Enjoy fast, FREE delivery, exclusive deals and award-winning movies & TV shows with Prime
Try Prime
and start saving today with Fast, FREE Delivery
Amazon Prime includes:
Fast, FREE Delivery is available to Prime members. To join, select "Try Amazon Prime and start saving today with Fast, FREE Delivery" below the Add to Cart button.
Amazon Prime members enjoy:- Cardmembers earn 5% Back at Amazon.com with a Prime Credit Card.
- Unlimited Free Two-Day Delivery
- Instant streaming of thousands of movies and TV episodes with Prime Video
- A Kindle book to borrow for free each month - with no due dates
- Listen to over 2 million songs and hundreds of playlists
- Unlimited photo storage with anywhere access
Important: Your credit card will NOT be charged when you start your free trial or if you cancel during the trial period. If you're happy with Amazon Prime, do nothing. At the end of the free trial, your membership will automatically upgrade to a monthly membership.
Buy new:
$20.00$20.00
FREE delivery: Monday, Aug 7 on orders over $25.00 shipped by Amazon.
Ships from: Amazon Sold by: RaisingRose
Buy used: $8.50
Download the free Kindle app and start reading Kindle books instantly on your smartphone, tablet, or computer - no Kindle device required. Learn more
Read instantly on your browser with Kindle for Web.
Using your mobile phone camera - scan the code below and download the Kindle app.
Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies Paperback – April 1, 1999
| Price | New from | Used from |
|
Audible Audiobook, Unabridged
"Please retry" |
$0.00
| $7.95 with discounted Audible membership | |
|
Hardcover, Illustrated
"Please retry" | $14.49 | $2.25 |
|
Audio CD, Audiobook, CD, Unabridged
"Please retry" | $19.15 | $7.99 |
- Kindle
$9.99 Read with Our Free App -
Audiobook
$0.00 Free with your 3-Month Audible trial - Hardcover
$12.82 - $18.59145 Used from $2.25 61 New from $14.49 9 Collectible from $25.00 - Paperback
$20.00450 Used from $1.00 24 New from $9.30 8 Collectible from $10.00 - Audio CD
$12.84 - $25.0011 Used from $7.99 12 New from $19.15
Purchase options and add-ons
"Fascinating.... Lays a foundation for understanding human history."―Bill Gates
In this "artful, informative, and delightful" (William H. McNeill, New York Review of Books) book, Jared Diamond convincingly argues that geographical and environmental factors shaped the modern world. Societies that had had a head start in food production advanced beyond the hunter-gatherer stage, and then developed religion --as well as nasty germs and potent weapons of war --and adventured on sea and land to conquer and decimate preliterate cultures. A major advance in our understanding of human societies, Guns, Germs, and Steel chronicles the way that the modern world came to be and stunningly dismantles racially based theories of human history. Winner of the Pulitzer Prize, the Phi Beta Kappa Award in Science, the Rhone-Poulenc Prize, and the Commonwealth club of California's Gold Medal.- Print length480 pages
- LanguageEnglish
- PublisherW. W. Norton & Company
- Publication dateApril 1, 1999
- Dimensions6.1 x 1.5 x 9.3 inches
- ISBN-100393317552
- ISBN-13978-0393317558
- Lexile measure1440L
The Amazon Book Review
Book recommendations, author interviews, editors' picks, and more. Read it now
Frequently bought together

What do customers buy after viewing this item?
- Most purchasedin this set of products
American Prometheus: The Triumph and Tragedy of J. Robert OppenheimerPaperback - Lowest Pricein this set of products
The World's Greatest Short Stories (Dover Thrift Editions)James DaleyPaperback - Highest ratedin this set of products
Atomic Habits: An Easy & Proven Way to Build Good Habits & Break Bad OnesHardcover
“History followed different courses for different peoples because of differences among peoples’ environments, not because of biological differences among peoples themselves.”Highlighted by 4,543 Kindle readers
Those extinctions eliminated all the large wild animals that might otherwise have been candidates for domestication, and left native Australians and New Guineans with not a single native domestic animal.Highlighted by 2,651 Kindle readers
Why did wealth and power become distributed as they now are, rather than in some other way?Highlighted by 2,549 Kindle readers
Human history at last took off around 50,000 years ago, at the time of what I have termed our Great Leap Forward.Highlighted by 2,445 Kindle readers
Editorial Reviews
From Library Journal
Copyright 1999 Reed Business Information, Inc.
Review
- William H. McNeil, New York Review of Books
“An ambitious, highly important book.”
- James Shreeve, New York Times Book Review
“A book of remarkable scope, a history of the world in less than 500 pages which succeeds admirably, where so many others have failed, in analyzing some of the basic workings of culture process.... One of the most important and readable works on the human past published in recent years.”
- Colin Renfrew, Nature
“The scope and the explanatory power of this book are astounding.”
- The New Yorker
“No scientist brings more experience from the laboratory and field, none thinks more deeply about social issues or addresses them with greater clarity, than Jared Diamond as illustrated by Guns, Germs, and Steel. In this remarkably readable book he shows how history and biology can enrich one another to produce a deeper understanding of the human condition.”
