جرد دایموند دانشمند و نویسنده آمریکایی در کتاب اسلحه ، میکروب و فولاد با دانشی که بر جغرافیا دارد تلاش کرده است به سوال بسیار مهم علت پیشرفت برخی جوامع و مسلط شدن آنها بر دیگران پاسخ دهد ، دایموند برای شرح دادن دلایل خود به تاریخ پیدایش بشر از 13000 سال پیش پرداخته و به تدریج جلوتر آمده است . او برای پاسخ این سوال از علوم زیادی مانند باستان شناسی ، زیست شناسی ، زبان شناسی ، ژنتیک ، تاریخ و جغرافیا استفاده کرده است و در پایان تفاوت امروزی بین جوامع و کشورهای مختلف را در جغرافیا و خصوصیات محیط زیستی آنها می داند . او در همین حال نظریه برتری نژادی ، اخلاقی ، فرهنگی را رد می کند .
از نگاه آقای دایموند در قاره اوراسیا تمدن و تکنولوژی از بقیه نقاط جهان سریعتر پیشرفت کرده است ، هلال حاصلخیز ، شمال آفریقا و جنوب اروپا نقاطی بوده اند که به دلیل جغرافیا ، سرسبزی ، تنوع گونه های جانوری و حاصلخیزی زمین و پرورش یافتن ، گندم ، جو و سایر غلات موفق به تولید غذا به اندازه نیاز و سپس مازاد شدند . آنها به این گونه از مرحله شکارچی گذاشتند ، حال آنکه در جوامع دیگر مانند جنوب آفریقا ، یا قاره آمریکا یا استرالیا یا گینه نو ، جوامع ابتدایی و از گونه شکارچی – گرد آورنده بودند .
جوامع شکارچی که امروزه تعداد کمی از آنان در آفریقا پیدا می شوند به دلیل شرایط زندگی و جبر جغرافیا ، به دنبال گونه های گیاهی خاص و شکار حیوانات می رفته اند . به خاطر این نوع زندگی آنان ساکن منطقه ای خاص نشدند و بیشتر در جنگلها زندگی می کردند ، فاقد مسکن دایمی و همچنین ذخیره غذا بودند و جمعیت آنها به کندی و سختی رشد می کرد ، نیاز خاصی به پیشرفت تکنولوژی نداشتند و برای مثال نیزه و یا تیرکمان برای آنها کافی بود و از همه مهمتر به دلیل جمعیت وتراکم کم در برابر بیماری های یکجا نشینان به هیچ عنوان مصونیتی نداشتند .
اما در مقابل در مناطق حاصلخیز ، با پیشرفت کشاورزی ، مازاد تولید به دست آمد و تولید اضافه به نوبه خود به افزایش باروری و رشد جمعیت منجر شد ، در گام بلندی دیگر ، انسان موفق به اهلی کردن گونه های مختلفی از پستانداران از جمله اسب ، گوسفند ، گاو ، خوک و سگ شد و بعدها با استفاده از اسب در امور نظامی برتری خرد کننده ای پیدا کرد ، همینگونه انسان با استفاده از نیروی عضلانی حیوانات موفق به زیر کشت بردن مساحت بیشتری اززمین شد . به تدریج عصر سفال گری و پیدایش ظرف به انسان یکجا نشین قدرت انبارش بیشتری داد و انسان را مجبور به ساکن شدن در دهکده ها کرد ، با افزایش جمعیت دهکده ها به چیزی تبدیل شدند که دایموند آنرا خان سالاری نامیده و در این دوران بوده که بشر موفق به کشف برنز شده . سپس دولت ها پدید آمدند ، نگارش رشد و پیشرفت کرد و آهن و عصر آهن آغاز شد .
اما در میان جوامع شکارچی پیشرفت به کندی حاصل شده ، دایموند علت آنرا در مجموعه ای محدودتر از حیوانات و گیاهان وحشی مناسب اهلی شدن ، موانع بزرگتر بر سر راه گسترش فن آوری و وجود مناطق کوچکتر و منزوی تر از جمعیت های متراکم تر انسانی نسبت به اوراسیا می داند .
بنابر این با پیدایش نگارش ، رشد شهر نشینی ، کشف آهن و استفاده گسترده از آن ، امکان ذخیره غذا ، استفاده از نقشه و پیشرفت در کشتیرانی ، این اروپایی ها بودند که آمریکا ، گینه نو ، آفریقا و استرالیا را مستعمره کردند نه بومیان آمریکا ، استرالیا یا گینه نو .
