[Original review, Dec 10 2008]

I liked this book, and it taught me a bunch of things I hadn't known before I read it. Jared Diamond has clearly had a more interesting life than most of us, and spent significant amounts of time in a wide variety of different kinds of society, all over the world. He says he got the basic idea from a conversation he had back in the 70s with a friend in New Guinea. His friend, who later became a leader in the independence movement, wanted to talk about "cargo" (manufactured goods, technology). "Why is it," he asked, "that you Europeans have so much more cargo than we do?" Diamond thought he had come up with a good question, and wrote the book in an attempt to answer it.

The core of Diamond's explanation is that Europeans were essentially lucky in two respects. First, we have unusually many easily domesticable plant and animal species. Second, since Europe is oriented East-West rather than North-South, a species which is domesticated in one part of Europe has a good chance of thriving in another, so there are many opportunities to swap farming technology between different areas. It helps that there is an easily navigable river system, and also that there are no impassible deserts or mountain ranges. These conditions are not reproduced in most other parts of the world; Diamond has a range of interesting tables, showing how few useful domesticable species there are elsewhere. Because we got efficient farming earlier than most other people, we also got cities and advanced technology earlier, and everything else followed from that initial lead we established.

One objection you could make is that it wasn't luck, but rather that Europeans were more enterprising than people in other areas about finding good species to domesticate. Diamond's answer to this is fairly convincing. Having lived extensively with pre-industrial people, he says that we city-dwellers just don't understand how well they know their flora and fauna, and how active their interest in them is. I guess a New Guinea tribesman would, conversely, be surprised at how quickly word gets around on the Internet when a cool new website appears. Basically, what he's saying is that pre-industrial people tried everything that could be tried, and when they didn't find anything good, it's because it wasn't there. Systematic studies by modern scientists do seem to support this conclusion.

Another criticism some readers have leveled at Diamond is that he makes history completely deterministic - once the geography was fixed, everything that happened after that was inevitable. I don't actually think that's fair. Diamond is open about the fact that his theories make one embarrassingly incorrect prediction: if it was all about being first to domesticate plant and animal species and set up efficient farming, then China should be the world's preeminent civilization. Even though he makes some attempt to explain why this isn't so, there does right now seem to be a fair case for saying that it's not only geography.

Luckily, George W. Bush has been working hard to try and smooth things out. If the Western world can just arrange two or three more leaders like him, all of Diamond's data will hopefully come out the way it's supposed to, and the last few hundred years of Western history can be written off as a statistical blip. Way to go, Dubya!
_________________________________
[Update, Oct 1 2012]

I was surprised this morning to discover that Darwin, in On the Origin of Species, expressed an opinion diametrically opposite to the one Diamond argues for:

If it has taken centuries or thousands of years to improve or modify most of our plants up to their present standard of usefulness to man, we can understand how it is that neither Australia, the Cape of Good Hope, nor any other region inhabited by quite uncivilised man, has afforded us a single plant worth culture. It is not that these countries, so rich in species, do not by a strange chance possess the aboriginal stocks of any useful plants, but that the native plants have not been improved by continued selection up to a standard of perfection comparable with that given to the plants in countries anciently civilised.

Does Diamond mention this? Unfortunately, I don't have a copy to hand.
_________________________________
[Update, Mar 20 2020]

We seem to be well on track. Deadly virus comes out of China, Western leaders react with a mixture of denial and incompetence as infection rates soar and their economies crumble. Diamond's analysis was so accurate that he couldn't believe his own conclusions.
_________________________________
[Update, Sep 22 2021]

And following on from that, anyone who's read this book will think of an argument in favor of the antivax movement that I'm surprised not to have seen more antivaxers pushing. Diamond tells us that the Europeans conquered the world largely due to the fact that they had bigger cities, which could breed deadlier germs. Everywhere the Europeans went, their germs went with them and killed less disease-resistent indigenous populations. But now the largest cities are no longer in Europe, and the West is on the receiving end of natural bacteriological warfare. Even if vaccines offer a temporary respite, the best long-term strategy is to evolve as quickly as possible.

Of course, that does mean allowing a lot of people to die, but it'll be in a good cause. The antivaxers just need to explain the reasoning clearly.

This is a thought-provoking, deeply interesting, controversial book investigating the reasons behind the bafflingly different rate of development of human societies in different parts of the world.

The main thesis of the author is that geographic aspects represent the overwhelming ultimate set of causal factors, and they played out mostly at the very beginning of societal development, mainly in prehistoric times.