- Edward O. Wilson, Pellegrino University Professor, Harvard University
“Serious, groundbreaking biological studies of human history only seem to come along once every generation or so. . . . Now [Guns, Germs, and Steel] must be added to their select number. . . . Diamond meshes technological mastery with historical sweep, anecdotal delight with broad conceptual vision, and command of sources with creative leaps. No finer work of its kind has been published this year, or for many past.”
- Martin Sieff, Washington Times
“[Diamond] is broadly erudite, writes in a style that pleasantly expresses scientific concepts in vernacular American English, and deals almost exclusively in questions that should interest everyone concerned about how humanity has developed. . . . [He] has done us all a great favor by supplying a rock-solid alternative to the racist answer. . . . A wonderfully interesting book.”
- Alfred W. Crosby, Los Angeles Times
“An epochal work. Diamond has written a summary of human history that can be accounted, for the time being, as Darwinian in its authority.”
- Thomas M. Disch, The New Leader
About the Author
Product details
- Publisher : W. W. Norton & Company; First Edition (April 1, 1999)
- Language : English
- Paperback : 480 pages
- ISBN-10 : 0393317552
- ISBN-13 : 978-0393317558
- Lexile measure : 1440L
- Item Weight : 1.2 pounds
- Dimensions : 6.1 x 1.5 x 9.3 inches
- Best Sellers Rank: #38,709 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)
- #24 in Human Geography (Books)
- #27 in General Anthropology
- #80 in History of Civilization & Culture
- Customer Reviews:
Important information
To report an issue with this product, click here.
About the author

Jared Diamond is the Pulitzer Prize-winning author of Guns, Germs, and Steel, which was named one of TIME’s best non-fiction books of all time, the number one international bestseller Collapse and most recently The World Until Yesterday. A professor of geography at UCLA and noted polymath, Diamond’s work has been influential in the fields of anthropology, biology, ornithology, ecology and history, among others.
Customer reviews
Customer Reviews, including Product Star Ratings help customers to learn more about the product and decide whether it is the right product for them.
To calculate the overall star rating and percentage breakdown by star, we don’t use a simple average. Instead, our system considers things like how recent a review is and if the reviewer bought the item on Amazon. It also analyzed reviews to verify trustworthiness.
Learn more how customers reviews work on AmazonReviewed in the United States on May 27, 2017
-
Top reviews
Top reviews from the United States
There was a problem filtering reviews right now. Please try again later.
At the time I thought that using Guns, Germs, and Steel as an educational tool would be a great idea. My dream of teaching history had never been realized and in 1997 seemed like it would never happen. However, history is full of strange things and in 2009 I got the chance to return to college and pick up my degrees. I began teaching American History in 2013 and was then asked to teach World Regional Geography for the Spring 2014 semester. They handed me a textbook and said, “Good luck.” As I drove back home I considered how I would teach this course and my mind recalled Jared Diamond and his Pulitzer Prize winning book. To make the story short, I built a course that used the textbook, Diamond’s book, and the National Geographic series based on the book.
Obviously I take what Diamond said in Guns, Germs, and Steel seriously. I think Diamond did some outstanding work in doing three decades of research and then writing a book which to me is resonates with readers. For many years the idea that Western Civilization was superior to any other form has been the dominant world view. Diamond rejects that completely by saying Western Civilization had advantages that others did not have due to geography, or literally where it was. When you stop and think about it, why were the Europeans so superior to others for so long? Was it their race, their ideals, or what? Diamond said it was because of where they started that they developed into the world spanning civilization we know.
What advantages did the Europeans have over others? They arrived with technology superior to all others, were better organized, and had the lethal gift of germs which in the Americas killed over half the population and was the biggest reason as to why the Europeans took those lands over. When Diamond explored the germ theory he realized that these germs came from contact with domesticated mammals such as horses, cows, pigs, chickens, sheep, and goats. These same mammals were what enabled Europeans to transport materials as well as have a convenient food supply and a power source such as horses pulling plows.
This idea works when you look at the Americas and Australia, but not when you look at Africa and Asia. The lethality of germs did not affect the people in those regions like it did the Americas. In fact, some of the diseases in Africa killed the Europeans and prevented them for exploiting Sub-Saharan Africa for centuries. Some of these germs are now known to have come from Asia as well along with domestic animals that came from there. Many of the larger mammals Europe had were also found in Asia. In fact, some of the technology such as gunpowder came from Asia as well. Diamond acknowledged this in his book and sought to explain why Europe was able to expand while Asia did not.
This is something I really stress in my class and it is something which the book and National Geographic series does not explore as deeply as it should. Diamond saw a decision made in the 15th century by a Chinese emperor as being the decisive event that altered human history. At that point China was the leading power in the world. It had a great navy, the largest country, gunpowder, advanced technology and far more people thanks to its agricultural practices than any other nation at that time. The decision by emperors in China’s Ming dynasty led to China losing its technological advantage over Europe although no one had any idea that this was happening. These decisions or orders are called Haijin.
Diamond did not explore this in any depth other than to point to it and say that China’s inward looking policies which had existed for centuries were the result of its location, its geography. Its singular form of government used Haijin to build up its power at the expense of expanding China’s culture and boundaries. There is a lot here to work with, but Diamond seems to casually bring it up in the book’s epilogue. Instead he focuses heavily on the Americas where his theory of environmental determinism is the strongest. I think he gets the theory right, but in the case of Asia he needed to go deeper.
