In response to Jed Link's review of this book, it's important to remember the following when considering such a broad topic as Jared Diamond attempts to explain: How is human history different for peoples on Earth? The answer is actually a part of the question: our environments shape our experience and eventually our historical destinies. For any of us to so foolish ignore the obvious truth that resources, environment and the diffusion of knowledge or trading of goods is to fly in the face o... (show more)

In response to Jed Link's review of this book, it's important to remember the following when considering such a broad topic as Jared Diamond attempts to explain: How is human history different for peoples on Earth? The answer is actually a part of the question: our environments shape our experience and eventually our historical destinies. For any of us to so foolish ignore the obvious truth that resources, environment and the diffusion of knowledge or trading of goods is to fly in the face of what makes us human and how we have been born into the society we now have thereby creating the possibility of 'human agency' in which to act.

Mr. Link has clearly not read (or not carefully enough) the body of evidence when he 'refutes' Mr. Diamond when by saying the author "ignores and rejects the implications of human evolution caused by different selective advantages for a farmer and a hunter-gatherer over the same span of time." This point was reiterated through multiple chapters of the book: hunter-gathers and farmers are no 'better off' than the other; what Mr. Diamond drives home so well is that because of the environmental conditions (not human agency), as well as the sociopolitical ones (such as the size and stratification of society) does a group choose farming or continue hunting-gathering. It's also important to know that these are not binary positions that societies occupy - 'farming' as we know it was a slow evolutionary process by humans to improve the chances of survival while hunting-gathering; whether or not bands of people became settled, farming societies rests on a variety of factors (many of which were very well explained with ample evidence in parts one and two of this book).

Mr. Link is right in one respect: history does not predict the future. I'm not sure if, when reading a history text, he expected to see astrological charts. History is just that. In regards to 'human agency', I would think that Mr. Link would agree that humans do not make decisions in a vacuum: our environment and society directly affect how decision are made. After all, how could have Pizarro ever had the notion of becoming a conquistador or sailing a massive ocean?

To answer his point about 'hypersensitivity' in regards to racism in this book, it's perhaps best to look in the mirror. Beyond the flagrant lie that Mr. Diamond "Over and over again... assures the reader that he is not racist (which he proves by explaining how he thinks native New Guineans are more intelligent than American Whites, a politically correct – albeit racist – contention." If the passage Mr. Link was referring to had been read in context, I would be impressed if someone even thought twice about the 'political correctness' of it. Comparing the intelligence of New Guineans to the ways in which Western peoples use their brains is not within driving distance of racism. To think otherwise, Mr. Link, would be hypersensitive.

History is an "exercise in salvage", Mr. Link. No longer can history be understood through settled on fact or propaganda - history, as Mr. Diamond shows, is is all an encompassing study involving economics, anthropology, sociology and (as Mr. Diamond proves) lots of science. You can read this book, as Mr. Link has done, with a closed mind, with the usual myths of the greatness of European men and be astonished that scientific evidence, when applied to volumes of history and anthropological study, creates a verifiable pattern - that the course of human events has been sculpted by our environment, physical or otherwise. (show less)

Apparently I will be the 2,279th review for Diamond's "Guns, Germs, and Steel", so any capsulizing of the book seems redundant. Otherwise I doubt that I am going to be able to add anything in commentary that hasn't already been posted. But I will say nonetheless that it is an ambitious, compelling book that seeks to answer some of very great questions regarding the course of human history. And actually Diamond's answer comes up, I have to say, surprisingly banal: food production.... (show more)

Apparently I will be the 2,279th review for Diamond's "Guns, Germs, and Steel", so any capsulizing of the book seems redundant. Otherwise I doubt that I am going to be able to add anything in commentary that hasn't already been posted. But I will say nonetheless that it is an ambitious, compelling book that seeks to answer some of very great questions regarding the course of human history. And actually Diamond's answer comes up, I have to say, surprisingly banal: food production. What is very interesting (though not without a few snoozy, maybe overly-attenuated
moments), however, is the interdisciplinary scholarship that went into molding this thesis. Very admirable. Some of these other reviews seem to have some axes to grind, maybe it speaks more of the reviewer than the reviewed, maybe not. But I don't see how anyone could walk away from this book without new ideas, new perspectives. I give it four stars. (show less)

This book puts forth the thesis that certain societies, due to favourable geographical conditions, were able to achieve a head start in areas such as agriculture and the rearing of animals. This head start then allowed these societies to develop secondary advantages which allowed them to become more advanced, if not more dominant, than other societies.

