Guns,Germs, and Steel

Needless to say, a legion of grateful left-wing scholars and academics labeled Diamond's book a revelation, and a Pulitzer Prize soon followed. Alas. "Guns, Germs and Steel" testifies why nobody should allow literary awards to influence their book-buying habits. Although Diamond's basic thesis does have some validity, he ignores too many important issues that needed to be discussed.

Firstly, Diamond's "geographic" theory is neither "original" nor "revolutionary" as so many have claimed. By arguing that all the world's civilisations were dependent on their geography, Diamond is following a line of reasoning that dates back to Marc Bloch and Lucien Febvre's "Annales" school of history. Environmental historians such as Donald Worster have also reiterated the ideas of the "Annales" school in recent times. Diamond certainly recycles these theories admirably enough, but if you are familiar with the work of the above historians, you will find little to appreciate here.

Although Diamond's thesis seems coherent enough, much of it is theoretical, and suffers from a lack of concrete evidence to back up his arguments. Instead of material facts, we get highly theoretical "chains of causation" with words such as "surely" and "must have" to provide the connections. One might be able to see how metal implements might develop from fertile lands, but can Newton's theory of Gravitation or Shakespeare's plays be linked directly to the development of metal tools? It is a little difficult to believe.

An examination of history also exposes the major flaws of Diamond's case. Between 1500 and 1750, for example, Europe was wracked by continual bouts of famine, disease and economic instability. (See David Fischer "The Great Wave," Jan De Vries "The Economy of Europe in an Age of Crisis.") But in spite of these titanic problems, European nations began an unprecedented wave of expansion. In addition, the philosophies that made up The Enlightenment also flourished in this period of economic uncertainty. According to Diamond's thesis, none of this could have happened as European farms at the time were in such a precarious state. The fact that these things did occur strongly suggests that there were other factors at work in the development of European civilisation.

By contrast, civilisations in tropical regions had ready access to abundant foodstuffs that could grow easily in such a warm climate. Tribes of native North Americans ranged over land that is now considered the most fertile in the world - and yet, none of these civilisations, despite their favourable geography, progressed as European nations did.

Diamond also overlooks important issues such as differing cultural prespectives. Between 1400 and 1600, the European depiction of nature underwent a fundamental change. (See Keith Thomas, "Man and the Natural World," Michael Adas, "Machines as the Measure of Men.") In this period, Europeans began to look upon nature as something that must be tamed. Europeans realised that technological innovations could overcome the obstacles of nature and improve lives. Thus, innovation and progress were encouraged by all. By contrast, until the arrival of Europeans, all the other civilisations of the world resigned themselves to the limitations of their environment. African and Pacific civilisations sought to harmonise themselves with nature, rather than try to change it. The people of New Guinea, where Diamond apparently grew up, were no exception to this rule, as Roy Rappaport's "Pigs for the Ancestors" so convincingly shows.

Diamond also refuses to take the impact of religion seriously. And yet, the Christian faith, which demanded the "spreading of the gospel" encouraged Europeans to look far afield, while the doctrine of the "civilising mission" was a primary motive for Britain and France in their colonial expansion.

Perhaps the overriding problem with "Guns, Germs and Steel" is its political correctness. Human variables such as culture, religion and environmental perspectives have played decisive roles in the development of the world's civilisations. This remains the case today, no matter how politically incorrect it might be to say so. Certainly, geography has played a role in the development of world history, but not to the extent asserted by Diamond. By ignoring the human variables, Diamond has greatly distorted the history of human progress


Ideas, Scholarship and Inspiration: Popular Writing   June 2, 2000
 264 out of 333 found this review helpful

Jared Diamond set out to do two very difficult things in this book: first, by his own admission, to summarize in one book 13,000 years of homo sapiens' history, and second, to write a popular, entry level book about the complexities of geographical and environmental determinism. To his credit, he brings both off very well.