Since Diamond is an ornithologist by education, and his world journey’s focused on New Guinea, I think his point of view was heavily influenced through his contact with hunter-gatherers. His theory is at its weakest in Asia and specifically China. That again reflects his preference for focusing on one type of people versus another. This does not mean his theory is wrong. It just needs expansion and I do not think Diamond will be doing that any time soon. His recent works have dealt with different ideas.
Even with this glaring problem, I think this book is outstanding. It does answer the question of why Western Civilization dominated the world for the most part. For my geography class it is a wonderful tool. I focus heavily on how man domesticated two grains from the Middle East, wheat and barley, and built Western Civilization upon them. Coupled with the domestication of large mammals, the forerunners of Western Civilization spread through Europe. Geography played a huge role in why it went west and why there are so many differences between East and West on a cultural level. It also explains why there are such huge differences between North Africa and the lands to the south of the Sahara.
The role of geography in shaping mankind is without a doubt the single underlying reason as to why history occurred like it did. This is really hard for students to understand because they seem to have been taught a much different concept prior to taking a geography course. Only by explaining the human-environment interaction do students begin to realize that geography caused man to make decisions which would reverberate for millennia. The people of the Middle East followed the Tigris and Euphrates rivers northwest into Anatolia and out of the desert. Man’s movement west, north, and south with the crops and animals of the Middle East were shaped by geographical barriers.
Diamond points out how man overcame these barriers over time. The civilization that was able to do so developed greater technologies than others. He points to both European and Chinese naval developments in this regard. China’s need to continue to build its naval forces was negligible due to a lack of naval enemies while in Europe those enemies were often themselves as nations competed for resources and trade. Since China controlled all of its trade which was mostly internal or land based, its need for a navy was reduced. Europe surged ahead while China languished.
In my classes I point to the barriers as we explore the world’s regions. I show how these barriers played such big roles. We play a board game by Avalon Hill that helps to illustrate this as well. Diamond’s book plays a big role in my class and so do his theories. I find it really helps students take the principles and ideas from the first part of the class and begin to apply them to the world regions we study. They are able to make the mental leap to the realization that the people of the world are different for many reasons, the foremost being the place in which they live more than anything else. It helps them to break down and discard the erroneous belief which many of them have regarding their place in the world. Using Diamond’s Guns, Germs, and Steel I am able to use Transformative Learning Theory to overcome the disorientating dilemma they find themselves in at the beginning of class.
I could build a new class out of Diamond’s book that encompasses geography, history, and sociology if my school would let me. In fact, I could build two classes out of it. One would focus on why Western Civilization developed like it did and expanded to the Americas while the second one would focus on the development of Eastern Civilization and its failure to expand beyond Asia itself. While courses exist that dive into those ideas, they are built around history more than anything else. Few instructors use environmental determinism in explaining how early mankind developed in the places it did. The ultimate objectives of these courses would be why they developed like they did, not just their history.
Diamond has written several other books such as Collapse, The Third Chimpanzee, and The World Until Yesterday. He is Professor of Geography at the University of California, Los Angeles. He has been awarded all kinds of prizes and awards for his research and work in multiple fields. I find it interesting that he began to study environmental history in his fifties which led to this book and many others. This to me is proof that you are not bound by formal rules regarding your education, but rather by using your interests coupled with the research capabilities your education has provided you new careers beckon. This book is a testament to following one’s interests and using one’s intellect. I highly recommend it to all readers. It is one of my favorite books and I have read through it multiple times.
The deep significance of this book is that Diamond's thesis is not simply idle conjecture. He proves that the Eurasian land mass had by far the best biological resources with which to develop agricultural societies, and was thus more able to form large, coherent, and powerful social entities. In order to back this idea, Diamond introduces a set of well-researched data on what kinds of plants and animals are necessary to support a farming society. He investigates the biological resources available to potential farmers in all parts of the world. The people of Eurasia had access to a suite of plants and animals that provided for their needs. Potential farmers in other parts of the world did not have such access and so, their fertile soil went uncultivated. Beginning 13,000 years ago, the author illuminated the circumstances that may have smoothed growth for some groups and repressed the same for others. Diamond accepts the out of Africa theory for the dispersion of Homo sapiens to the other continents as well as the importance of location that they went. For Diamond, food production is the definitive cause of capricious rates of development for different peoples. He demonstrates how the abundance of wild plants subject to domestication and availability of large mammals served as immediate factors to transition from hunter/gatherer bands and tribes to sedentary agriculturally based chiefdoms and states. In this context, Eurasia was home to important number of crops and animals that readily and successfully domesticated. This domestication resulted in mass food production, which the author claims is the "ultimate" cause of Western dominance. Food production in turn, led to a number of adjoining causes related to the rise of the West:- farms and animal herds led to stationary populations and excess food to support a specialized class of bureaucrats and soldiers and it also increased population density.
