Jared Diamond asks the question: why did technology develop along different lines and at different times throughout the world and then goes on to study the reasons why.

Using economic, sociological, anthropological, biological and botanical evidence to examine and analyze his hypotheticals, Diamond goes on to map out the world not just in geography but in time, providing a unique human history going back tens of thousands of years and culminating with how we’ve ended up – with some people typing out book reviews on a laptop and drinking Sumatran coffee, wearing clothes from Southeast Asia and Central America, driving a car from Japan and specializing in labor – and other people carrying out hunter-gatherer activities similar to people millennia ago.

Most compelling was Diamond’s rejection, and erudite refutation of many racist and jingoistic theories about why Eurasian cultures have come to dominate global socio-economics. Diamond has spent a good portion of his life living and working in New Guinea carrying out his scientific studies. He noted earlier on that his was not a qualitative analysis, he was not trying to prove which society was better than others or which cultures produced the happier peoples. Diamond opined, in fact, that he felt that the New Guinea folks were on average more intelligent, more intellectually curious, than their Western neighbors. Diamond’s goal as merely to track and examine the spread of technology, how and why it took up root in some societies over others.

I loved his 2004 book Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed, mainly because it told a story about the lost cultures examined. We learned about the lost colonies of the Greenland Norse and of islands settled by Polynesian peoples long ago who left only fragmentary clues as to what happened. This is the more scholarly text, but Diamond still narrates with wit, personality, and even some subtle humor.

Recommended.

من برای جرد دایموند احترام زیادی قائلم، اول به خاطر اینکه به کارش علاقه داره و بسیار زحمت کشیده، سفرهای متعدد، زندگی بین مردم مختلف و قبیله‌های مختلف و خلاصه زیر پتو ننشسته تز بده، دلیل دوم و مهمتر اینکه «* سانسور *» ه

کتاب نسبتاً سنگینه به خاطر اینکه اطلاعات، مثال‌ها و توضیحات زیادی داره. یک خلاصه‌ی بسیار مختصر در پادکست بی‌پلاس از این کتاب آورده شده که برای آشنایی مختصر با کلیات کتاب خوبه. ضمن اینکه یک مستند سه قسمتی مجموعا سه ساعته هم بر مبنای همین کتاب توسط نویسنده ساخته شده که بسیار به فهم کتاب کمک می‌کنه و تقریبا موضوعات کلی و مهم کتاب رو بیان می‌کنه. پیشنهاد من اینه اول اون خلاصه‌ی بی‌پلاس و بعد این سه قسمت مستند رو ببینید و اگر همچنان به شرح و بسط موضوعات و مثال‌های بیشتر علاقه‌مند بودید کتاب رو بخونید. البته بگم تقریباً از صد، صد و پنجاه صفحه‌ی آخر کتابی که من دارم و ویراست جدید هست مطلبی نه در پادکست و نه در مستند نیست که اونها رو دیگه باید از کتاب بخونید.ه