The author uses very broad brush strokes to develop his main themes, both in geographical terms (he treats the whole of Eurasia plus North Africa as one single entity, which he then subsequently compares with the whole of the Americas, the rest of Africa and Australasia), as well as in temporal terms (the last two thousand years of human history are virtually ignored), and even in political terms (all societies more complex than an egalitarian tribe are defined “kleptocracies” managed by self-serving elites that extract tribute).
This very broad approach is compounded by his methodological tendency to artificially identify and distinguish between ‘ultimate’ explanations and mere ‘proximate’ ones; an approach which brings him to minimize aspects of cultural idiosyncrasies, randomness, and all local cultural factors unrelated to the environment; approach which pushes him to assert that the most critical influences on modern history had already occurred mostly in prehistoric times, and definitely before the birth of Christ, virtually discounting the last two thousand years of history as a foregone conclusion determined by prior developments.
I have the feeling that his view is ultimately based on a Marxist-like type of historical perspective, whereby specific historical events are merely accidents, there is little or no role for chance, randomness and individual action, and where complex feedback loops, culture and ideology, religion, war outcomes and politics are just super-structural elements derived from more fundamental materialistic aspects. This view is now considered obsolete by many mainstream historians (or at least incomplete).

The author also seems to have a pretty “linear” vision of history, whereby the same collection of factors invariably determine the same outcome – my personal feeling is that many historians would disagree with this perspective and state, on the contrary, that one of the complexities of the study of history is that history is not physics, as the interaction “laws” and the independent variables themselves might vary depending on the period and particular sets of circumstances: for example, the weight of geographical factors in more technologically advanced periods as opposed to prehistorical or less advanced eras. And we should always bear in mind that phenomena such as chaotic behaviour lurk even in seemingly simple physical systems, so a deterministic approach to the study of history presents many potential dangers. Even more quantitative and more limited in scope disciplines pertaining to human behaviour (such as economics) have repeatedly proven how identification of context-independent causal chains and prediction of future behaviour can be extremely problematic to achieve.
Yes, it is true that the author pays lips service (in the epilogue, which is the best balanced part of the book) to the irreducible complexity and to peculiar nature of any science based on the study of human behaviour, but this attempt to dilute and balance his geographical determinism is too little too late, IMO (and the author does not fail to re-iterate, even in this section, his faith in a ultimately fully deterministic long chain of causation that can fully explain all main trends of historical development).

There are also some wide generalizations in the book that are questionable at the very least: for example he uses the Spanish American conquests as a model for all European colonial expansion, and he also comes up with claims that are wrong or should be, at least, heavily qualified (such as the horse being the most decisive factor in warfare since it was domesticated 6000 years ago, until WWI – has the author ever heard of Agincourt and Crecy ? And Republican and Early Imperial Rome did not rise to military supremacy due to a superior use of cavalry).
There is also, at the beginning of the book, a really bizarre and totally unsubstantiated claim by the author that “in mental ability New Guineans are genetically superior to Westerners, and they are superior in escaping the devastating developmental disadvantages under which most children in industrialized societies now grow up”. Such a statement is scientifically very dubious (like any similar statements trying promote a naive (if not racist-driven) view to connect genetics with race and intelligence - and what is "intelligence" anyway ?); moreover it appears almost self-contradictory in this book, as the author himself, in the rest of the book, very successfully dismantles any racist claim that the difference rate of development between societies is caused by genetic differences between the races.

Coming back to the main themes of the book: the broad patterns of history, according to the author, are all ultimately caused by essentially “geographical” factors: the availability of a variety of easily domesticable crops facilitating an early adoption of agriculture, of big domesticable animals, and the longitudinal gradient (the Eurasian east-west axis being favourable compared to the North-South axis of the Americas) facilitating or impeding diffusion of agriculture, trade and technology.

It must be said that the author main thesis is argued and documented very convincingly (however I must say that I can't assess the validity of some of the author's scientific claims in fields such as genetics, anthropology, botany, linguistics and evolutionary biology – and the referencing material is strangely lacking, which is slightly suspicious), and the book is brilliantly written, very readable, full with fascinating insights and rich with extremely interesting information in many different fields. It has been a reading pleasure and I learned quite a bit from it.

The author's main theory of the critical importance of geography is well supported by several examples (even though it must be said that the author appears somewhat selective in his analysis, conveniently alternatively over- or under-emphasizing the importance of geographical barriers in the diffusion of agriculture, trade and technology - he also under-emphasizes the important role played by internal wars, competition and migration in the development of Europe and the Middle East in historical times) and the book contains many ideas that are, in my opinion, very important (even if not complete nor conclusive) in the debate over the reasons why some historical patterns diverged so significantly among the different parts of the globe.