After establishing this strong foundation, Diamond falls into reiterating ideas about the creation of large-scale societies. These ideas, while clichéd, are still enthralling and Diamond presents them in a very clear and well-written way. His other major original contribution comes when he discusses the diseases that helped the Old World conquer the New World. Building on his earlier chapters dealing with Old-World domesticated animals, he shows that these very animals were the sources of the major plagues such as smallpox which virtually annihilated New World populations. The fact that Old World people had immunities to these diseases was a direct result of their agricultural head-start. Finally, Diamond concludes, the unique East-West axis of Eurasia and the absence of any impenetrable geographic barriers fostered the spread of new crops, technologies which gave rise to many competing communities, whose competition further increased the western lead over the rest of the world.
These technical details, while complete, are presented in a very easy to fathomable way and Diamond's writing style is fun and engaging. Diamond's arguments are persuasive on the surface, and even the prevalent skeptic will have reason for pause after reading his book.
However, I have some concerns with respect to the credibility of this book. I felt that I had to second guess most of his evidence, because it was equivocal, lacking or incorrect. Firstly, Diamond uses the term "Eurasian" to describe cultures and societies. However, the term is essentially used to describe a geographical landmass or tectonic plates. All the way through the book, he uses the term "Eurasian" when it supports his hypothesis and replaces the term with European or western Eurasian to support another part of his thesis. He does not separate Europe and Asia to explain societies and cultures even though Europe and Asia contain different religions, cultures and languages. But then again, he separates "North Africa" from "Sub-Saharan Africa" even though they are part of the same continental landmass and have more commonalties. On page 161, Diamond attempts to explain his reasoning behind using the broad and vague term "Eurasian" when he states that: "my use of the term "Eurasia" includes in several cases North Africa, which biogeographically and in many aspects of human culture is more closely related to Eurasia than to sub-Saharan Africa". I believe Diamond confuses contemporary North African culture with the cultures that inhabited Northern Africa from 10,000 BC to 8th century AD. For example, from pre-dynastic to the mid-late stages of the Ancient Egyptian civilization, the ancient Egyptians had contact and traded with cultures in Ethiopia (sub-Saharan Africa). The Ancient Egyptian and Amharic language (Ethiopia) belong to the same language group which is Afro-Asiatic, and also belong to the same sub language group, which is Semitic. Diamond makes vague generalities in supporting his thesis and fails to engage significant evidence that challenges his thesis.
In addition, when studying the development of different cultures and the spread of food production and technology, he modifies the definition of different terms to fit his hypothesis. Any hypothesis can be supported if you continuously alter the variables you are challenging. I found this to be the most distracting facet of this book. He does this with the terms "North African" and "Sub-Saharan African" which are terms that carried little meaning between 13,000 BC until the 7th century, but are used to separate the significant accomplishments of Ancient Egyptians (Africans) with other Africans. On page 92, he states that: "the availability of domestic plants and animals ultimately explains why empires, literacy, and steel weapons developed earliest in Eurasia and later, or not at all, on other continents." That statement is false, since written records of the Ancient Egyptian (African) language have been dated from about 3200 BC, making it the oldest and longest documented language. The Sumerian language, as Diamond claims is the oldest language, developed around 3000 BC. Additionally, a recent archaeological discovery has suggested that some Gerzean pottery with early hieroglyphics located in Egypt could have originated since 4000 BC.
Ancient Egyptians were also the first to develop mathematic concepts such as the Decimal system and science such as astronomy and medicine during that time period and significantly influenced Greek science and mathematics. Diamond does not mention any of this and I believe that he leaves out noteworthy attainments by non-Europeans to support his thesis. Throughout the book, Diamond also poses the following question in the background: "Why were Eurasians, rather than Native Americans or sub-Saharan Africans, the ones to invent firearms, oceangoing ships, and steel equipment?" Nevertheless, Diamond does not engage in the most basic question relating to the motivations of these cultures: Did Native Americans or Sub-Saharan Africans have a need for firearms/oceangoing ships? More to the point, did the Native Americans, sub-Saharan Africans, and other so-called non-Eurasians, want firearms or oceangoing ships? The answer would have forced Diamond to research the cultures and religions of Native Americans and Sub-Saharan Africans in more detail, rather than explaining it with geography and/or food production.
Also, he does not include the significant accomplishments of Ancient Egypt, including papyrus, an early form of paper that originated in Africa not Europe or Asia. On page 190, Diamond states that: "Continental differences in axis orientation affected the diffusion not only of food production but also of other technologies and inventions." It is known that Ancient Egyptian technology including scientific or medical discoveries traveled along the north or south axis towards the Middle-east and eventually to ancient Greece. Diamond doesn't mention any of this, which further questions the credibility of the book. Another problem with Diamond's style is that he seems to negate the influences of Non-Europeans, specifically Africa and China, to the current Western hegemony such as gunpowder from China, natural resources from Africa by either not mentioning them at all or under-emphasizing their importance. It is quite likely that without the influences from non-European civilizations that current Western hegemony would not exist today. He also makes downright false statements such as in page 247 when he states that: "Delivered in grenades, rockets, and torpedoes, those incendiaries played a key role in Islam's eventual defeat of the Crusaders." According to historical records, there is no evidence to suggest that grenades, rockets and torpedoes were used during the Crusades.