مابقی داستان برای خواننده آشنا تر است ، کریستف کلمب که اهل ایتالیا بوده با ناوگان اسپانیا دنیای نو ، قاره آمریکا را کشف می کند ، سپس هرنان کورتس با نیروی بسیار کوچک امپراتوری آزتک را در مکزیک کنونی شکست داده و البته میکروب ، ویروس و بیماری های شهرنشینان اروپایی تعداد بسیار بالایی تا (95%) جوامع بومی را که مصونیتی نسبت به این بیماری ها نداشتند را از بین می برد . اندکی بعد فرانسیسکو پیزارو با همان دلایل مشابه و با تعدادی بسیار کم امپراتوری اینکاها را شکست می دهد و شهر لیما پایتخت فعلی پرو را مقر حکومت خود می کند .
می توان گفت اصل و ریشه کتاب اسلحه ، میکروب و فولاد همین است ، مازاد تولید ، پیشرفت کشاورزی ، اهلی کردن حیوانات ، یکجا نشینی ، دهکده ها ، خان سالاری ، دولتها ، رشد و پیشرفت ��گارش و کشف و استفاده از آهن ، در کنار پیشرفت در دریانوردی ، کشتیرانی و نقشه خوانی انسان در اوراسیا و خصوصا در اروپا را در موقعیتی قرار داد که موفق به استعمار آمریکا ، استرالیا و آفریقا شد .
در حقیقت کتاب در قرون وسطی باقی مانده و بعد از تسخیر آمریکا ، استدلال های آقای دایموند هم تمام شده و او دیگر هیچ حرف تازه ای ندارد . برای مثال دایموند توضیح نمی دهد که اسپانیا پس از رسیدن به اوج قدرت به خاطر چه دلایلی به کشوری کاملا ورشکسته تبدیل شد به گونه ای که تا ابتدای قرن گذشته جز فقیرترین کشورهای اروپا به شمار می رفته است . اما دلایل سقوط اسپانیا امروزه تقریبا کاملا روشن است و همانگونه که در کتاب  معمای فراوانی  شرح داده شده ، مجموعه ای از سیاستهای اشتباه اقتصادی و نه جبر جغرافیا بوده که اسپانیا را از پیشرفت باز داشت .
امروزه می دانیم که مجموعه ای از دلایل و سیاستهای اقتصادی ، جغرافیای سیاسی ، طبیعت و محیط زیست و سیاستهای داخلی کشورها بوده که آینده آنها را رقم زده و جغرافیا هم یکی از آنها بوده است . جناب دایموند تنها عامل جغرافیا را در نظر گرفته و به راحتی دلایل دیگر را نادیده گرفته است . در حقیقت دایموند هم همانند جیمز رابینسون و دارون عجم اوغلو در کتاب  چرا ملتها شکست می خورند  تلاش کرده فرمولی یکسان برای تمام کشورها و ملت ها بیابد .
دکتر زیباکلام هم در دوگانه تحسین برانگیز  ما چگونه ما شدیم  و  غرب چگونه غرب شد  به شرح مجموعه دلایلی پرداخته که ایران را عقب نگه داشته و برخی از کشورها را بر دیگران برتری داده ، استدلال های او هم قابل درک و هم برای خواننده ای از خاورمیانه ملموس هستند . به همین ترتیب دکتر کاظم علمداری هم در کتاب  چرا ایران عقب ماند و غرب پیشرفت کرد  اگرچه نگاهی انتقادی و چالشی به کتب زیباکلام دارد اما در کنار آن نظریه های جدیدی هم طرح کرده است . کتاب دکتر دایموند اسلحه ، میکروب وفولاد اگرچه نگاهی جامع به دوران پیشا تاریخ ، عصر برنز و عصر آهن دارد اما متاسفانه با مقوله پیشرفت شگفت انگیز غرب در دو قرن گذشته و عقب ماندن شرق به همان میزان کار چندانی ندارد و در بهترین حالت در ابتدای قرن هجدهم مانده است .
شاید بتوان مزیت کتاب اسلحه ، میکروب و فولاد را در زاویه دید متفاوت آن دانست و به همین دلیل کتابی ایست متمایز که خواننده علاقه مند به مباحث توسعه را با نگاهی از نوع دیگر هرچند نه الزاما درست آشنا می کند .