It is a pity that the author leaves out so many important factors, and so many questions very partially answered (such as why did Europe gain supremacy as opposed to China, considering that China, soon before the start of the big European expansion, was as advanced – probably more advanced than – its European counterparts ? ).

But make no mistake – with all its problems, it is a nevertheless a good, highly readable, informative, fascinating book, recommended to all lovers of history who want to gain original insights and perspectives into the broad patterns of historical development. I definitely learned many interesting things and gained a better appreciation of geographical factors as significant determinants in the development of human societies.

Poorly-reasoned trash. This kind of crap gets you a McArthur Genius Grant these days? There were two sentences in this book worth reading, both about ornery animals disemboweling the hapless native folk Dr. Diamond has you hating by the hundredth page. IF THE POLYNESIANS WANT FOOD, MAYBE THEY SHOULD LEAVE POLYNESIA. For chrissakes, your nations barely have names, just two-letter Internet TLD's which get farmed out to continental pornographic concerns and a Hellenicism no more creative than "Lots-of-Islands-Land". I think Tuvulu might be the old Portuguese word for "NO FOOD HERE, BUDDY!"

Зброя, мікроби і сталь - це книжка про те, чому різні культури і суспільства сьогодні мають різні рівні розвитку. Чому саме іспанці приперлися завойовувати Мексику, а не навпаки.

Автор - Джаред Даймонд - вчений-фізіолог, який розширив поле інтелектуальної діяльності також на на географію, історію, антропологію і про це все пише книжки. За цю книжку йому дали Пулітцерівську премію. На мою думку, не дарма!

Знаєте, якщо читати про еволюцію, то часто історію розказують по одній накатаній схемі - була собі клітинка, потім багатоклітинний організм, риба вийшла на сушу і т.д. І в процесі цієї розповіді багато “сюжетних ліній” втрачається, як в останніх сезонах GOT. Мінуточку! А що трапилось з рослинами? А де про еволюцію комах? Як з’явились бджоли? Ой, ми покинули рептилій! І т.д. Так само з історією людства, я часто натрапляю на дуже європоцентричні варіанти. Що звісно цікаво. Але це ж ще не все!

І от в цій книжці багато історій зовсім не про Європу. І історії ці захоплюючі! Про подорожі на хитких човнах через Індійський океан, про те, що вирощували на полях північні американці і про те, як Китай став Китаєм, про африканські замєси з пігмеями і бушменами. Мені дуже сподобалась ця множинність фокусів. Це надихає шукати ще інформацію!

Ну і сама тема книжки цікава. Автор показує з прикладами і досвідженнями, що різні спільноти людей розвивались по різному не через те, що хтось ліпший чи гірший, а через вплив навколишнього середовища - географію, види тварин і рослин навколо, тощо. Він показує як сильно сільське господарство плинуло на розвиток історії, і що часом історії завоювань одними народами іншиз,це історії не про військову могутність, а про захворювання до яких немає імунітету.

Один із найцікавіших розділів для мене про початок культивації різних рослин. Я ніколи про це навіть не задумувалась!

Окрема вишенька на тістечку цієї книги - те, що дані про історію різних народів збиралися не лише археологічним способом, але й методом досвідженням мов. Ми вивчали цей спосіб в університеті і я досі його дуже люблю і класно побачити цей підхід в дії.

Книжка написана легко і приємно, дуже раджу!

এই রিভিউটা কাট ছাট করে দেওয়া। আমার মূল রিভিউ এবং এর সাথে আমার ব্যাক্তিগত সংযোজন পাওয়া যাবে এই লিঙ্কে

মানুষ আসলে একা একা বা নিজের একার যোগ্যতায় তার উন্নয়ন করতে পারে না। মানুষের সেটা ব্যাক্তিগত হোক বা সামগ্রিক হোক, উন্নয়নের জন্য সবচেয়ে বড় যে উপাদানটা কাজ করে সেটা হলো তার পরিবেশ। তার পরিবেশ তাকে বাধ্য করে যেকোন বিষয়ে দক্ষ হওয়ার জন্য। যেমন গ্রামের একটা ছেলে স্বভাবতই জানবে কীভাবে মাছ মারতে হয় অথবা কীভাবে জমিতে ফসল বুনতে হয়। একইভাবে শহরের একটা ছেলে জানবে কীভাবে বাড়ির ছাদে ক্রিকেট খেলা যায় অথবা অনলাইনে কেমনে কম্পিউটারে গেম খেলা যায় অথবা শহুরে ব্যস্ত রাস্তায় গাড়ি চালানো যায়। ঠিক একইভাবে আজ থেকে ১৩০০০ বছর আগে হান্টার গেদারাররা পুরো পৃথিবী জুড়ে ছড়িয়ে ছিটিয়ে ছিল, তখন তাদের পরিবেশ তাদেরকে বাধ্য করেছে সেই পরিবেশে নিজেদেরকে মানিয়ে নিতে, সেই পরিবেশ সুযোগ করে দিয়েছে এক দল ���নগোষ্ঠীকে কৃষি কাজ করতে অন্য দলকে করেছে বঞ্চিত। বঞ্চিত দল রয়ে গেছে হান্টার গেদারার হিসেবেই।