اما در مورد محتویات کتاب
جرد دایموند فیزیولوژیست و پرنده‌شناس در یکی از سفرهاش به گینه‌ی نو با سوالی روبرو میشه. فردی به اسم یالی از اهالی همونجا از جرد می‌پرسه «چرا محموله‌های شما اینقدر زیاده و محموله‌های ما کم؟» محموله در واقع کلمه‌ای هست که اهالی گینه‌ی نو به اجناس و وسایلی میگن که غربی‌ها با خودشون آوردن و قبلاً وجود نداشته. حالا یالی پرسیده چرا شما اینقدر وسیله و اجناسی دارید که ما نداریم ولی ما خیلی چیزی نداریم که شما نداشته باشید؟ در واقع ریشه‌ی سوال یالی به دلایل وجود نابرابری بین انسان‌ها برمی‌گرده. چرا برخی از تمدن‌ها و ملت‌ها سریع‌تر و بیشتر رشد کردند و پیشرفته شدند؟ این سوال جرقه‌ی نوشتن این کتاب رو در ذهن جرد دایموند روشن می‌کنه.ه
در طول کتاب با طرح مسائل و فرضیاتی سعی میشه به این سوال پاسخ دادن بشه. مسئله‌ی اول مطرح شده در مورد گیاهانه. اینکه تمدن‌های پیشرفته‌تر به گیاهان مناسب‌تری دسترسی داشتند. مثلا در خاورمیانه گندم و جو، در چین برنج، در شمال آمریکا ذرت و ... این مناسب بودن به این معناست که هنگام تغییر به زندگی کشاورزی، این گیاهان قابلیت کاشت سریع‌تر و راحت‌تری داشتند و انسان‌ها ناخودآگاه با چیدن ساقه‌های پربازده‌تر و نرم‌تر دست به اهلی کردن اون گیاهان هم زدند. این مدل گیاهان باعث خوراک بیشتر و بهتر برای اون جمعیت از انسان‌ها شد. در حالی که مثلا گیاه قابل رشد در گینه‌ی نو تارو و موز بود که هم در کاشت و برداشت و هم از نظر هرم غذایی وضعیت مناسبی نداره. خب از این مورد جرد نتیجه میگیره که جغرافی مهمترین دلیل این مورد بوده. مورد بعدی حیوانات و اهلی کردن حیوانات بوده. در واقع جوامع برتر مثل گیاه به حیوانات مناسب‌تری هم دسترسی داشتند، حیواناتی که به درد اهلی کردن می‌خوردند. تعداد این نوع حیوانات بسیار کمه در حدود ۱۴ نوع که مثلا ۱۳ نوع از اونها بومی اوراسیا هستند. حیواناتی مثل گاو، بز، گوسفند، شتر و ... حیوانات برای اینکه مناسب پرورش و دامداری باشند باید چه ویژگی‌هایی داشته باشند؟ مثلا گوشت‌خوار نباشند، سریع رشد و تولید مثل کنند، تعداد زاد و ولد زیادی داشته باشند، توانایی زندگی گله‌ای داشته باشند، با انسان سازگار باشند و از این قبیل خصوصیات. خب در این مورد هم جرد به همون نتیجه‌ی قبل رسید، موضوع مهم جغرافیا بود. اما مورد بعدی تولید و شکل دادن به آهنه. این عامل بسیار مهمی هست چون هم باعث تولید ابزار کار بسیار خوب شد و هم اسلحه. اما چرا مثلاً در گینه‌ی نو کسی به شکل دادن آهن نپرداخت؟ چرا همون تمدن‌هایی که گیاه و حیوانات مناسب داشتند به این کار نائل شدند؟ نظر جرد اینه که در این جوامع با افزایش تولید خوراک هم از گیاهان و هم گوشت حیوانات دیگه لازم نبود همه‌ی مردم برای به دست آوردن غذا تلاش کنند، در نتیجه وقت و انرژی کافی برای پرداختن به بقیه‌ی کارها به دست اومد و همین وقت باعث آزمایش و خلاقیت و در نتیجه کشفیات از جمله آهن شد. و نتیجه میگیره که اینجا هم جغرافیا نقش پررنگی داشته.