I agree that the domestication of plants and animals could predispose agriculturalists to further development. However, geography and domestication of animals and plants alone is inadequate to support his thesis without explaining the role of the people and societies occupying the geography. Geography might be a factor to explain how Western Civilization became the dominant civilization in the world today. Though, European civilization did not arise in a vacuum. Regardless of the plausible geographic advantage of Europe and Asia, factors such as political intentions, morals, ethics, religion and culture all served to explain why some civilizations were determined to expand and build empires through conquest, while others did not. Diamond claims that his theories offer an alternative explanation to traditional racist dogma. Conversely, I believe his theories do just the opposite. By stating that Europeans developed into the dominant civilization by "chance" or "luck" with respect to geography strengthens racist theories that European civilization was "destined" to become the most powerful.
Moreover, Diamond dismisses politics, religion, culture, individuals, and timing. For example, consider Cortez's victory over the Aztecs. Cortez's victory was not assured. Many elements had to be aligned for a few hundred Spaniards to overcome a mighty empire. The odds were really in Montezuma's favor. Even with horses, armor, and guns, the Aztecs were easily a match for Cortez. The Spanish armor was superfluous. According to Keegan, they even shed their heavy armor in favor of the native quilt vests. The firearms at that time were not quick to reload, so sheer numbers could have overwhelmed the Spanish. The Aztecs lost because of politics, religion, and individuals. The brutal politics and religion of the Aztecs made their subjects hate them. The Spanish were immediately supported with armies and food by the smaller nations like the Totonacs that hated the Aztecs for their cruelty. The insatiable appetite of the Aztec gods for human sacrifices insured that Cortez found ready allies. If either Montezuma or Cortez had been composed of slightly different temperaments the war could easily have gone the other way. Had Montezuma been more decisive, he could have had Cortez killed at the coast. Had Cortez not been so incredibly determined to take the country, he could have just returned to Spain with a load of the early gold presents sent to him.
History is determined by far more than geography, plants, and animals. Culture, religion, individuals, politics, and timing all play important roles. My criticisms have nothing to do with "political correctness", but rather I take issue with Diamond's style of revisionist history that does not emphasize the influence and significance of non-European civilizations towards current Western civilization. While reading the book, I was frequently second guessing the facts of Jared Diamond because they were either inexact or vague.
In closing, as an introduction to anthropology and a cogent depiction of one school of thought on the rise of the West this book is marvelous. However, it needs to be approached with an open-mind as it has some of its faults. Reflect on the thesis and the supporting evidence, and then draw your own conclusions. Love it or hate it, you owe it to yourself to read this book. As for me, this book is one of the best revisionist histories on the Ancient Civilizations but as the case with revisionist history, it has its share of one sided and extreme arguments. It is a good book but not great. Still, it is very simple to read and very easy to cognize which I think deserves the Pulitzer Prize it won.
Top reviews from other countries
“In short, plant and animal domestication meant much more food and hence much denser human populations. The resulting food surpluses, and (in some areas) the animal-based means of transporting those surpluses, were a prerequisite for the development of settled, politically centralized, socially stratified, economically complex, technologically innovative societies. Hence the availability of domestic plants and animals ultimately explains why empires, literacy, and steel weapons developed earliest in Eurasia and later, or not at all, on other continents. The military use of horses and camels. and the killing power of animal-derived germs, complete the list of major links between food production and conquest that we shall be exploring.”
“Taken together, these four factors help us understand why the transition to food production in the Fertile Crescent began around 8500 B.C., not around 18.500 or 18.500 B.C. At the later two dates hunting-gathering was still much more rewarding than incipient food production, because wild mammals were still abundant; wild cereals were not yet abundant; people had not yet developed the inventions necessary for collecting, processing, and storing cereals efficiently; and human population densities were not yet high enough for a large premium to be placed on extracting more calories per acre.”
“Eventually, thousands of years after the beginnings of animal domestication and food production, the animals also began to be used for milk, wool, plowing, and transport. Thus, the crops and animals of the Fertile Crescent’s first farmers came to meet humanity’s basic needs: carbohydrate, protein, fat, clothing, traction, and transport.”
“In short, New Guinea offers an instructive contrast to the Fertile Crescent. Like Hunter-gatherers of the Fertile Crescent, those of New Guinea did evolve food production independently. However, their indigenous food production was restricted by the local absence of domesticable cereals, pulses, and animals, by the resulting protein deficiency in the highlands, and by limitations of the locally available root crops at high elevations.”
“We found that these differenced between the Fertile Crescent, New Guinea, and the eastern United States followed straightforwardly from the differing suites of wild plant and animal species available for domestication, not from limitations of the peoples themselves. When more productive crops arrived from elsewhere (the sweet potato in New Guinea, the Mexican trinity in the eastern United States), local peoples promptly took advantages of them, intensified food production, and increased greatly in population.”
“ I note that regions differed greatly in their available pool of domesticable species, that they varied correspondingly in the date when local food production arose, and that food production had not yet arisen independently in some fertile regions as of modern times.”
“the reason Native Americans did not domesticate apples lay with the entire suite of wild plant and animal species available to Native Americans. That suite’s modest potential for domestication was responsible for the late start of food production in North America.”