কৃষি কাজ করার কারনে মানুষ তার প্রয়জনের অধিক খাদ্য তৈরি করতে পারলো, ফলে তা সংরক্ষণও করতে পারলো। এর ফলে কী হলো? মানুষ অবসর সময় পেলো খুব বেশি, সে সময় কাজে লাগিয়ে তার উন্নয়নের জন্য সে আরো বেশি চিন্তা করার সুযোগ পেলো, ফলে সে অস্ত্র এবং অন্যান্য সরঞ্জাম উৎপাদনে সাবলীল হয়ে উঠলো ফলে মানুষের শারীরিক শ্রম কমে গেলো, মানুষ এক যায়গায় বসবাস শুরু করলো। মানুষ গৃহপালিত পশুর সংখ্যা বাড়াতে লাগলো, আরাম আয়েশের জন্য মানুষের প্রজনন বাড়তে লাগলো, মানুষে সংখ্যা বৃদ্ধির জন্য সামাজিক জটিলতা বাড়তে শুরু করলো এবং একই সাথে সামাজিক উন্নয়নও হতে শুরু করলো। একটা সমাজ বা রাষ্ট্র যন্ত্র যত বেশি জটিল হবে তার উন্নয়ন তত বেশি হবে এবং এর ফলে মানুষে মানুষে মারামারি খুনো খুনি শুরু হল। ফলে মানুষ আরো বেশি জমি দখলের জন্য অন্য যেসব অঞ্চল আছে সেদিকে নজর দেওয়া শুরু করলো এবং সেসকল অঞ্চল দখল করা শুরু করলো। যেখানে হয়তো আগে থেকেই হান্টার গেদারাররা ছিল, তাদেরকে নির্মুল করে দিয়ে তাঁরা সেখানে নতুন করে আবাসন শুরু করলো। অন্যদিকে পশু পাখি ডমেস্টিকেট করার কারনে এবং অলস জীবন যাপনের কারনে মানুষের মাঝে নানা রোগ বৃদ্ধি পেতে শুরু করলো। যেসকল রোগ আবার হান্টার গেদারারদের ছিল না কখনো, ফলে তাদের এসব রোগের বিপক্ষে ইমিউনিটিও ছিল না ভালো, ফলে কৃষিতে সমৃদ্ধ জনগোষ্টি শুধু মাত্র ক্ষমতা আর শক্তির প্রয়োগ দিয়েই হান্টার গেদারারদের নির্মুল করেনি, তাদের উপহার দেওয়ার রোগের কারনেও হান্টার গেদারাররা নির্মুল হয়ে গেছে। এভাবেই আম্রিকা আর আফ্রিকানদের নির্মুল করেছিলো উরোপিয়ানরা।

সুতরাং সভ্যতার গোরাপত্তনের প্রাথমিক ভিত্তি ছিল অনুকূল পরিবেশ। এর ফলে কৃষি ভিত্তিক সমাজের গোড়াপত্তন এবং এর ফলে অবসর সময় এবং সমাজ সভ্যতার উন্নয়ন।

তাছাড়া আরও যেসব বিষয় উঠে এসেছে তা নিচে পয়েন্ট আকারে দেওয়া হলো:

- কীভাবে হান্টার গেদারারদের বিলুপ্তি হলো, কেন পুরো পৃথিবীর সমস্ত অঞ্চল জুরেই কৃষিকাজের সূচনা হল না, কেনো নির্দিষ্ট কিছু অঞ্চলে কৃষিকাজের সূচনা হলো, নির্দিষ্ট কিছু অঞ্চলে কৃষি কাজ শুরু হওয়ার পেছনে মূল কারন আসলে তার চারপাশের পরিবেশ। পরিবেশের উপযোগিতার উপর নির্ভর করেই আসলে ঐ অঞ্চলের মানুষ কৃষিকাজ শুরু করে, দিনের দৈর্ঘ, তাপমাত্রা, বৃষ্টির পরিমাণ, ঐ অঞ্চলে wild শস্য নানা কিছুর উপর নির্ভর করে প্রথম কৃষিকাজের সূচনা হয়।