My first intention reading this book is not to seek knowledge in the real world, but to understand more about the setting/world making of fantasy fiction and science fiction. But this book gave me so much more than that, it gave me answers or some revelations about some of my personal thinking all these years.

I cannot comment much about the contents, there are a lot of reviews that describe the contents well.

Some interesting points on this book for me:
1. In my opinion, this book has pristine description the 1966 revolution in Indonesia.
2. This book has interesting theory of the losing of China vs. European since 15th century.
3. I found the epilogue is reminding me some with Asimov’s psychohistory, with chapter title: “THE FUTURE OF HUMAN HISTORY AS A SCIENCE”. For people who had read Foundation, please try the epilogue of this book.

There is at least one hint about a leading civilization destroying its own environment… but it is another story. Mr. Diamond described this idea on his next book, Collapse.

3,5 den 4 eder mi bilemem :D Ağır bir okuma oldu benim açımdan. Çok akıcı olduğunu düşünmüyorum kitabın

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.

This is what happens when you take an intelligent person, and casually make a few mentions of a field of study they have no knowledge of.

Mr. Diamond, NOT an anthropologist, takes Marvin Harris' theory of cultural materialism and uses it to explain everything in life, history, and the current state of the world.

Materialism is a way of looking at human culture which, for lack of a better way to explain it easily here, says that people's material needs and goods determine behavior and culture. For instance Jews stopped eating pigs because it became so costly to feed pigs they themselves were starving.

On the surface, materialism seems very logical. Like any theory it has to be at least somewhat probable sounding, and since people are used to thinking of life, these days, in terms of materialistic values already, Harris' theory sounds logical and likely very often.

But like every other time you attempt to explain everything that ever happened in the history of man with one theory, this falls desperately short of reality. Materialism is likely ONLY when coupled, sensibly, with other theories and, need I say it, actual PROOF, of which Diamond has little.

As an exercise in materialist theory this book is magnificent. I would recommend this book ONLY to people in Anthropology with a great understanding of theory, less educated or unwarned people might think this book is fact rather than an exercise in speculation.

As an explanation of why the world is the way it is, it is an utter and complete failure.

3 stars

Guns, Germs, and Steel was recommended to me by my father. He asked me to read it and tell him what I thought of what Jared Diamond says. Generally speaking, this book outlines the different factors that contribute to a society succeeding and thriving, and how these factors have created the world we live in today. To answer my father, I said that I enjoyed it. It made me reflect a lot, it helped me form arguments in my IB ESS class, and in general gave me a nice insight into human history. Then, he said something that I will try to reflect on in this review: "After reading this, do you think society could have formed any other way?"