“‘Happy families are all alike; every unhappy family is unhappy in its own way.’ By that sentence, Tolstoy meant that, in order to be happy, a marriage must succeed in many different respects: sexual attraction, agreement about money, child discipline, religion, in-laws, and other vital issues. Failure in any one of those essential respects can doom a marriage even if it has all the other ingredients needed for happiness.”
“Our former question about apples or Indians becomes a question of zebras or Africans.”
“they provided meat, milk products, fertilizer, land, transport, leather, military assault vehicles, plow traction, and wool, as well as germs that killed previously unexposed peoples.”
“This very unequal distribution of wild ancestral species among the continents became an important reason why Eurasians, rather than peoples of other continents, were the ones to end up with guns, germs, and steel.”
“Almost all species of domesticated large mammals prove to be ones whose wild ancestor share three social characteristics: they live in herds; they maintain a well-developed dominance hierarchy among herd members; and the herd occupy overlapping home ranges rather than mutually exclusive territories.”
“Such social animals lend themselves to herding.”
“turns out that all but a few candidates for domestication have been eliminated by the Anna Karenina principle. Humans and most animal species make an unhappy marriage, for one or more of many possible reasons: the animal’s diet, growth rate, mating habits, disposition, tendency to panic, and several distinct features of social organization.”
“Eurasian peoples happened to inherit many more species of domesticable large wild mammalian herbivores than did peoples of the other continents. That outcome, with all of its momentous advantages for Eurasian societies, stemmed from three basic facts of mammalian geography, history, and biology. First, Eurasia, befitting its large area and ecological diversity, started out with the most candidates. Second, Australia and the Americas, but not Eurasia or Africa, lost most of their candidates in a massive wave of late-pleistocene extinctions - possibly because the mammals of the former continents had the misfortune to be first exposed to humans suddenly and late in our evolutionary history, when our hunting skills were already highly developed. Finally, a higher percentage of the surviving candidates proved suitable for domestication on Eurasia than on the other continents.”
“To a lesser degree, they also tend to share similar diseases, regimes of temperature and rainfall, and habitats or biomes (types of vegetation). For example, Portugal, northern Iran, and Japan, all located at about the same latitude but lying successively 4.000 miles east or west of each other, are most similar to each other in climate than each is to a location lying even a mere 1.000 miles due south.”
“the orientation of Eurasia’s axis compared with that of the Americas or Africa. Around those axes turned the fortunes of history.”
“Farmers tend to breathe ou nastier germs, to own better weapons and armour, to own more powerful technology in general, and to live under centralized governments with literate elites better able to wage wars of conquest. Hence the next four chapters will explore how the ultimate cause of food production led to the proximate causes of germs, literacy, technology, and centralized government.”
“Pizarro had similarly grim luck when he landed on the cost of Peru in 1531 with 168 men to conquer the Inca Empire of millions. Fortunately for Pizarro and unfortunately for the Incas, smallpox had arrived overland around 1526, killing much of the Inca population, including both the emperor Huayna Capac and his designated successor. As we saw in chapter 3, the result of the throne’s being left vacant was that two other sons of Huayna Capac, Atahuallpa and Huascar, became embroiled in a civil war that Pizarro exploited to conquer the divided Incas.”
“the germs evolving from Eurasians’ long intimacy with domestic animals.”
“blueprint copying or idea diffusion”
Thus, the commonsense view of invention that served as our starting point reverses the usual roles of invention and need. It also overstates the importance of rare geniuses, such as Watt and Edison.”
“My two main conclusions are that technology develops cumulatively, rather than in isolated heroic acts, and that it finds most of its users after it has been invented, rather than being invented to meet a foreseen need.”
“The importance of diffusion, and of geographic location in making it possible, is strikingly illustrated by some otherwise incomprehensible cases of societies that abandoned powerful technologies.”
“Let us now summarize how variations in the tree factors - time of onset food production, barriers to diffusion, and human population size - led straightforwardly to the observed intercontinental differences in the development of technology.”
“All these effects that continental differences in area, population, ease of diffusion, and onset of food production exerted on the rise of technology became exaggerated, because technology catalyzes itself.”
“The difference between a kleptocrat and a wise statesman, between a robber baron and a public benefactor, is merely on of degree: a matter of just how large a percentage of the tribute is retained by the elite, and how much the commoners like the public uses to which the redistributed tribute is put.”
“Besides justifying the transfer of wealth to kleptocrats, institutionalized religion brings two other important benefits to centralized societies. First, shared ideology or religion helps solve the problem of how unrelated individuals are to live together without killing each other - by providing them with a bond not based on kinship. Second, it gives people a motive, other than genetic self-interest, for sacrificing their lives on behalf of others. At the cost of a few society members who die in battle as soldiers, the whole society becomes much more effective at conquering other societies or resisting attacks.”
“These examples demonstrate that the sole missing ingredients required to sustain food production in large areas of the Americas were domestic animals and crops themselves.”
“This continental difference in harmful germs resulted paradoxically from the difference in useful livestock. Most of the microbes responsible for the infectious diseases of crowded human societies evolved from very similar ancestral microbes causing infectious diseases of the domestic animals with which food producers began coming into daily close contact around 10.000 years ago.”