- ন্যাচারাল সিলেকশনের মাধ্যমে কীভাবে আমরা নানা জাতের উদ্ভিদ আর প্রাণীকে ডমেস্টিকেট করতে পেরেছি, কেন বিশেষ কিছু প্রাণীকেই আমরা ডমেস্টিকেট করতে পারলাম, বাকিদের কেন ডমেস্টিকেট করতে পারিনি? এর কারণ হিসেবে লেখক ব্যাখ্যা করেছেন যে, কোন প্রাণীকে ডমেস্টিকেট করতে হলে সেই প্রাণী এবং মানুষের মাঝে বিশেষ কিছু বোঝাপড়া থাকতে হয়, এর মাঝে যেকোনো একটি যদি না মিলে তাহলে সেই প্রাণীকে ডমেস্টিকেট করা সম্ভব হয় না।

- জীবাণু কিভাবে ইভলভ করলো এবং কেন এক অঞ্ছলে এক ধরণের জীবাণুর বিস্তার বেশি কেন অন্য অঞ্ছলে অন্য ধরনের জীবাণুর বিস্তার বেশি, এই জীবাণুর বিস্তার মানব সভ্যতায় কত ভয়ানক প্রভাব ফেলেছে তা ব্যাখ্যা করেছেন।

- লেখালেখির সূচনা কীভাবে হলো, টেকনোলজির উদ্ভাবনের পেছনে আসলে মানুষের ব্যাক্তিগত নাকি সামগ্রিক ভূমিকা বেশি নাকি কৌতুহলই বেশি ভূমিকা রেখেছে তার তুলনামূলক আলোচনা করা হয়েছে।

- চীনের উত্থান, জাপানের উত্থান এবং এদের নিজস্ব একটা সংস্কৃতি আর অন্য সবার থেকে ব্যাতিক্রম হওয়ার ভৌগলিক কারণ ব্যাখ্যা করেছেন।

- আফ্রিকার ভৌগলিক বিচিত্রতার সাথে তার ইকোলজিক্যাল এবং প্রাণী বিচিত্রতার তুলনামূলক আলোচনা উঠে এসেছে। এবং মানব সভ্যতার সূচনা আফ্রিকাতে হলেও কেন সভত্যার প্রগতি এখান থেকে হতে পারেনি তারও সুন্দর একটা ব্যাখ্যা (পরিবেশের কারণ) পাওয়া যাবে এখানে।

Epilogue: The Future of Human History as a Science
2017 Afterword: Rich and Poor Countries in the light of Guns, Germs and steel.
এই দুইটা অংশ পড়তে আমার সবচেয়ে ভালো লেগেছে। থ্রিলার বইয়ের মতো আটকে ছিলাম এই দুইটা অংশ পড়ার সময়। বলা যায় পুরো বইয়ের থিওরেটিক্যাল আলোচনার সংক্ষিপ্ত রূপ এই দুই অধ্যায়ে উঠে এসেছে। আপনারা যারা এই বইয়ের সাইজ দেখে ভয় পাচ্ছেন, তারা অন্তত পুরো বই না পড়লেও Preface: Why is World History Like an Onion and Prologe: Yali's question, প্রথম চার অধ্যায় আর শেষের Epilogue and 2017 Afterword পড়ার জন্য সাজেস্ট করছি। এতটুকু পড়লেই এই বইয়ের মূল বিষয়বস্তু নিয়ে ৮০% ধারণা চলে আসবে।

বইয়ের ভালো না লাগা দিকঃ
প্রচুর প্রচুর এবং প্রচুর রিপিটেশন ছিল, একই কথা ঘুরিয়ে ফিরিয়ে নানা ভাবে নানা ভঙ্গিমায় উনি বলে গেছেন। বইটা ২০০-৩০০ পৃষ্টায় অনায়াসে শেষ করা যেতো। কলেজে থাকতে যেমন রচনা লেখার সময় মাথায় থাকতো, ২০ পৃষ্টা লিখতেই হবে, তখন একই কথা ইনিয়ে বিনিয়ে লিখতাম। উনার লেখা পড়ে মনে হইছে উনি তাই করছে। উনি প্রতিটা অধ্যায় ২৫-৩০ পৃষ্টা করছে, অনেকটা জোর করেই মনে হয়েছে আমার কাছে।

This book explains why some countries became more powerful than others.