And this thesis was presented and substantiated in a way that was easily understandable and accessible to readers.

However, it would seem th... (show more)

This book puts forth the thesis that certain societies, due to favourable geographical conditions, were able to achieve a head start in areas such as agriculture and the rearing of animals. This head start then allowed these societies to develop secondary advantages which allowed them to become more advanced, if not more dominant, than other societies.

And this thesis was presented and substantiated in a way that was easily understandable and accessible to readers.

However, it would seem that while easily understandable and accessible, the author's matter-of-fact style of writing may perhaps be lacking in literary flair and vitality.

Also, it appears that in his attempt to not locate the reason for why certain societies are more advanced than others in the essential biological characteristics of people, the author may have developed a narrative which seems to be devoid of human agency of any sorts. This is especially in light of how the author strongly argues that the ultimate reason for certain societies were and continue to be more advanced than others is the different geographical conditions societies find themselves in.

Hence, while I would agree that the book's thesis appears to be well substantiated, it remains somewhat intellectually and emotionally unsatisfying, in that it feels unsatisfying to explain the existing state of inequality amongst countries and peoples by saying that it was an accident of geography.

In conclusion, while I would recommend this book to others for an interesting perspective on world history, I would advise them to not take the book's thesis as gospel truth. (show less)

Jared Diamond begins his book with a chapter called YALI'S QUESTION. Yali was a charismatic politician Diamond encountered in New Guinea in 1972 while Diamond was there in 1972 studying bird evolution. The question is: "Why is it you that you white people developed so much cargo and brought it to New Guinea, but we black people had little cargo of our own?" Cargo was the local expression for material goods that of all kinds, like those introduced by other countiries, "every... (show more)

Jared Diamond begins his book with a chapter called YALI'S QUESTION. Yali was a charismatic politician Diamond encountered in New Guinea in 1972 while Diamond was there in 1972 studying bird evolution. The question is: "Why is it you that you white people developed so much cargo and brought it to New Guinea, but we black people had little cargo of our own?" Cargo was the local expression for material goods that of all kinds, like those introduced by other countiries, "everything from axes, matches and medicines to clothing, soft drinks, and umbrellas."

Diamond examines and answers the question carefully, step by step, starting at 11,000 BC and following the evolution of mankind into recent centuries. His arguments are compelling. The writing is logical, yet remains interesting. The final answer to Yali's question has nothing to do with racial differences, but the real answer may surprise you.

I recommend this book! (show less)

In finishing this somewhat heavy read I am left with mixed feelings. Diamonds thesis, which essentially states that differences between global peoples has developed from geographic rather than innate genetic differences, seem to be a valid and important one. However, I feel that he could have saved his reader about 200 pages of reading. Much of the book I found to be intensely boring and unrelated to the main thesis while many other parts remained repetitive, redundant, or just plain unnecess... (show more)

In finishing this somewhat heavy read I am left with mixed feelings. Diamonds thesis, which essentially states that differences between global peoples has developed from geographic rather than innate genetic differences, seem to be a valid and important one. However, I feel that he could have saved his reader about 200 pages of reading. Much of the book I found to be intensely boring and unrelated to the main thesis while many other parts remained repetitive, redundant, or just plain unnecessary. Accordingly, while I feel that this has been an enlightening and worthwhile read overall, I have trouble recommending it to others due to it's long, drawn out nature. At the very least one must surmise that the praise and Pulitzer Prize Jared Diamond received for this work are founded only on the books main thesis and ideas, but certainly not on the quality and cohesiveness of the written text itself. (show less)

This book was recommended by a friend when I recommended Emergence: The Connected Lives of Ants, Brains, Cities, and Software. I can see why he suggested this book- it was very interesting and did present a historical, sociological and economic perspective to emergence. Meg Wheatley would be proud. Diamond does a great job of walking through the complex set of variables- including guns, germs, and steel- that led to larger masses of people to emerge and proposes a number of possible reasons w... (show more)