موضع بعدی که بهش پرداخته اینه که جوامع برتر در سرزمین‌هایی زندگی میکردند که از نظر شکلی افقی بودند مثل آسیا و اروپا برعکس مثلا آفریقا و این باعث شد سرتاسر این سرزمین در یک عرض جغرافیایی باشه و وقتی این افراد مهاجرت میکردند و دام و دانه‌ی گیاهان رو با خودشون می‌بردند توانایی کشت و پرورش اون رو به دلیل مشابهت آب و هوا داشتند در حالی که در سرزمین های عمودی این اتفاق نمی‌افته و آب و هوا به شدت تغییر می‌کنه و اینجا هم جغرافیا مهمترین موضوع مورد نظر جرد هست. مسئله‌ی مهم دیگه که بهش می‌پردازه، بیماری ها هستند. با توجه به اینکه بسیاری از بیماری‌های مهلک انسان از دام و حیوانات منتقل شده، گروهی از انسان‌ها که با دام‌ها بیشتر سروکار داشتند به این موارد مقاوم شدند و وقتی به سمت جوامع دیگه که این خصوصیات رو نداشتند می‌رفتند بسیاری از اونها به خاطر این بیماری‌ها نابود می‌شدند. که خب مشخصا اینجا هم جغرافیا مهمترین نقش رو بازی کرده. یک مثال از حمله‌ی اسپانیا به اینکاها میاره که با تعداد بسیار کمی جمعیت زیادی از اونها رو شکست میدن. از دلایل اون به همین میکروب، اسلحه و همچنین آگاهی و استراتژی اشاره می‌کنه که آگاهی و استراتژی از تجربیات ثبت شده‌ی قبلی اومده که اون نوشتن و خط هم از چیزهاییه که به خاطر روی آوردن به زندگی کشاورزی و داشتن زمان و انرژی بیشتر اختراع شده!
بعد از این به قاره‌ی آفریقا رسیده، قاره‌ای عمودی و متفاوت. اونجا از شکست‌های اولیه‌ی استعمارگران و دلایلش گفته، و بعد به پیروزی‌ها و دلایلش رسیده، که مهمترین دلیل چیه؟ جغرافی!
در آخر کتاب در مورد ژاپن صحبت کرده که این قسمت در ویراست جدید اضافه شده در مورد ریشه و زبان و ... که جالبه. پس از اون یک پسگفتار ویراست ۲۰۰۳ داره که به یک سری از اشکالات جواب داده، جالب بود اما کامل نه. در نهایت حرف این کتاب اینه که مهمترین دلایل برتری بعضی از انسان‌ها بر انسان‌های دیگه و پیشرفت‌ اونها اسلحه، میکروب و فولاد بوده و همه‌ی این‌ها به خاطر جغرافیا و نه نژاد و هر چیز دیگه. شاید اگه مکان این آدم‌ها عوض میشد، سرنوشت اونها هم عوض می‌شد. این حرف آقای جرد دایمونده و من زیاد باهاش موافق نیستم راجع به  اینکه همه چیز در جغرافیا خلاصه شده...ه

In 1532, Francisco Pizarro and a band of 168 Spaniards punctured the heart of the Inca Empire and proceeded to capture its emperor, decimate its citizens, and plunder its gold. Why didn’t it happen the other way around? Why didn't the Incas sail to Europe, capture Charles V, kill his subjects, and loot his castles and cathedrals? Jared Diamond attempts to answer this question in Guns, Germs & Steel.

Why have Europeans tended to dominate other peoples on other continents? Does it have something to do with race? Were Europeans cleverer than other races? Diamond says no. It wasn't racial characteristics that tipped the scales of fortune for the Europeans; it was their geography. Their geography gave them access to the best domestic grains and animals, which led to specialization and advanced technologies like steel and guns. Their domestic animals also helped them develop potent germs, and the antibodies for those germs.

The importance Diamond lays at the hoofs and paws of domesticated animals is, in fact, one of the fascinating themes of the book. According to Diamond, our animals have played an uncanny role in our cultural and economic development, both in a negative sense (human contact with farm animals facilitated the germ-exchange that produced man’s deadliest diseases) and in a positive sense (men from the Russian steppes, riding their newly domesticated horses, spread the Indo-European language both westward into Europe and southeastward into Persia and India). Diamond's point is that people living in areas with more domesticable animals (sheep, cattle, pigs, horses, etc.) gained an important advantage over people without them.

For example, Native Americans had only three domesticated animals before 1492: llamas, turkeys, and dogs. Why only three? Weren’t there wild horses and cattle in America too? Actually, fossil records show huge populations of horses, oxen, and millions of other large mammals in the Americas until about 11,000 BC. What happened around 11,000 BC? You guessed it: man showed up via the Bering Strait. The American horses, oxen and other large mammals, having never experienced a human predator, approached the new arrivals like slobbering puppy dogs, and were consequently turned into steaks. In fact, it was steaks every night for a couple thousand years for the new immigrants, until most of the continents’ large mammals— and all but one suitable candidate for domestication— were wiped out.