The author says that it had to do with things like geography and the environment.

Some places had more animals and plants to help people to survive and made them stronger.

Other places did not have as much so they struggled more.

This book is interesting and helps us to understand more history and geography about 13,000 years in the world.

The author, Jared Diamond provides a fresh and insightful perspective on history and social science, making it a must-read for anyone interested in these subjects especially me.

برخلاف آن چه نژادپرست های سفیدپوست می پندارند، استعمار آفریقا توسط اروپا هیچ ارتباطی به تفاوت های میان خود مردم اروپا و آفریقا ندارد. در عوض ،این امر ناشی از تصادف های جغرافیایی و زیست جغرافیایی- به طور خاص ناشی از تفاوت در مساحت، محور جغرافیایی و مجموعه ی گونه های گیاهان و حیوانات وحشی- است. به بیان دیگر، مسیرهای تاریخی متفاوت آفریقا و اروپا در نهایت از تفاوت در دارایی منقول آن ها ناشی شده است

I will say this: he makes some interesting points about geographical and geological determinism and the potential validity thereof. Everything else, however, is basically shit. The Pulitzer this book got must have been the world's biggest and most expensive A for effort.

Diamond writes in his introduction that a multi-discipline effort "would be doomed from the outset, because the essence of the problem is to develop a unified synthesis. That consideration dictates single authorship, despite all the difficulties it poses." He does go on to mention "guidance from many colleagues," but even so this makes no goddamn sense (p. 26). It is actually possible to find people across disciplines who agree on a single theory - like, say, gravity. I'm using theory in the scientific sense here, where the fact of gravity's existence is obvious but there needs to be a framework of mechanical explanation - and this framework has the potential to be proven wrong. That doesn't change the fact of gravity's existence, it just means that one person's (or several people's) proposed explanation of its mechanics was misconceived. You can see similar approaches in the field of history. What this boils down to is, Diamond is saying right in the bloody introduction to the whole book that he was the only one who could do this glorious project and he didn't want to bring other people in because they might not agree with every single thing he's saying. GOD FORBID.

This book would have benefited from multiple authorship, particularly a partnership with someone who had some actual experience with historical research and thinking, because the incessant lazy errors are impressively offensive - Diamond keeps predicating his argument on such and such historical facts, but the facts he's using are flawed and wrong. Take his chapter on the Spanish invasion of the Americas. First off, he calls the indigenous naive like the extinct megafauna of the previous chapter - I'm not kidding, he uses that exact word and that exact comparison to animals; for somebody who's so avowedly anti-racist that's a fucking awful rhetorical tactic - but the academic offense is that his primary sources for the capture of Inca leader Atahuallapa are, as far as I can tell, Spanish letters to the king and Spanish personal journals. That's it. (Nothing is properly cited in this book, which is another cringe point.) Even a high school student could tell you that you should use and cite primary sources from multiple sides of an event, cite your secondary sources, and use some goddamn critical thinking. If you look at the Inca sources, sure there's some conflicting accounts - same goes for the Spanish - but what's obvious is that they weren't naive. Diamond asserts that Atahuallpa had bad information and it was an obvious trap supported by the advantages of Spanish literacy, but if you look at all the sources the situation is more that he had the right information but chose to be diplomatic in the Incan tradition. Pizarro was just a dick. (Diamond is right about the significance of germs, but that part's a gimme.)

There are a lot of fundamentally flawed arguments like that - e.g. pre-invasion indigenous people on the coast of Australia being described as totally isolated even though the historical record shows them as being brilliant sailors and the numerous islands between Australia and the Asian mainland are reachable by walking in places, or talking about the easy dispersal of animals/crops across a continental "axis" of north/south or east/west despite huge mountain ranges and climate differences across the terrain like in Asia - and his broader assertions are also seriously problematic. Like when he's discussing the supposed advantages of the written word (completely dismissive of pictographs and no mention of signed languages, of course) he name-checks Chinese and Japanese but otherwise devotes his syllabic-complexity argument to Roman-alphabet languages. Which, no. Focusing on the languages that are easiest for you to understand is far from persuasive. (To say nothing of the historical errors in that chapter as well.) And then there's smaller things like the series of photographs of people, all not white and mostly wearing indigenous clothing and unsmiling expressions, which is totally unnecessary - if Diamond's "objection to such racist explanations [of sociocultural differences vis-a-vis a western capitalist definition of success] are is not just that they are loathsome, but also that they are wrong," then what the fuck are these pictures doing in here (p. 19)? Why does it matter what these oh so poor, less successful people look like? Jesus christ.

