Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies

Diamonds' thesis, as noted by other reviewers, is that the triumph of western culture traces in large measure to accidents of geography and environment. In particular, the east-west orientation of Eurasia and the abundance of usable crop species and animal species in Eurasia in general and the Fertile Crescent in particular. The ability to create domestic crops and domestic animals, by his reasoning, led through a series of steps to the development of larger communities, the development of technology, and the triumph of the West.

Diamond's critics accuse him of political correctness, of over-simplification and determinism. I don't believe any of those criticisms is accurate.

Diamond frankly admits he is challenging the myth of caucasian inherent superiority. The sense of outrage some reviewers express when Diamond states that the most intelligent man he knows is a New Guinean "primitive" more or less proves Diamond's point. By confusing intelligence with education, and a subsistence culture with technological culture, those critics demonstrate and illustrate the myth Diamond addresses.

Half of his critics accuse Diamond of oversimplification; the other half complain that he repeats points and that the book is hard to read. I think this is mostly reaction to the common problem of a scholarly subject being treated in a popularization. It is a very difficult thing for a scientist to write a popularization of his or her subject that isn't either condescendingly simplistic or too complex for lay readers. Diamond strikes a nice balance.

Finally, critics claim that Diamond is asserting a kind of determinism that denies free will and understates cultural variables. They point to cultural variables like religion (the aggressiveness of Christianity and Moslem beliefs, for example), social, intellectual and others that are overwhelmingly important today. Those critics are missing Diamond's key point: it was those geographical and environmental factors he identifies that made the development of those cultural variables possible.

Overall, this book is a very significant contribution to lay understanding of why the West "has more cargo" than other cultures. It is not intended to be a work of pure scholarship; it doesn't pretend that this is the Complete and Final Answer. It is frank in identifying issues still be be addressed. I strongly recommend it to any reader who wants to better understand the world we have inherited.


An opus of breathtaking scope worth multiple readings   December 6, 2001
Tom Lum Forest (Forest Grove, OR USA)
47 out of 56 found this review helpful

I read this book when it came out and saw Diamond on the lecture circuit when he plugged the book. I thought highly of it at the time. Seeing it still selling well four years later, I wanted to review it but felt a re-reading was in order. It was even better this time.

Diamond's central rhetorical device is answering New Guinean friend Yali's questions why Europeans have so many more goods than New Guineans do. The answer is location, location, location: location with lots of domesticable crops; location with lots of domesticable animals; and location with lots of productive acreage having 'Goldilocks' access to the rest of the world -- strong enough for crop and idea diffusion but weak enough to prevent political unification. The book is twenty solidly written essays like his 'Discover' magazine articles. Linguistics, evolutionary biology, history, archaeology, anthropology, epidemiology, agronomy and paleontology are just part of the palette from which Diamond draws for his sweeping portrait of the most recent 13,000 years of human existence.

There is hardly a wrong word written, a false step taken, or an error made in this exciting book, which delights in no small part by raising as many questions as it answers. Diamond knows a lot about a lot of things, and provides many an aha! moment. He also asks interesting questions about some things that neither he or anyone else knows about, and those questions are as interesting as any of his answers. He answers questions like: How did Africa become black? How did China become Chinese? and Why aren't Australia, New Guinea, and Malaysia Polynesian? One may not like the answers, but he takes a great shot at them, and I relish his doing so. He asks why proselytizing religion (Christianity and Islam) were driving forces for conquest among Europeans and West Asians but not Chinese. He also relates several interesting bits about his extensive field work (as an ornithologist) in New Guinea.

The best page of the book is page 87, figure 4.1, "Factors Underlying the Broadest Pattern of History." The entire book is spent explaining that diagram, which is itself an answer to What are the proximate, intermediate, and ultimate causes to history's broadest pattern? I would modify his ultimate factors to be geography (adding carrying capacity to his east/west axis) and, more controversially, co-evolution between humans and large animals (with respect to their availability and behavior). I am also surprised that he did not cite the island-area effect in species or cultural diversity. But perhaps that would have been gilding the lily. There is nothing in the author's framework that precludes a change in where the most goods are today. He notes carrying capacities and access have changed radically over the last 13,000 years, shifting the balance of power from time to time. 200 years ago, for instance, China had the most goods. 200 years from now it may again.

If you like history, evolutionary biology or (like me) both, read this book today!


The importance of initial conditions.   February 18, 2001
Atheen M. Wilson (Mpls, MN United States)
16 out of 23 found this review helpful

My friend Roger recommended this book to me some time ago. I had added it to my wish list but never seemed to get around to ordering it, because I had such a tremendous pile to read already! He thoughtfully sent me a copy as a Christmas gift, and all I can say is, "Boy, Roger, this a wonderful book! Thanks so much for sending it." Never have I encountered such lucid reflection regarding a topic about which I thought I knew considerable already and such an innovative approach to a familiar subject within the confines of a single written work. I am definitely impressed.