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

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

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

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

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

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


An Interesting Theory, but.....   January 9, 2000
 171 out of 230 found this review helpful

In his book 'Guns, Germs and Steel' Jared Diamond offers a 'geographic determinist' view of world history with the specific intent of repudiating any notion that 'race' might be a factor in the development of advanced civilizations. He argues that the descendants of Europeans and Asians now dominate the earth economically, politically and technologically because of favorable geographic and environmental conditions that existed over 10,000 years ago in Europe and Asia, as opposed to Africa, Australia and the Americas. In his quest to discover the 'ultimate' causes of the current alignment of world power (e.g., why did Europeans settle the Americas and not vice-versa; why did Europeans and Asians advance technologically and not the Africans or Native Americans)Diamond posits that it can all be explained by the fact that Europe and Asia had the benefits of lands that could grow abundant crops and large animals that could be domesticated, whereas other areas of the earth did not have these benefits. Accordingly, these 'Eurasians' had a head start on producing crops that could feed large numbers of people, which then gave way to new technologies (guns and steel) which, along with germs that were deadly to Native Americans, allowed the 'Eurasians' to dominate the rest of the earth's inhabitants.

I found the following problems with this book:

Diamond presents an interesting and reasonable argument, but much of it seems to be theoretical. Despite the fact that he is making many educated guesses to substantiate his theories, he routinely seeks to give his statements the cover of authority by prefacing his views with words like 'undoubtedly', 'surely' or 'must have'. Watch out for those.

Diamond ruins his intriguing theory by his political correctness. He dismisses biological theories about why some civilizations are more advanced than others, but he doesn't tell us why they should be dismissed. It sometimes seems as though he had a conclusion and then went in search of 'facts' to support that conclusion.

Some of Diamond's agruments are too convenient. For example, he argues that China's geography and environment were just right for allowing its advanced civilization to develop, but later argues that China's failure to explore and settle other parts of the world was also due to its geography and environment. Is he forcing history into his theory?

He says there is no evidence that any race of people is smarter than another, and then tells us that the people of New Guinea are actually more intelligent than Westerners. Where did that come from?

Diamond fails to address the 'ultimate' cause of why, at the dawn of civilization, certain peoples were living in geographical areas favorable for the development of civilization, and others were not. Was it not a process of the smarter/stronger people forcing out/keeping out the less intelligent/weaker people? And, since this would have occurred before the development of agriculture, animal domestication or technology that would give the local inhabitants an advantage over others, to what do we attribute the ability of a people to inhabit and protect a fertile living area suitable for the development of a civilization, while others were forced to live in marginal areas?

Diamond shows his PC throughout his book by putting words like 'discovered', 'explorer' and 'civilization' in quotes whenever writing about Westerners. He also routinely refers to the process of whites settling the New World as involving 'killing' or 'murdering' the natives, but similar settling processes by third world peoples are simply a 'displacing' or 'engulfing' of the natives.

Diamond asserts that all religions developed as a means for the elite to gain power and control the people...no mention of the possibility of a sincere desire to insitute morality, or, heaven forbid, that anyone actually believed in their religion...

Most troubling is Diamond's almost total exclusion of the human element from his theory of history. Like a good scientist (Diamond's specialty is bird evolution) he seeks to reduce all history down to an equation without the human variable to distort the process. Diamond doesn't get around to mentioning the possible human variables until page 417 of his 425 page book. In Diamond's view, humans are slightly more than automatons; one individual or group is interchangeable with any other; if all groups of people had been switched around so that 10,000 years ago they all lived on different continents, the world would be exactly the same today, except that the people we know as Africans and Native Americans would dominate the world.

The general theory about the strong influence of geography and the environment on the development of civilizations has long been accepted. What is not accepted is the notion that geography and the environment are the primary determinants of human progress. As Will Durant wrote in 'The Lessons of History', after noting the importance of geography in history: 'The character and contour of a terrain may offer opportunities for agriculture, mining, or trade, but only the imagination and initiative of leaders, and the hardy industry of followers, can transform the possibilities into fact; and only a similar combination (as in Israel today) can make a culture take form over a thousand natural obstacles. Man, not the earth makes civilization.'