I could go on and discuss the further problem of his trying to fit history into a science framework, when the two have different approaches for a reason - which is, of course, not to say that the philosophies and conclusions of one can't support the other - but I think the point of Diamond's colossal hubris and scholarly failure has been sufficiently made for this review. (There are critical essays by people more professionally accomplished and generally articulate than myself out there.)

Is this the worst book ever? No. But it's still a fucking waste of space.

It took me a while to complete Diamond's book (and admittedly I also distracted myself with a few Roth novels in the meantime) because of the density of the text and the variety of ideas presented. The central thesis that it is not racial biology that determines the victors in history but rather a complex combination of agriculture, geography, population density, and continental orientation is a fascinating and compelling one. The style is not academic (and did admittedly put me off by using sentences with "!" in them), and yet does come across as the fruit of years (or decades) of research in an astounding number of fields simultaneously: biology, agriculture, history, climatology, sociology, etc. I can understand why Mr. Diamond received accolades and a Pulitzer for this complex work written at the level that the layman, non-scientist can still grasp. The funniest story that struck me was the QWERTY keyboard one which apparently is the least ergonomic design but due to its rapid adoption by typists due to capitalist competition and afterwards its ubiquity once computers became important, it is impossible to dislodge. (I still find it easier to use than the AZERTY one here in France LOL). The one thing that struck me - and here I warn readers that I climb on my soapbox near the Marble Arch for a moment - is the abundance of corroborating evidence for human evolution and development that has solid artefacts and proof going back 40000 years and more by the most precise dating methods available by today's scientists. For anyone with a shred of intelligence to try and say the world is only 6000 years old and created in-state as it were is pure insanity and blindness. And yet, we now have high-placed individuals in the US holding these beliefs and poised to poison American youth with medieval and ignorant ideas such as young-earth creationism. If one is to take reality at face value rather than with massive filters eliminating reason and coherence from it, then one cannot possibly justify believing that all humans came from Adam and Eve and that they were white as snow and racially superior to their offspring. This book proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that just because one has white skin, that this is not a determinant in the development of the individual and his/her peers as human beings. It is critical that works like this get wide diffusion in order to debunk racial superiority theories that gave rise to the horrors on Hitler and continue to inform white supremacists and Islamic radicals and all other religious or racial bigots because their underlying fundamentals are based on patently false principles. OK, down from soapbox now. The book was well-written (if a bit repetitive at times) and presents eye-opening and inventive analysis that will help me see the world I live in differently. Highly recommended. Especially in view of the rise of revisionist, white supremacist bullshit.

واقعا به معنای واقعی کلمه، پدرم دراومد تا بتونم این کتاب رو تمام کنم! حقیقتا تا این حد سخت خوان و با ترجمه‌ی غیرروان بود

کتاب خیلی در جهان تقدیر شده ولی واقعا من نتونستم ازش لذت ببرم و به نظرم چیزی فراتر از داده‌های ما هم ارائه نمی‌کرد. یه جورایی علمی شده‌ی همان انسان خردمند بود

Guns, Germs, and Steel
by Jared Diamond

This is not light reading. The author goes into a lot of detail covering a wide range of evidence supporting his thesis. But damn it’s interesting.

The premise for the book is stated in the first chapter “Yali’s Question”. That is why did some societies/people advance differently than others. For instance, why did the people of Eurasia develop so many products and the people of Guinea remain basically hunter-gathers. The author rephrases this question and wonders why did the countries of Europe conquer and colonize the Americas and not the Native Americans conquer and colonize Europe. He later rephrases it again as why didn’t Africa conquer Europe and import Native Americans to work as slaves.

Thus begins a very interesting analysis.

The author deals with the Racism issue early in the book. He attributes any appearance of more “intelligence” as a product of the environment and is not biological.

n  The objection to such racist explanations is not just that they are loathsome, but also that they are wrong. Sound evidence for the existence of human differences in intelligence that parallel human differences in technology is lacking. n

(Page 19)

Differences in intelligence are more attributable to social environment and educational opportunities than to biological reasons.

(It’s been a while since I read it but The Mismeasure of Man by Stephen Jay Gould deals with this question quite well.)

The title of the book “Guns, Germs, and Steel” serves as a shorthand for the reasons Europeans conquered the natives of the New World instead of Native Americans colonizing Europe. The immediate reasons are the technology employed by the Europeans based of guns, steel weapons, and horses, the germs they brought with them to the New World, the ships that allowed them to cross the oceans, the centralized political organization of European states, and the communication gained through writing.