Diamond starts with the quarry, why did some national groups overcome others in their quest for space and the wherewithal of nature; why for instance did the Spaniards conquer the Inca and the Aztec, and not the Inca and/or the Aztec the Spaniards? It would appear self evident to most people, but when Diamond presents some of the rationales suggested by previous investigators (superior intelligence, superior culture, etc.) it rapidly becomes obvious that it isn't quite so clear cut after all. He knocks these theories over one by one like so many paper tigers.

The author looks at the earliest evidence for human achievements in different areas, examines the potential of the environment for that achievement, then looks at other like environments where similar innovations did not arise to identify what was lacking. Agriculture, which appears to have arisen first in the area of the Fertile Crescent, seems to have arisen in an environment wherein useable plants occurred in abundance in a climate conducive to their growth and domestication. Furthermore, the simple stone technology and the capacity to undertake a settled existence in the area long enough for these advances to arise occurred at the same time. In looking at each area where agriculture arose independently this appears to have been the case. It did however require considerable time, and where ever conditions were slightly sub optimal but the region was not confined by geographical barriers, diffusion of the concept or of the actual agrarians themselves brought about the change before the indigenous population was able to create their own alternatives. This provided advantages for one group vise a vie another.

Nor is agriculture the only innovation that arose and spread on similar principles. Pottery, writing, the wheel, draught animals, metallurgy, group structures, etc, all seem to have arisen in response to local conditions and spread from their point of origin to surrounding areas, providing similar advantages to migrating groups. Even crowd diseases, though hardly what one would classify an "advance," arose among people who lived in close proximity to domesticated animals, becoming immune to or at least more tolerant of diseases arising from these animals. Naive groups were therefore at risk of near total annihilation when these diseases were introduced suddenly, as native Americans, native Australians and Polynesian populations among others discovered to their great disadvantage. In areas where non-crowd diseases occurred to which local inhabitants might be immune, the technologically "superior" groups often found it difficult to make headway, as for instance against malaria by Europeans attempting to take control of New Guinea.

One of the more interesting of Diamond's concepts (at least to me) was his examination of the barriers that might prevent dispersal of cultural traits: especially geography, past practice, utility and ideology. I was most impressed by his discussion of the simple concept of latitude as a promoter or inhibitor of disbursal. Limiting factors arose due to the human tolerance of ultraviolet light, a need for or toxicity from vitamin D, the ability of plants to adjust to different temperature, light intensity or daylight duration, or to the seasonal fluxuation in temperature, and so forth. His examination of the east-west verses north-south axis of orientation among the continents as a factor effecting numbers of species of plants and animals available for domestication was also informative. Another key point, certainly one crucial to our own age of environmental mismanagement, is the importance of starting conditions and of the effects of decisions made by early people on the state of affairs of their descendants. Large mammals that might have been used as domesticates by early Australians, New Zealanders or native Americans may have been, in fact almost certainly were in some circumstances, hunted to extinction or displaced by non-native animals introduced by early people arriving on islands and continents previously uninhabited by humans. Their initial decisions reduced the options of their descendants in serious ways.

Probably one of the most important points in Diamond's discussion is that much of what we see as "primitive" or "backward" about the indigenous cultures of some of the losers in the colonialization confrontations of the 19th and early 20th centuries were in fact a reflection of the skill, adaptiveness and creativity of earlier settlers in dealing with difficult terrains with a limited technology. Furthermore, much of what we consider the "progressive" and "superior" characteristics of the winners' cultures were in fact shearly the luck of the draw.

In my opinion this book would make a terrific text for a course in anthropology, history, sociology, or political science. Because it presents the information in a clear and simple manner, it might also be a welcome addition to a high school social science course. I know there are several people with a variety of backgrounds who have qued up at home and at work to read my copy. You have definitely brought it to the attention of a multitude, Roger, believe me!


Love it or hate it, you should read this book   September 24, 2002
Timothy J. Graczewski (Burlingame, CA United States)
54 out of 62 found this review helpful

As an avid reader with absolutely no previous contact with the field of anthropology, I found this book to be mesmerizing. Justin Diamond has achieved great success with "Guns, Germs and Steel" (national best-seller, Pulitzer Prize), but it has also made him the target of strident, often venomous criticism...