This book was recommended by a friend when I recommended Emergence: The Connected Lives of Ants, Brains, Cities, and Software. I can see why he suggested this book- it was very interesting and did present a historical, sociological and economic perspective to emergence. Meg Wheatley would be proud. Diamond does a great job of walking through the complex set of variables- including guns, germs, and steel- that led to larger masses of people to emerge and proposes a number of possible reasons why the Native Americans and other civilizations ended up in tiny reservations, rather than the Eurasians. The book covers a fascinating topic and provides a great review of history and asks some great questions. I think Diamond does a great job of making the connections between the elements presented in the book and making it real and relevant for his audience- and it does it in an engaging way. I recommend this book to anyone interested in anthropology, sociology, history, economics, or emergence/chaos theory. (show less)

I thoroughly enjoyed this read. It made plain the true reasons for the courses of history. The objective nature of the writing allowed the reader to fully engage in the book and was very disarming. I need to read this book several more times but for a first read it was stimulating to the mind. After finishing I was given to meditate psychology and the different tendencies of people from different social, political, class, etc. groups. I am not sure where Diamond was going with the last quarte... (show more)

I thoroughly enjoyed this read. It made plain the true reasons for the courses of history. The objective nature of the writing allowed the reader to fully engage in the book and was very disarming. I need to read this book several more times but for a first read it was stimulating to the mind. After finishing I was given to meditate psychology and the different tendencies of people from different social, political, class, etc. groups. I am not sure where Diamond was going with the last quarter, but it did get quite redundant how he returned to his central theme in the same way chapter after chapter. I would recommend this book to a book club. Active discussions and hearing the insight of others would allow for a greater, or at least more panoramic, understanding of what is all being said. This book contains a lot of meat and should be found in any library! (show less)

Diamond’s insights into the history and reasons behind domestication, writing and migratory waves are fascinating in illustrating the role of environment on societal development. But, I think he fails to answer what is really his most important question. That is, why did Europe overtake China? In answering this he completely overlooks the work of Joseph Needham, who spent most of his life trying to find the answer to this question. He therefore he comes out with broadly oversimplified and inc... (show more)

Diamond’s insights into the history and reasons behind domestication, writing and migratory waves are fascinating in illustrating the role of environment on societal development. But, I think he fails to answer what is really his most important question. That is, why did Europe overtake China? In answering this he completely overlooks the work of Joseph Needham, who spent most of his life trying to find the answer to this question. He therefore he comes out with broadly oversimplified and incorrect conclusion which ironically exposes a lack of deep enquiry that characterises the rest of the book.

Diamond is convinced that China’s political centralisation and Europe’s lack of it - all due to purely geographical reasons - were responsible for the respective technological trajectories of the two regions. The reality is that in a society, innovation and creativity lie more with deep-rooted attitudes and values in the culture, ideologies and individuals rather than in the whimsical edicts of a central government. As Needham found, the ultimate cause of China’s retardation was the religions of Daoism and Confucianism – something Diamond has clearly not considered in any depth.

He tries to cover his ass on this with thin disclaimers and glib whatifs tagged on at the end of the book which only serve to leave him sitting on the fence on some big questions and thus guilty of taking his theory a bit too far at the expense of proper historical and philosophical research. It also would be nice to see research references to give credibility and dilute the dogmatic and repetitive tone of the discourse. (show less)

Really should’ve been called farming, livestock and languages. Pretty dry (Malaysian farming, size of grass seeds, etc.) and not at all about plagues and wars. Bummer. Some pretty interesting sections but for the most part I didn’t really accept Diamond’s premise, and, sometimes, Diamond didn’t seem to accept his premise. Early on I think he makes the case that, in the grand scope of history and evolution, differences of a few thousand years in one society getting technology vs. another are, ... (show more)

Really should’ve been called farming, livestock and languages. Pretty dry (Malaysian farming, size of grass seeds, etc.) and not at all about plagues and wars. Bummer. Some pretty interesting sections but for the most part I didn’t really accept Diamond’s premise, and, sometimes, Diamond didn’t seem to accept his premise. Early on I think he makes the case that, in the grand scope of history and evolution, differences of a few thousand years in one society getting technology vs. another are, actually, negligible. Basically I read the whole book thinking that, sure, New Guinea didn’t create a written language or develop farming, but other societies only beat them by a few days, historically speaking.

At the end, I like his grand theory that innovation is spurred on by lack of centralization and in environments where innovation could be encouraged; but I’m not completely sure the whole book working up to that point really supported that theory. (show less)