Before I get to answering that question, I'll go through a the things that I liked and didn't like about Diamond's work. This book was so unbelievably interesting. It's format made it very easy to follow along, and together it made perfect sense. This helped Diamond strengthen his theses. This organisation also makes this work very accessible, which for me (a person who wants to get more into non-fiction), was a great benefit! There are a bunch of diagrams, graphs, maps, and pictures in this book, which once again, made the reading experience more enjoyable; if you got bored, or got confused, there was sure to be an image soon to make you want to read again. The third thing that I really liked about this was the conversational narration that dominates the book. At times I felt like Mr. Diamond and I were having a conversation about the history of the world. When I switched over to the audiobook for some portions, this was accentuated even more. This style of narration ensured that you never felt like reading a history textbook, which was something I was scared of when entering this novel.

The things that I didn't really like were how the chapters meandered sometimes or just went on and on about the same thing. I feel like 50 pages could be cut. Then again, I am just one person. Another person might find value in how Diamond proves his claims through various examples and scenarios. For me, it just got a bit repetitive and I didn't have the attention span for it. Other than that, when there was a tie-in to something discussed in a previous chapter, then said thing would be proven AGAIN through various examples in the context of whatever is the main topic in this new chapter. Again, someone might find this very interesting, personally it made me a bit tired.

Ok, now to what I actually want to discuss: my father's question. After reading this book, I think that no, there is no other way society could have progressed. Maybe if we would have arisen originally on a different continent, we would be in a different place right now, but I don't know and that is what I find to be so interesting. In the prologue, Diamond sets up a thought experiment where you imagine yourself as travelling back into the past and watching the world starts all over again, but not intervening. I think that if this time-traveller version of me would be very very educated in the ways of history, importance of geography, language, etc. I would be able to predict fairly well where things will be. This makes me wonder if it is possible to predict where we will be in a thousand years or so... Kind of like how Hari Seldon does in Asimov's Foundation.

In conclusion, Guns, Germs, and Steel is a good work of non-fiction. I liked how it made me reevaluate how I see the world around me. However, it did have some characteristics that I just didn't really click with. I recommend it, if you like history and are interested in why we are where we are now.

Jared Diamond's exposition on the history of civilization is far more sociological than anthropological. Beginning around 11,000 BCE, Diamond vividly describes the ebb and flow of tribes, chiefdoms, kingdoms, and states. From modest hunter gatherers the trail of human progress winds through the innovation of agriculture and the domestication of livestock to the invention of writing and the advent of industrial technologies. Along the way Diamond tracks the rise and fall and rise of zoonotic pathogens and genocidal plagues. ‘Want to know why food production spread at different rates on different continents? Or why zebras were never domesticated? Or how poisonous plants like wild almonds ever became candidates for artificial selection? If so, this is your book.

Diamond's history is wonderful, full of new science, strange facts, and great anecdotes. The polemics get repetitious and a bit defensive at times, but can be safely skimmed. This would have been a better book had it been written as straight history, letting the facts speak for themselves - but it's still well worth reading. Recommended.

[Excerpted from my 1998 review, which I should clean up & repost sometime]

I felt cheated by this book. It started off with such promise and like a fat person with a box of chocolates in front of them, I couldn't wait to get wired in. At one point, I decided that this book was worthy of four stars. By the midway point though I was tired. Tired of the repetition. How many times does Jared Diamond have to refer to the fact that he believes the rise of food production to be the main determinant of success for a society, before he believes the reader might believe him. It just seemed like in this book, it was (at least) one time too many.

Diamond attempts to answer an age old question; what determines a society's position in relation to the others on Earth? The problem with the approach he uses is that it is just not robust enough to be worth sharing. My first problem is that just because things are the way they are, it doesn't mean they had to be. Unless otherwise convinced (and I would take some convincing) I just can't lend any weight to the idea that history is anything other than chaotic, influenced by countless factors, many of which we remain unaware. I just could not shirk off the impression that Diamond was coming up with a theory and then shoehorning facts into the theory to lend it credence. One example of this is the idea that societies rate of progress is determined largely by what way round the landmass they inhabit lies. He fails to mention The Alps, The Mediterranean, the Himalayas or the large temperature gradient between parts of Eastern Russia and Western Europe, as potential barriers to the diffusion of ideas between societies in Eurasia, instead choosing to blithely ignore them to fit his chosen hypothesis. To me that's a bit like saying that rather than teeth evolving to fit our diet, they evolved to improve our smile and hence give us more chance of attracting a mate. In other words, making up a theory to fit the facts and using the facts themselves as justification and choosing to ignore existing evidence.