Diamond's general thesis is that the West conquered the world rather than vice versa because of a fluke of nature. In short, Eurasia was home to an important number of crops and animals that readily lent themselves to successful domestication. This domestication resulted in mass food production, which the author claims is the "ultimate" cause of Western dominance. Food production, in turn, led to a number of "proximate" causes related to the rise of the West: farms and animal herds led to stationary populations and excess food to support a specialized class of bureaucrats and soldiers; it also increased population density, which, along with close contact with animals, led to germs and the subsequent genetic resistance of Westerners to those diseases. Finally, Diamond concludes, the unique East-West axis of Eurasia and the absence of any impenetrable geographic barriers fostered the spread of new crops, technologies, etc., which gave rise to many competing communities, whose competition further increased the western lead over the rest of the world.

Diamond's arguments are persuasive on the surface, and even the biggest skeptic will have reason for pause after reading his book. However, the final chapter reveals that he can't really resolve a fundamental question: why did Europe, rather than the Middle East, India or China come to conquer the world? Almost the entire book is dedicated to explaining why the Eurasian landmass was blessed with the prerequisites for large civilizations rather than the Americas, Africa and Australia. His terse explanation for why Europe in particular dominated leaves much to be desired and explained.

In this reviewer's opinion, the recent book by classicist Victor Davis Hanson ("Carnage and Culture") provides a plausible epilogue for Diamond's piece. Hanson completely and explicitly rejects Diamond's geographic determinism, but I don't think the two theses are incompatible or in any way mutually exclusive. In fact, it seems to me that Diamond and Hanson support one another, as the latter's assertion that the war-making efficiency of liberal democracies beginning in the Hellenistic period explains Europe's ultimate triumph.

In closing, as an introduction to anthropology and a cogent depiction of one school of thought on the rise of the West this book is marvelous. Approach it with an open-mind, reflect on the thesis and the supporting evidence, and then draw your own conclusions. Love it or hate it, you owe it to yourself to read this book.


History's Broadest Pattern   October 25, 2005
Izaak VanGaalen (San Francisco, CA USA)
36 out of 43 found this review helpful

In this single volume, Jared Diamond, professor of physiology and geography at UCLA, attempts to outline history's broadest pattern. He takes as his subject matter everything that has happened on all continents for the last 13,000 years. In 11,000 BC, at the end of the last Ice Age, all societies were on equal footing, existing as bands of preliterate hunter-gatherers. Yet by 1532 AD the Spanish conquistador Pizarro with 169 men was able to travel across thousands of miles of ocean and conquer the Incas at Cajamarca in spite of being vastly outnumbered. The poximate causes were guns, germs, and steel. However, this book is more concerned with ultimate causes, that is to say, broader patterns. Diamond finds the answer in geography and environmental endowment.

The title is a little perplexing since the thesis that Diamond is setting forth does not explain proximate causes, it deals with more remote causation. For example, it explains why Europe was the most wealthy and powerful continent in 1500, but it doesn't explain why it was the Spanish that conquered the Incas or the Aztecs for that matter, or why, for example, Great Britain was the most powerful European country in 1850.

Diamond tells us that the key to understanding human history is food production. The parts of the world that were endowed with a wide variety of domesticable plants and animals and a geography favorable to their migration and diffusion had clear advantages over other societies. There were some excellent chapters in this book on the origins of agriculture. He describes all the benefits of the domestication of large animals and their living in close proximity with human beings. This happened extensively in Europe and China, providing these populations with immunities to various diseases over the course of centuries. Agriculture led to more complex stratified societies with central government, writing, iron tools, standing armies, etc. It was for this reason - food production - that the world's most wealthy and powerful societies originated on the Eurasian continent.

Diamond flatly rejects the notion that some societies were either culturally or racially superior. Some critics have simply called this political correctness, while others claim he is merely reinforcing Eurocentrism by claiming it was geographically inevitable. True, Diamond argues that any cultural or technological advantage was rooted in geography and environmental richness. But within the parameters of that determinism, historical actors still have considerable room to fail or succeed. Europeans have been ascendent for the last 500 hundred years; this does not mean that there position is somehow guaranteed. In the last twenty years there has been an enormous transfer of wealth, technology, and power to China and India, it appears they may soon achieve great power status.

Most historians do not work on the scale that Diamond does. Instead of continents and millenium, they choose narrower geographic areas with much shorter time frames. Most historians also, from a much more proximate point of view, see history in terms of human ideas and conscious human actions, rather than a series of responses to the environment. Diamond has neglected, for example, to explain the emergence of modern science and its impact on societies. He also neglects to explain the impact of relgion, other than as a mere handmaiden of the state. In his attempt to achieve a grand theory of history he ulitimately fails - as all those before him have.

Nevertheless , this is a monumental work of learning and originality, worthy of the Pulitzer Prize that it received. It is disingenuous for some reviewers to dismiss it as simply a theory of geographical determinism. It is much more, it spans a wide range of disciplines and it goes a long way in explaining the distribution of wealth and power among societies for the last 13,000 years.