“Hence it may have been Africa that gave birth to the languages spoken by the authors of the Old and the New Testaments and the Koran, the moral pillars of Western civilization.”
“But food production was delayed in sub-Saharan Africa (compared with Eurasia) by Africa’s paucity of domesticable native animals and plant species, its much smaller area suitable for indigenous food production, and its north-south axis, which retarded the spread of food production and inventions.”
“But none of those tamed animals was actually domesticated - that is, selectively bred in captivity and genetically modified so as to become more useful to humans.”
“In short, Europe’s colonization of Africa had nothing to do with differenced between European and African peoples themselves, as white racists assume. Rather, it was due to accidents of geography and biogeography - in particular, to the continents’ different axes, and suites of wild plant and animal species. That is, the different historical trajectories of Africa and Europe stem ultimately from differences in real estate.”
“In fact, precisely because Europe was fragmented, Columbus succeeded on his fifth try in persuading one of Europe’s hundreds of princes to sponsor him.”
“Europe’s barriers were sufficient to prevent political unification, but insufficient to halt the spread of technology and ideas. There has never been one despot who could turn off the tap for all Europe, as of China.”
“Nevertheless, it remains an open question how wide and lasting the effects of idiosyncratic individuals on history really are.”
“But recall that the word “science” means “knowledge” (from the latin scire, “to know”, and scientia, “knowledge”), to be obtained by whatever methods are most appropriate to the particular field.”
“Like Arabs and Jews, Koreans and Japanese are peoples joined by blood, yet locked in traditional enmity. But enmity is mutually destructive, in East Asia and in the Middle East. Reluctant as Japanese and Koreans are to admit it, they are like twins brothers who shared their formative years. The political future of East Asia depends in rediscovering those ancient bonds between them.”
“First, [rainfall] agriculture in Europe provided no role for the state, which remained far from local communities most of the time, and when the agricultural revolution in Europe produced a growing agricultural surplus, this allowed the growth of relatively autonomous towns along with urban institutions such as universities prior to the rise of the centralized states in the late Middle Ages. [irrigation and water-control] agriculture in China, by contrast, favored the early development of intrusive and coercive states in the major river valleys, while towns and their institutions never achieved the degree of local autonomy found in Europe.”
“The optimal Fragmentation Principle: innovation proceeds most rapidly in a society with some optimal intermediate degree of fragmentation: a too-unified society is at a disadvantage, and so is a too-fragmented society.”
“Those tiny German beer companies are relatively inefficient. There’s no competition; there are just a thousand local monopolies.”
“Why does the Japanese food-processing industry, like the German beer industry, consist of small local monopolies? Basically, the answer is the same two reasons: local taste and government policies.”
“All of this suggests that we may be able to extract a general principle about group organization. If your goal is innovation and competitive ability, you don’t want either excessive unity or excessive fragmentation. Instead, you want your country, industry, industrial belt, or company to be broken up into groups that compete with one another while maintaining relatively free communication - like the U.S. federal government system, with its built-in competition between our 50 states.”
Et le voilà parti le Gégé, le Jaja en américain, vous savez c'est un bon gars, lui en faut peu. A vrai dire des tas d'guss se la sont posée avant lui cette question, mais lui il est biologiste alors ça change tout.
Le tonton Marx avait déjà essayé, le tonton Weber aussi, et puis deux trois mecs un peu raciste sur les bords. Bon allez j'arrête mes enfantillages.
Un peu de sérieux. Ces dernières années, avec la mondialisation sur toutes les bouches, des nouveaux travaux on vu le jour, ce qu'on appelle communément la "global history" et qui se posent la même question que Yali, pourquoi est-ce en Europe que la révolution industrielle a-eu lieue ? Et pourquoi à cette époque précise ?
Immanuel Wallerstein, Kenneth Pomeranz, Niall Ferguson, Christopher Alan Bayly, ou encore Toynbee, Braudel quelques décennies plus tôt.
Comme je l'ai déjà dit, ces travaux reprenaient déjà ceux d'Auguste Comte, Marx ou encore Max Weber, qui ont vécu en pleine période de colonisation pour les deux premiers, pour le dernier en pleine création de la sociologie.
Tous ces chercheurs sont plutôt classés dans le domaine de l'Histoire. Diamond, lui, est un géographe, biologiste évolutionniste, et physiologiste. Il peut alors apporter beaucoup plus d'arguments, d'autres explications.
Même si le livre est long, truffé d'informations, on peut dire que Diamond mise tout sur le hasard comme réponse.
Le continent européen était mieux loti en espaces, en diversités écologiques, en climats, en faunes, en espèces animales. La chance du débutant alors.
Le livre a reçu beaucoup d'éloges (et un Pulitzer) mais aussi beaucoup de critiques. Les critiques faites par d'autres scientifiques sont les seules à lire, celles venant des personnes dont les idéologies se sont vues un peu malmenées par l'oeuvre de Jared n'importe peu, n'ayant aucune chance de faire avancer le débat. Il faudra donc fouiller dans les revues scientifiques et voir là où pêche ce livre, puisque oui, des défauts, il en a.