Now this is fascinating enough, but then consider that because the Native Americans didn't have any horses, oxen, pigs, etc. left to exploit as beasts of burden and domesticated food sources, they also lost the civilizational benefits those animals would have brought (and did bring to Eurasians), not the least of which is germs. Yes, germs. Because the Native Americans didn't live in close proximity to a plethora of "farm animals" like their counterparts in Eurasia, they lacked the "petri dish" wherein deadly germs could grow and proliferate. They thus failed to develop the infectious diseases and (more importantly) the antibodies to those diseases that might have protected them from the germs of invading Europeans when Señor Columbus and his crew showed up.

It was for this reason that when the Conquistadores did finally show up, they were able to wipe out 80% of the indigenous population before ever unsheathing their swords— with germs— with small pox and influenza, both diseases generated by the passing back and forth of germs between domesticated animals and their human caretakers (small pox between cattle and humans, and influenza between pigs and ducks and humans). If that doesn't blow your mind, your mind is blowproof.

Then again, you may well ask: “What about moose and bison? Why didn’t Cortés and his boys float up to the Mexican shoreline and find a bloodthirsty cavalry of Aztecs on mooseback, energized by the milk and meat of their plentiful herds of bison?” Diamond surmises that by the time most the large mammals in America had been digested into extinction by their hungry human friends, there was only one suitable candidate left for domestication: the llama/alpaca. Every other large mammal that remained (including moose and bison) lacked the qualities that allow for domestication.

In all of human history only 14 large mammals have ever been domesticated: sheep, goat, cattle, pigs, horses, camels (Arabian and Bactrian), llamas, donkeys, reindeer, water buffalo, yaks, and two minor relatives of cattle in southeast Asia called Bali cattle and mithrans. Outside of these, no other large mammals have been transformed from wild animals into something useful to humans. Why? Why were Eurasia's horses domesticated and not Africa's zebras? Why were Eurasia's wild boar domesticated and not America's peccaries or Africa's wild pigs? Why were Eurasia's five species of wild cattle (aurochs, water buffalo, yaks, bantengs, and gaurs) domesticated and not Africa's water buffalo or America's bison? Why the Asian mouflon sheep (the ancestor of our sheep) and not the American bighorn sheep?

The answer is simple: we tried and it didn't work. Since 2500 BC not one new large mammal (out of the 148 worldwide candidates) has been domesticated, and not for lack of trying. In fact, in the last 200 years, at least six large mammals have been subject to well-organized domestication projects: the eland, elk, moose, musk ox, zebra, and American bison. All six failed. Why? Because of one or more of the following problems: diet, slow growth rate, nasty disposition, tendency to panic, captive breeding problems, and/or social structure.

Diet: Why don't we eat lion burgers? Because raising lions, or any other carnivore, is uneconomical. You need 10,000 lbs of feed to grow a 1,000 lb cow. You would likewise need 10,000 lbs of cow to grow 1,000 pounds of lion. That means you’d need 100,000 lbs of feed to produce 1,000 pounds of lion. Hence the lack of lion burgers on the Wendy’s drive-thru menu.

Growth rate: Why don't we eat rhino burgers? Simple, it takes 15-20 years for a rhino to reach adult size while it only takes cows a couple.

Nasty disposition: Here's where we eliminate zebra burgers, hippo burgers, grizzly burgers and bison burgers. These animals retain their nasty and dangerous tempers even after several generations of captive breeding. Did you know zebras injure more zookeepers per year than do lions and tigers?

Tendency to panic: No deer or gazelle burgers either. Why? Because they take flight at the first sign of danger and will literally kill themselves running into a fence over and over to escape the threat.

Captive breeding problems: Many animals have elaborate breeding rituals that can't happen in captivity.

Social structure: This may be the most important requirement for domesticates. The best candidates for domestication live in herds, maintain a clear herd hierarchy, and overlap ranges with other herds rather than having exclusive ranges. Here humans just take over the top of the hierarchy. They literally become the herd leader (think “Dog Whisperer”).