To reinforce this impression in my mind, Diamond concludes by trying to justify his flimsy just-so explanations in a very patronising and unconvincing manner, suggesting that the main reason for disagreeing with them lies in a misunderstanding of the historical sciences and it's methods by the majority of people. He even goes as far as including the likes of evolutionary biology and astronomy in with history, suggesting that if we believe in the findings of the former disciplines, we should give more weight to the theories of the historical sciences (history). It is my belief that the findings within both astronomy and evolutionary biology are subjected to rigorous experimental testing, a belief which Diamond clearly does not hold. I could almost feel my faith and trust in Diamond as a scientist die inside me by the time I had turned the final page.

The whole thing is pretty flimsy. A few theories, which are either extroardinarily simple (geographical difference makes the difference in societies developments not the people) or flawed and/or lacking evidential support (the axis of the continent which a society inhabits makes a considerable impact upon it's development).

Finally the book is by and large, overwhelmingly dull. Diamond repeats himself like a broken record and wading through his prose feels at times like wading through thickened treacle on rubber stilts.

If you are looking for definitive answers to the central question of this book, answers that you feel assured are reasonably likely to be robust and accurate, this book does not provide them. It contains nuggets of trivia but that wasn't the reason I picked this off the bookshelf to read it and I think that would apply to most prospective readers.

THIS BOOK ATTEMPTS TO PROVIDE A SHORT HISTORY OF EVERYbody for the last 13,000 years. The question motivating the book is: Why did history unfold differently on different continents?...

Diamond immediately takes great pains to shoot down any ideas of one race being more intelligent than another. Yes, some thought so, but they've been refuted for long enough that I thought he belabored the point. This section does introduce us to his method of argument which is to set up straw men & knock them down. I don't care for it much since the questions aren't always honest or complete.

Eurasia is an iffy area for Diamond's purposes. It often includes northern Africa, but generally not eastern Asia or northern Europe. This makes sense in the context of the plant & animal species available to the humans of the time. Eurasia had the most species of both that could readily be domesticated. Of all the plants, only a few were readily domesticated. In Eurasia, the number made for a critical mass which led to earlier civilization. Giving up hunter-gatherer often isn't an advantage to individuals, but is to the tribes/clans as a whole. More food reserves, more specialization (leaders, soldiers, farmers), better able & pressure to compete & share discoveries.

It's amazing how few plants & animals can be domesticated - only 14 large animals by his count. There isn't that much megafauna (animals generally averaging over 100 lbs) that early man didn't wipe out & most of those evolved with man. They survived because they learned early & well to fear & avoid or live with us. In almost every case where they didn't, such as in Australia & the Americas, they went extinct shortly after we showed up.

Successful domestication is based on the Anna Karenina Syndrome, a name given due to the first line of the novel.
Happy families are all alike; every unhappy family is unhappy in its own way.
IOW, a happy family has many things right while it only takes one of any number of things to make an unhappy one. Plants & animals must have everything right to become domesticated, especially early on. Wheat needed very little modification & we domesticated it (or vice versa) very early while we still don't domesticate oaks because they take so long to mature, breeding characteristics*, & it's so hard to economically pick their acorns due to their size & competition with other animals.
(* A complex of genes controls tannin production, so it's very difficult to breed a non-bitter acorn. If only 1 gene were in control, we might have domesticated them (pecans) even if it were a recessive one. Oaks just had too many things wrong.)

The proximity to animals & each other also led to more disease. The originating groups of humans survived with immunity, but when they met another group without similar immunity, the new group was often wiped out. Obvious examples are the natives of the Americas & the spread by Europeans of small pox & other diseases.