Certains accuse même Diamond d'avoir relevé des données fausses, pire, de les avoir falsifiées, pour qu'elles puissent ainsi justifier son opinion. Ce sera au lecteur curieux de vérifier tout cela (moi je l'ai fais mais j'ai un peu oublié comme au début, désolé).
D'abord, partir de la question initiale de Yali, avec comme posture "je le fais pour anéantir les explications racistes" (Diamond le dit clairement), peut nous faire questionner sur l'efficacité du procédé, est-ce que ce ne serait pas déjà biaisée son analyse, dès le départ ? Même si le but est tout à fait honorable d'un point de vue éthique et éducatif.
Avec ce pré-requis, le cherry-picking (wikipédia au secours : "En rhétorique ou dans toute forme d'argumentation, le cherry picking (litt. « cueillette de cerises »), est la mise en avant des faits ou données qui donnent du crédit à son opinion en passant sous silence tous les cas qui la contredisent. Ce procédé trompeur, pas nécessairement intentionnel, est un exemple typique de biais de confirmation.") se voit gros comme une maison.
Il faut aussi dire que le père Diamond aime lâcher quelques grosses conneries de temps en temps, au fil de ses interviews multiple, digne d'un étudiant en sarouel roulant ses OCB entre deux set de djembé. "L'agriculture plus grosse erreur de l'humanité" comme t'y vas Jared.
Pour conclure on pourrait dire que c'est la vision quasi gourrou de Diamond qui agace.
Ces livres sont toujours un plaisir à lire, stimulant est le mot, ils nourrissent des débats toujours passionnants, qu'importe les erreurs, les biais, en science, cela se corrige toujours un jour ou l'autre.
C'est ceux qui en font un message monolithique ou une vérité obligatoire, une récupération politique, qu'il faut critiquer.
Même si, il faut bien l'avouer, certaines positions de tonton Diamond (dont il se fait un malin plaisir à rendre clivantes, ou floues) prêtent des fois à confusion et leurs permettent cette rhétorique.
On the positive side the book introduced me to ideas I hadn’t considered before and has encouraged a desire to find out more how humans developed from primitive hunter gathers to what we are now. In particular, it has a way of looking at human development in a very non-linear way, casts aside a lot of ‘western’ prejudice and opens up better ways of approaching the ideas. The concept of the book is good, it asks the question why does Eurasian (especially European) culture dominate the world? It is not satisfied with the obvious answer because it was in Europe that technology and culture developed to the highest level and empowered the Europeans to send well armed invaders around the world. Nor is it satisfied with citing the Europeans of having this advantage due to its access to agriculture, literature, iron melting etc. It goes deeper and asks why did those things come to be developed to substantially higher levels in Europe and Asia than in Africa, America or Australia. The book puts forward many credible ideas of how this came about. No spoilers you can read them for yourself.
However, there are 3 fundamental flaws in book, the first two are common gripes typical of ‘pop’ science.
Firstly, there is way too much certainty here, despite his early explanation of uncertainty of radio carbon dating he nevertheless goes on to make some very bold claims on very patchy evidence. This is most startling on his theories of how existing on a land mass with big East-West axis is a driver for development. His thesis is highly plausible but hard evidence is distinctly lacking. There is a very small sample set of just 5 substantial landmasses (Eurasia, Africa, Australian North and South America) on Earth each with many other startling geographical differences which all impacted on human development to greater or less degrees. Separating out this one feature as a determinate force, even with a plausible rationale, is fair enough as long as it is presented with suitable scientific doubt – I found that essential ingredient of sound scientific reasoning absent throughout the text. His science is very imprecise, that isn't a fault with the science you can only work with the evidence you have but good science must above all else be honest and contain explicit and proportionate doubt.
Secondly the chapter on evolution is almost comical. Evolution is described in anthropomorphical terms as if it moves with a consciousness and to pre conceived plan. I doubt this is intentional but is worryingly common in popular writing – it absolutely not how evolution works. Writing about it in such terms I suspect is a sub conscious concession to those that want god to have a role in biology – it’s certainly bad science.
These two points are probably more relevant today than 20 years ago, the importance of having a scientifically literate population is utterly exposed with the rise of popularism and the world in the grip of a pandemic. Scientists must write books for popular consumption but when doing so must maintain proper scientific methodology, this is far more important than the subject of the book, a general scientific literacy in the world’s population is not a luxury it is becoming a necessity for our continued survival.
But the big downer for me was the endless repetition. There were plenty of good ideas scattered in the book, but each time he mentioned (for example) germs imported by invaders wiping out local populations while the local populations were not able to pass on their germs to the invaders there is a repeat of basic idea why the germs only work one way. I only need to be told once, maybe twice at most, not tens of times. The text is littered with repeated set piece speeches about the East-West axis, germs, literature, animal and plant domestication, irrigation, sedentary living etc. After the first quarter of the book I was able to detect a repeat rant on the first line and skim the next few pages. Generally I was little wiser by the end of the book than I was after the introduction, there are little gems buried in the latter text but it takes a lot wading through stuff I have already been told to get to. This is a shame by the end of the book I was utterly tired of it despite the fact I felt enlightened by its beginning, I wish I’d lost it after I read the introduction.