A major part of his argument is that the production of food allowed these civilizations to advance. Once food was available people no longer needed to be hunting and gathering each day. The domestication of plants and animals allowed people to settle down in one place and provided them the stability to develop better ways of living.

This domestication of plants required that the plant have certain characteristics making it a reliable source of food. It also needed a climate that allowed the plants to grow. Out of all the plants available in a location not all of them had the needed requirements. Likewise all locations did not have the qualifying climate.

The same held true for animals. Very few animals have ever been domesticated. Even over the last few thousand years there are no new domesticated animals. He attributes this to the Anna Karenina principle.

n  To be domesticated, a candidate wild species must possess many different characteristics. Lack of any single required characteristic dooms efforts at domestication, just as it dooms efforts at building a happy marriage.
n

(Page 169).


It is pointed out that in terms of conquering an area nothing matched germs and their accompanying diseases. More people were killed by germs and the diseases they caused than by any military campaign.

The germs themselves were not something that resulted from some creative design. The author points out frequently that agriculture and its accompanying settlements created an ideal laboratory for germs. Especially living in close proximity with animals. He also says that living in dense populated areas helped the germs spread their diseases, but also helped people develop immunities. It was these immunities that the Native Americans lacked when the disease was brought to the Americas.

The author emphasizes the importance of continents in the spread of advances in civilizations. His analysis deals with each continent individually. An important part is the axis of a continent. For the purposes of this book he combines Europe and Asia into Eurasia. Eurasia with its East/West axis facilitated the spread of technology and food production because the area shared the same latitude. That meant the plants and animals from one area weren’t subject to huge changes in environment from one part of the continent to another.

Likewise people, plants and animals in the Americas and in Africa had to travel through and survive various climates from any travels along the axis of those continents.

One of the questions the author brings up is why did Europe conquer so much of the world and not China. China had a long head start in the development of food and especially technology.

One of the reasons is the early unification of the people of China under one government. The resulting authoritarian rule prevented the competition of ideas. That was not the case in Europe where several small states competed with each other for dominance. There any development which gave one state an advantage over another was quickly exploited.

While reading this I was arguing with myself (I won) about whether this was a “History” book. I felt that it is important to understand the founding of the civilizations that I read about. At the end of the book the author himself makes this argument about whether history is a science. He states that to some “History is just one damn fact after another.” In this book the author is using archeology, linguistics and genetics to make his case.

This book is the first of a trilogy. While I was reading this I doubted I would tackle the next one anytime soon. Learning this much is fatiguing. But this was an enjoyable and enlightening book so I will be getting the next one, Collapse, soon.

گزارش جذابی از تاریخ هر چیزی در 13000 سال گذشته. «جِرد ماسون دایموند»، نویسنده‌ی کتاب، زیست‌شناس تکاملی، فیزیولوژیست و جغرافی‌دانِ زیستی است. وی که مولف شماری از آثاری‌ست که در آنها انسان‌شناسی، زیست‌شناسی، ژنتیک و تاریخ در هم آمیخته‌اند، در مقدمه‌ی کتاب انگیزه‌ی تالیف خود از این کتاب را این پرسش اساسی می‌داند: چرا تاریخ در قاره‌های مختلف به گونه‌ای متفاوت رخ داده است؟ او یافتن این پاسخ را در گرو ملاحظات بوم‌شناختی محل زندگی انسان‌ها می‌داند و با روش یک دانشمند واقعی، تفسیری شگرف از آن ارائه می‌کند
کتاب جایزه‌ی پولیتزر گرفته و به نزدیک بر 30 زبان جهان ترجمه شده است. از آن دست کتاب‌هایی‌ست که باید حتمن خواندشان. روایت است که «جول موکیر«، تاریخ‌نگار اقتصاد، زمانی که صفحه اول کتاب را دیده گفته "این احمق کیست؟ ادعای او برای گفتوگو درمورد تاریخ اقتصاد دیوانه‌کننده است، من اینجا کارشناس اقتصاد هستم!". او 50صفحه بیشتر جلو نرفته که عاشق کتاب شده! اگر تابه حال سمت کتاب‌های علمی نرفته‌اید نگران نباشید. متن جذاب کتاب، به همراه روش‌شناسیِ قویِ نویسنده، باعث می‌شود خیلی زود با موضوع ارتباط برقرار کرده، از خواندن آن لذت ببرید