Eurasia also had the most contiguous land along generally the same latitude. This helped spread domesticated plants, animals, diseases, & ideas. North to south, like sub-Saharan Africa or Mexico to South America, is a problem since temperature, hours of daylight, & general climate varies too greatly for many plants & animals to survive a slow expansion across them. While humans could adapt to environments from desert to jungle, their plants, animals, inventions, & diseases often couldn't/didn't.

Different environments also slowed humans so not only weren't inventions spread, but there wasn't the pressure to develop/adopt new methods or die. Sub-Saharan Africa is considered an entirely separate area, almost a continent of its own, from northern Africa in terms of evolution. Australia, New Zealand, & Tasmania were all distinct from the rest of the world & even each other.

So, the answer to the central question is civilizations developed differently due to their environments:
1) The number & variety of plants & animals that were available to domesticate.
2) The ease of diffusion & migration within the continent & 3) between continents.
4) Continental population size.
He really should add a 5th - plain luck. As he points out, in the early 15th century, China was ready to explore the world, but political infighting in their unified government killed the exploration party almost a century before Columbus set out. While Columbus was originally turned down, he had multiple governments to try, one of which eventually opened the doors to expansion which led to many of them - all European - competing around the globe to grab the prizes.

The audio edition of this book is abridged, although I hadn't realized that when I started listening & it sure seemed long enough. It wasn't until I got the ebook to see some of the maps & reread certain sections that I realized how much had been cut out. Just the epilogue of the ebook seems to cover the subject matter well enough.

Table Of Contents:
Prologue: Yali's Question: The regionally differing courses of historyt13
Ch. 1t Up to the Starting Line: What happened on all the continents before 11,000 B.C.?t35
Ch. 2 A Natural Experiment of History: How geography molded societies on Polynesian islandst53
Ch. 3tCollision at Cajamarca: Why the Inca emperor Atahuallpa did not capture King Charles I of Spaint67
Ch. 4tFarmer Power: The roots of guns, germs, and steelt85
Ch. 5tHistory's Haves and Have-Nots: Geographic differences in the onset of food productiont93
Ch. 6tTo Farm or Not to Farm: Causes of the spread of food productiont104
Ch. 7tHow to Make an Almond: The unconscious development of ancient cropst114
Ch. 8tApples or Indians: Why did peoples of some regions fail to domesticate plants?t131
Ch. 9tZebras, Unhappy Marriages, and the Anna Karenina Principle: Why were most big wild mammal species never domesticated?t157
Ch. 10tSpacious Skies and Tilted Axes: Why did food production spread at different rates on different continents?t176
Ch. 11tLethal Gift of Livestock: The evolution of germst195
Ch. 12tBlueprints and Borrowed Letters: The evolution of writingt215
Ch. 13tNecessity's Mother: The evolution of technologyt239
Ch. 14tFrom Egalitarianism to Kleptocracy: The evolution of government and religiont265
Ch. 15tYali's People: The histories of Australia and New Guineat295
Ch. 16tHow China became Chinese: The history of East Asiat322
Ch. 17tSpeedboat to Polynesia: The history of the Austronesian expansiont334
Ch. 18tHemispheres Colliding: The histories of Eurasia and the Americas comparedt354
Ch. 19tHow Africa became Black: The history of Africat376
tEpilogue: The Future of Human

It's important to remember that this book was first published in 1997, before the mapping of the human genome & subsequent discoveries which invalidated many of the hypothesis that he mentions, such as parallel evolution, & has nailed down our origins & migrations across the globe far more accurately. His synopsis & maunderings in the beginning are interesting only from a historic point of view, although he seems to pretty much have the basics right, so it doesn't invalidate his later conclusions. It does stretch that section out a lot, though. It's cool to see how well a different science has nailed down so many questions & in such a short time.

Overall, very good, but a bit dated & long. Grover Gardner did a great job reading this & I'd suggest the abridged version backed by a book since the maps help & reading more in some areas was good.

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!"

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.