I give this book a partial recommendation; the theory about the impact of geography and the environment on the development of civilizations has validity, but not nearly to the degree asserted by Diamond. Diamond's eagerness to prove his thesis caused him to ignore some important questions and facts and also caused him to make too many unwarranted assumptions.


Totally lacking in credibility...   June 1, 2006
 89 out of 106 found this review helpful

Imagine my surprise when I found out that this book, which I'd been looking forward to reading for so long, isn't a science book at all. It's more of a convoluted political treatise in which the author uses every trick in the book to support his beliefs. He makes completely false statements, omits even the most obvious arguments refuting his position, passes off his poorly formed opinions as fact, and uses some of the most tortured logic I've ever had the misfortune to read.

But you're saying the same thing I did when I read the few negative reviews of GG&S: Who is this guy to criticize Jared Diamond? So let me give you some concrete examples of what I mean.

I think my favorite statement in this book, because the author managed to achieve absurdity on so many different levels with it, is that kids today are getting dumber because they watch too much TV.

Let's examine that for a moment. First, the fundamental assumption is flat wrong. Average performances on IQ tests (the best measure at this point) have been rising since the test was first administered. If you don't believe me, look it up--it's called the Flynn Effect. Now, normally, a statement this odd would have sent me scrambling to the footnotes, but there are none. Undoubtedly because they would interfere with Diamond's ability to just make stuff up.

Second, because we have the historical test numbers and we know the dates for the invention and proliferation of television, we can see that there is no correlation with IQ. And finally (okay, I admit to being a bit snarky here) they made a TV show out of this book. Why do I think Diamond would except that particular program from his hypothesis?

We then have his now vaguely infamous and typically unsupported idea that the people of New Guinea are smarter than Europeans because they live in a more violent and dangerous society which selects for intelligence as opposed to European society which tended to select for disease resistance.

While I recognize that this kind of reverse racism is the holy grail of the politically correct "scientist", there's a reason why thinkers much more weighty that Diamond won't touch this subject with a ten foot pole. If we accept Diamond's theory, how long until someone points out that survival in dangerous, violent societies probably selects physically strong, violent people over intelligent ones? Think of it this way: If you had to hire someone to carry your life savings across Somalia on foot, would you choose A: the captain of your high school chess club, or B: a former Navy SEAL in prison for beating a guy to death with a tire iron? So now we're suddenly suggesting that certain races are more prone to violence than others. Oops.

Diamond's proof for the fact that some societies domesticated plants and animals while others didn't seems to revolve around the fact that that we still haven't. So, for instance, because we still haven't domesticated the bison, it follows that it's impossible. No consideration is given to the fact that bison range pretty well without domestication and that cattle are so cheap, tasty, and plentiful, there's no real point. He also holds up the fact that recent efforts to domesticate the eland in Africa "have not caught on." I spend a lot of time in Africa, and let me tell you that the failure of the Africans to achieve something in no way means it's impossible.

Probably the most entertaining of Diamond's arguments on this subject, though, is his contention that a breeding program designed to genetically diversify the endangered California condor has produced no economically useful product. Why he would expect a program charged with creating a better wild animal to produce a domesticated one, I have no idea.

The examples go on an on. It was so bad that I began to question even the interesting sections that rang true to me--such as the scientific description of how plants are domesticated. I constantly wondered if he was leaving out certain species and methods that were available to the aboriginals in order to further his deterministic philosophy.

If you (completely understandably) find this review unconvincing and are about to press the `buy' button, I'd suggest that you also purchase Victor Hanson's "Carnage and Culture" which was written to refute GG&S. Or at least listen to Diamond's debate with Hanson on NPR, (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1132838.) You'll be amazed at how every time Diamond throws out one of his theories, Hanson is able to disprove it so simply and convincingly that Diamond doesn't even bother to argue. And this is despite the fact that Hanson is obviously trying to softball his responses in an effort to not make Diamond look like and idiot on national radio.

Finally, a word on the Pulitzer. I was so amazed by the fact that GG&S won, I looked up who votes on these prizes. Turns out it's a basically a bunch of journalists--not scientists or even people knowledgeable in the field. Explains a lot...