So the reason European explorers didn't find Native American ranchers with herds of bison and bighorn sheep is because these animals can’t be domesticated. Diamond contends that if there had been any horses left in the Americas, or any of the other 13 candidates for domestication, the Native Americans surely would have domesticated them, and reaped all the attendant benefits. But alas, their great-great-grandpas had already killed, grilled and digested them all.

Diamond's book is a great read. If you're a student of history, it’s a must read. The way I see it, the story of man (and the story of all things, for that matter) is the story of varied states of disequilibrium moving violently and inexorably toward equilibrium. What was Pizarro's vanquishing of Atahualpa's empire if not an example of such violent re-balancing? The beauty of Diamond's book is that it seems to pinpoint, with surprising simplicity, the original source of disequilibrium among men: geography. Roughly put, some got born in the right place and some didn’t. Skin color had nothing to do with it. Race has always been nothing more than an arbitrary mark to show the geographical birthplace of one's ancestors'.

By the way, if you do read this book, take note of the way we humans first discovered agriculture. According to Diamond, it happened at the latrine. We'd go out gathering seeds, eating some along the way, and then come back to camp and defecate, all in the same spot. Guess what started growing in that spot? Yes, my friends, as crude as it may sound, we humans shat are way to civilization. Thank your ass when you get a chance.

Diamond attempts to "provide a short history of everybody for the last 13,000 years," AND answer the question of why some cultures thrive while others perish or are conquered by others. There is a mind-boggling amount of information presented: some of it is fascinating, some of it seems repetitive, and overly long. When my husband, who is a big fan of "farming books," thinks that there was WAY TOO MUCH about agriculture. . . well, that kind of tells you something.

I listened to this on audio, (all thirteen discs!), and one line really caught my, um, ear:

n  Some societies seem hopelessly conservative, inward looking, and hostile to change.n

Wow! Hmm . . . right now I can think of a country that is fast adopting isolationist policies, a country that is constantly looking to the past as "the ideal time," and whose politicians are doing all they can to turn back the clock, denying climate change, shunning education as "elitist," and deleting scientific data from public websites, all in an attempt to stick to the "old ways" that have been so profitable for so few.

Did Jared Diamond, writing in the late 1990's, just describe the United States today?

And will we become like one of the more primitive societies, sitting and watching while the rest of the world makes strides in science, technology, and the development of clean energy sources? Yes, our agriculture is mighty nice, and, yes, we have plenty of steel and tons of guns, but with our scientific community both muzzled, and strapped for cash, will we be able to fight off new diseases, epidemics, or attacks by biological weapons? Will we become one of those once great cultures Diamond discusses that once flew high, then crashed and burned?

The choice is up to us, and I'm not feeling too optimistic.

Hóa ra người Việt Nam, Lào, Thái, Campuchia ... bị người Trung Quốc lai giống hết rồi, cụ thể là bởi các dân tộc phía Nam Trung Quốc. Dân Đông Nam Á gốc có thể phải là da đen, tóc xoăn. Và dù trước đó họ có nói bất cứ ngôn ngữ gì thì cũng đã bị xóa sạch do đó các ngôn ngữ của Đông Nam Á bây giờ là ngôn ngữ của các dân tộc phía Nam Trung Quốc... Sở dĩ bây giờ chả có người nào ở Trung Quốc nói tiếng giống người Đông Nam Á nữa là vì các tộc phía Nam đó là tộc ít người nên bị đồng hóa về mọi mặt với các tộc lớn khác từ lâu.

Rốt cuộc thì lần đầu tiên cũng đọc hết 1 cuốn sách nghìn trang, nếu không vì mục đích là khoe đọc nhiều thì chắc khó mà nhằn hết được. Vì sách khoa học làm sao đọ sự thú vị, dể hiểu với phim, truyện tranh và mục tâm sự EQ giữ lửa trên webtretho được ?
Nhưng tóm lại đây là một cuốn sách rất đáng để mua và dù có khó khăn thế nào cũng đáng để cố đọc hết. Cuốn sách làm cho ta mở mang đầu óc rất nhiều, gạt đi những suy nghĩ sai quá sai trước đây và quan trọng nhất là không có giống người nào là thượng đẳng cả, dân tộc nọ hơn dân tộc kia chủ yếu là bởi vị trí địa lí, lương thực dồi dào, khí hậu thuận lợi ... Đọc cuốn này xong liên tưởng đến câu "vật chất quyết định ý thức " thấy quá đúng mà.

