americans or Africans did not. He of course is a geographic determinist that believes ultimate causes are extremely important, and not just proximate causes. For example, Europeans had guns, steel, and evolved germs thanks to densely populated towns that lived in close proximity with domesticated animals, and germs evolved to fit humans from these animals. The humans that survived became resistant. Food production was much more efficient with the advent of plant domestication, and thus many people could be sedentary, become full time soldiers, scientists, and to be able set up organized government. The ultimate causes to these proximate factors were of course plant domestication and animal domestication, which because of native wild species that were able to be domesticated, the east-west axis dominant axis of Eurasia promoting the spread of domesticated crops and animals, as well as domesticable animals that reside in Eurasia all helped lead up to things such as guns, germs, and steel. Basically, Diamond makes a case for environments being the major factor in why Europe ended up the most powerful continent. He is extremely convincing in it as well. I suggest anyone that is interested in the evolution of human society to read this book. However, I have a handful of complaints. Diamond places too much importance in ultimate causes and not proximate causes. While I agree environment was the major factor in the development in societies, things such as scientific inquiry and mercantilism are what catapulted Europe to become the most powerful continent in the world. I do not attribute the evolution of such things to the greatness of one race over another (as countries such as China, and much of the middle east were inventive in earlier years), but credit must be given where credit is due, and this is mainly because of cultural differences. Not race, and not environment. The Europeans may have developed this first, but many other societies did not adopt these strategies until far later, and some even today have not. That is attributed to the idiosyncrasies of those individual peoples, which thanks to individuals promoting certain cultures came about. Also, Diamond's assertion that New Guinean people are on the average smarter than Americans, and that stone age people were probably more intelligent than current people can be argued to an extent, however, I believe that argument is offensive and very flawed. I do not consider hunter gatherers more intelligent than sedentary people, nor do I believe it is vice versa. I have yet to see a convincing argument from either side in showing that increased intelligence gives you an evolutionary advantage over others, thus producing more offspring and increasing allele frequency in the population. Also, the nature vs nurture argument is not yet proved in either aspect, however, there is reason to believe that a gene on chromosome #6 has to do with intelligence, and perhaps reason to believe there are more genes of this nature. Evolutionary speaking, it is hard to say that hunter gatherers, farmers, or people from ancient times or moderm times are actually selecting for this gene. Once humans evolved to what is considered the anatomically correct cro-magnom, I have not seen any evidence of increased evolution in intelligence. Why assert New Guinean's may be on the average smarter than Americans, when a case really cannot be made for either? It is evident that environment shaped the early beginning's of society. But because of a handful of idividuals, the courses of different societies had been changed, and this trascended the environment. This is not because of a race's innate intelligence over another. Perhaps by random chance that certain individuals were born and instilled with certain values and teachings, and then subsequently advanced society in both social aspects as well as technological aspects. I cannot deny the sedentary vs hunter/gatherer societies as well as his tribal/chiefdom/state arguments when it concerns the development of political organization and the advent of technology. I can though, say that the proximate causes came about not just because of environment, but also because of the genius or uniqueness of certain individuals throughout history, born by random luck and shaped by the culture they live in. So if you want to read Guns, Germs, and Steel - expect a book that elucidates many points by inference, but is not necessarily scientifict fact that is widely accepted. Diamond lays out a foundation for the origins of societies, which he does an excellent job of doing, but in relatively recent times, after feudalism in Europe, he does not give enough credit to culture, individual idiosyncrasies, religion, and other such proximate causes derived from ultimate causes. Read this book for understanding of earlier societies and how they evolved, but do not read it for sweeping generalizations of all societies throughout time, because many of Diamond's assertions are easily contested.
Rating:
Summary: One of the Better Histories of Human Civilization
Review: Historians generally have an inferiority complex: history is part of the humanities, and for centuries historians have tried to make their subject matter more scientific. This is the first book which actually succeeds. It is not your typical history book as it is based on the sciences of ethnobotany, ethnobiology and genetics. It attempts to address the question of *why* has Euroasian civilization been so successful. The book demolishes all racist arguments, i.e., that European civilization has reached its dominating position as a result of innate abilities of its citizens. Instead, Professor Diamond convincingly argues that it is the prevalence of domesticable plants and animals that are the core factors leading to the development of civilization, and from thence the guns, germs and steel of the title. The only reason I did not give this book five stars is because it bogs down a bit in the later chapters; Diamond tries too hard to support his theses which have already been adequately presented.
|