Stopped on page 88 for the time being, because, man, do people ever suck. We historically sucked. But since humans used to invade other humans' territory and do a lot of killing, at least things have changed now.

Oh, wait.

YouTube kanalımda Tüfek, Mikrop ve Çelik kitabını yorumladım: https://youtu.be/QpmdwG4SHSY

Toplumların yazgılarını değiştiren olaylara evrimsel ve ekonomik coğrafya perspektifinden bakmak isterseniz kesinlikle okumanız gerektiğini düşündüğüm bir kitap.

Thoughts soon.

n  “Why you white men have so much cargo [i.e., steel tools and other products of civilization] and we New Guineans have so little?”n

Jared Diamond is a biologist, who had a passion for studying birds, particularly the birds of New Guinea. But as he came to know and appreciate the many native people he met in his work, the question asked by a New Guinean named Yani remained with him. Why was it that westerners had so much relative to New Guinean natives, who had been living on that land for forty thousand years. Many found an explanation in racial exceptionalism. Diamond decided to find out. Was one group of people smarter than another? Why was there such dimorphism in the amount of cargo produced and toted by different groups?

The arguments he seeks to counter are those stating that since "civilization" came to full flower in the Eurasian countries and not in places where other races dominated, that this success indicated innate superiority. He offers a stunning analysis of why civilization emerged in the places in which it did.


Jared Diamond – image from The Guardian

Guns figure large in why some societies were able dominate others, but the development of guns was not a universal. The materials necessary are not equally distributed over the planet, and there are technological prerequisites.

It turns out that not every locale is ideal for the emergence of farming. He offers some detail on why farming flourished in some areas more than in others. The importance of domesticated animals is considered. Diamond shows how it was possible for them to have been domesticated in some, but not all of the theoretically possible locations. He discusses the impact of germs, the immunity defense developed by more urban dwellers, and the harm those germs can cause when those urban dwellers come into contact with peoples who lack such immunities. Although "Steel" figures prominently in the title, and is significant in its use in weaponry, this aspect is given the lightest treatment in the book. Diamond closes with a plea for history to be redefined as History Science, claiming that, as with many other "historical" sciences, it holds the elements necessary to merit the "science" designation.

While I might have been happier if the title had been Guns, Germs, and Seeds, it remains a seminal look at the whys and wherefores of how some societies came to flourish, often at the expense of others. It has nothing to do with genes. Guns, Germs and Steel was awarded the Pulitzer Prize.


=============================EXTRA STUFF

Links to the author’s personal, Twitter and FB pages

An  excellent National Geogrtaphic documentary  was made of this book. Here is a link to the first of its three episodes.

Diamond's book Collapse, is also amazing.

Авторът си поставя за цел да отговори на въпроса защо някои държави и народи се развиват бързо, а други - бавно. Защо европейците покоряват света, а не примерно австралийските аборигени. Отговорът му е накратко - географска предопределеност.

На някои места на планетата има подходящи условия за човешко и цивилизационно развитие, а на други няма - плавателни реки, подходящи за опитомяване животни и растения и т.н. За да достигне до този извод, той напълва по-голямата част от книгата с описание на човешкото развитие в различните периоди на различните континенти, като твърди постоянно, че именно специфичните условия на специфичните места не само позволяват, но и са необходимо, достатъчно и изключително условие за това развитие.

Лично според мен аргументите му за това са твърде слаби. На нито едно място той не успява (не се и опитва) да покаже защо именно тия условия са изключително необходими за развитието. Никъде не адресира въпроса защо на други места със същите условия не се наблюдава подобно развитие. Даже не се доближава до задаване на един от основните въпроси, които се налагат при разглеждане на материята - защо някои народи са проспериращи и успешни в каквито и условия на света да попаднат като емигранти, а други се осират даже в най-подкрепящите ги страни.

Всъщност, "Пушки, вируси и стомана" e всепризнато ненавиждана от историците заради нейните безбройни неточности и невярности. Толкова, че дори има публикувана научна статия със заглавие F**k Jared Diamond. Толкова, че в елитния събредит AskHistorians има цял раздел колко Джаред Даймънд греши във всичко. Толкова, че в събредит История има бот, който дава автоматичен отговор всеки път когато някой спомене книгата или автора.

Точно както всички книги за които се вдига голям хайп, и тази не отговаря на високите очаквания. Разбира се, това не е неочаквано - книги, които са много четени и се харесват на голям кръг хора няма как да са особено дълбоки. Бих си позволил да кажа, че авторът е нещо като еквивалента на Паоло Коелю в антропологията. Манекенските умове са запленени от него. Ако искате отговори на въпросите, които книгата поставя, много по-интересно, интелигентно и пълно ще ги получите от Civilisation: the West and the Rest.

Very interesting and thought provoking history book. nice laid out and logical theories on the evolution of empires and conquest. Very recommended

سوال: بنظرتون چرا ما الان میوه های بی هسته ای میخوریم که میگن تو زمانایِ خیلی دور، همین میوه ها، هسته دار بودن، چطو شده خُب؟ ، کسی توضیحی داره؟
جرد دایموند: من توضیح دارم و مفصل تو کتاب "اسلحه، میکروب و فولاد"مَ نوشتم

اولا
کتابِ حاضر که با مثال هائی درخور، تحلیلی و موشکافانه به تغییراتِ سرنوشتِ جوامعِ بشری متاثر از عواملِ جغرافیائی و زیست محیطی میپردازه، توسط یوال نوح هراری نویسنده یِ شهیرِ کتاب های "انسان خردمند" و "انسان خداگونه" توصیه شده
هراری، خودش رو شدیداََ متاثر از "جَرِد دایموند"، نویسنده یِ کتابِ حاضر می دونه
:کاربری در توییتر بنام "مَمرضا"، با زبانی ساده، چکیده کتاب را چنین آورده است
سخن از فرآیندِ تاریخی یِ اهلی شدنِ گیاهان - دنیا به ما "عدالت" بدهکار نیست - باید خودمون رو با شرایط وفق بدیم - تلاش کنیم جزو برنده‌ها باشیم

دوما
کتاب دیگه ای از دایموند بنامِ "فروپاشی" با ترجمه ی فریدون مجلسی خوندم که میتونین چشمایِ نازنینتونو مهمونِ ریویو یِ کوتاهم درباره ی اون کتاب
: بفرمایین
https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...

توضیح اینکه: اکثر دوستانِ صاحب نظر، معتقدند خواندن این دو کتاب(کتابِ حاضر و "فروپاشی")، برای درکِ اونچه که دایموند سودایِ گفتنشو داره، ضروریه، یعنی لازم و ملزوم هم هستن

سوما
کتابِ "آشوب، نقاط عطف برای کشورهای بحران زده"، از همین نویسنده به زحمتِ نشرِ "طرح نو"، اخیرا روانه ی بازار شده است. ریویوی کتابِ بی
:نظیرِ و درس آموختنیِ "آشوب" در لینک زیر
https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...

خواندن تمامِ آثارِ "جرد دایموند"، بعنوانِ مخاطبی عام و حتی فراتر، در قالبِ شهروندِ ملتی، پیروِ یک دین، برآمده از قومی و گوینده ی ِ زبانی، برای فهمِ آنچه پشت سر گذاشته ایم و نگاهی دقیق تر به شناختِ تغییراتِ دنیایِ پیش رو، توصیه یِ موکد و مکرر این بنده است

این بنده را، با رفقائی که کتاب های دایموند رو با کمتر از 5ستاره موردِ تحسینِ بایسته قرار بدن، سرِ سازش نیس
Just4fun