Are you sure?
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
Guns, Germs and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies
Summary
In this groundbreaking work, evolutionary biologist Jared Diamond stunningly dismantles racially based theories of human history by revealing the environmental factors actually responsible for history's broadest patterns. It is a story that spans 13,000 years of human history, beginning when Stone Age hunter-gatherers constituted the entire human population.
Winner of the Pulitzer Prize
Read on the Scribd mobile app
Download the free Scribd mobile app to read anytime, anywhere.
Reviews
Interesting but not 100% convincing. I want to know more about technological regression!
An interesting and intriguing look at different societies and what makes one gain advantage over the other. Diamond presents his evidence fluidly, if but a bit on the technical side, but the book is an astounding achievement in his field and the findings are very conclusive and relevant to our understanding of history. I was especially impressed by his wealth of information, sources, and acuity in determining his observations. For non-fiction lovers, this is not one to be missed.3.75.
This is a weighty book, ya'll. Jared Diamond's book had been on my list for ages because once upon a time it had been on one of my recommended reading lists for an undergraduate Anthropology class (I majored in that field). I didn't have the time to read it then (it is 425 pages after all) but the topic still intrigued me. Much like the book above I was interested in the subject matter and found no fault with the writing style (other than it being more like a textbook than casual, recreational reading) but it was so dense that I didn't always feel compelled to pick it up in a spare moment. (I also kept falling asleep for some reason.) Progress: I made it to page 290 before I had to concede defeat (and ship it to the next person waiting to read it).
I have had this book staring me down from my shelves for 10+ years. I knew I ought to read the darn thing, but it seemed like more effort than I ever had the energy to expend. Recently though, my very smart friend (hi Robert!) insisted I must read it, and collapsing in the face of peer pressure I did so. He was right. This cohesive, scrupulously supported theory of the variant development of human societies (based more in geography and biology than anthropology) is fascinating, compelling, eye opening, and shockingly relevant to everyday life in these strange times. I put the book right back on my shelf. I almost never re-read, but this I need to revisit soon.
The aim of this book (and I am oversimplifying) is to explain why western countries became the dominant force in the last couple of centuries. Specifically, he is rejecting social Darwinist and racist explanations for why it has been mostly European Caucasian societies that have come to power, to find an explanation based on geography and evolution. Diamond is successful in this explanation, and takes the reader some of the most interesting developments in human history--the rise of agriculture and animal domestication, the invention of writing, and other important technologies, and migration and trade patterns. While the book is packed with interesting information, it is however, rather repetitive, and probably cites more examples than it needs to.
Guns, Germs and Steel is the iconic 1998 work by Jared Diamond positing so clearly the argument that biogeographical factors are the determinant behind relative rates of progress and success among different human societies. His work argues in the very long-term it is ultimately biogeographic factors that are the ultimate cause of trends in human history. What Diamond has done is spell out effectively the seemingly obvious point that geography impacts a society, its success, and culture, and has advanced that idea into a generalised analysis of human history.Diamond is in particular an expert on New Guinea. It shows. The work goes into extensive detail on Papuans as an interesting historical experiment to assess his theory. His assertion that Papuans are individually smarter than westerners is of course non-verifiable as it is largely only those with access to higher levels of education in the west that will cross paths with Papuans. Nevertheless it is indicative of the close relationship Diamond has with some of the cultures of Papua, especially the part not under the control of Indonesia.Diamond begins his march through human history by asking the question from the noble savage - why is it Papuans did not develop the tools to conquer far flung parts of the world. Of course, actually they did. Diamond does not offer this obvious counterpoint but given Papuan peoples managed to claim the lands they now own means they must have been able to do some far-flung conquering of their own, just not on the same scale.Diamond's answer to the question why some societies developed the tools for global conquest and others not is divided into proximate and ultimate causes. The proximate causes are initially described as Guns, Germs, and Steel. It is a punchy title but not the most accurate and Diamond moves on from it fairly quickly. Guns and Steel in particular are fairly interchangeable as they both represent advanced weapon technology. Through the later stages of the work, Diamond makes greater reference to political organisation rather than just sticking to his catchy trio.The great example Diamond uses is the mortal blow inflicted on the Aztecs by the Spanish. The Aztecs really should have been able to put up much more of a fight against the Conquistadors but Diamond shows how the proximate factors of weaponry, other technology, and germs were able to wipe out a mighty empire. This example though is merely the step towards explaining the far more interesting assessment of ultimate causes.Diamond's analysis of ancient history is fascinating. The well-known Fertile Crescent was of course the dawn of civilisation but what Diamond catalogues so well is the range of advantages that location had over everywhere else. The reason civilisation arose first there is because of the set of seeds worth growing. Diamond's analysis of the most productive seed groups suggests the Fertile Crescent was inevitably going to be the site of civilisation's birth. It is fascinating to see some of the tables of productive foods. Fascinating for instance that the British Isles offers just oats. Fascinating because oats remain a staple of British diet thousands of years later.The idea of civilisation's spread through settled farming is of course obvious. Diamond takes that obvious point and applies it to the whole of human history. He charts the spread of societies and their food package. The spread of foods heads along east-west parallels rather than north-south. It makes complete sense because produce will not grow at different latitudes of temperature, climate, and season. This necessarily implies that transfer of food packages runs most easily across continents as in the spread from the Fertile Crescent to Europe rather than up and down continents as did not happen for instance in all of Africa.Diamond takes this idea a step further by assessing that there is an east-west effect on technology transfer more generally. This is debatable and Diamond does not really show technology transfer beyond food as having a latitudinal effect. His examples are more of geographic barriers with the Isthmus of Panama and the Sahara Desert both being good reasons technology transferred so slowly or not at all.Diamond does at times make some bizarre claims such as Neanderthals having made no impact on modern humans. The genetic record suggests otherwise. He also seems to have failed to have accounted for the re-populating of Africa by peoples who had already moved into Asia. Nevertheless his analysis is largely sound.There is sometimes an agenda behind the analysis. Diamond is particularly keen to point out the failings of race-based theories of societal success. He takes on the most obvious example in the form of Aboriginal Australia. It is the hardest argument for those opposed to racism to make - that somehow the most backward socieities on Earth exist in the form they do next to advanced westernised Australia for reasons other than genetics. Diamond's analysis is effective in describing the ultimate causes. Australia was of course populated much later than the rest of the world and it has a terrible set of native food products. It is only the bringing of temperate food to the most temperate parts of Australia that Europeans have flourished. It is a convincing argument.Diamond divides his book into four parts. Part One sets up the various theories being explored using examples to show how similar peoples, such as Polynesians on different islands, developed differently based on their biogeography. It is a great start and somewhat awe-inspiring to read it spelled out so clearly. Part two is about food development using examples of the availability of differently productive foods and domesticable animals. Why some types of animals are more domesticable than others of the same family is an area Diamond highlights for future research. As well as offering productivity gains, the animal link is important for Diamond's proximate conquest cause - germs which is a key aspect of part three along with some fairly bland writings about the differences between tribes and bands.Part four is the conclusion. It is the history of different continents following Diamond's theory. Unfortunately it is by far the weakest part of the book and exposes its major flaws. Diamond took a surprisingly non-Euro-centric approach to explaining the world. For some reason more than half of the world's population is lumped together as Eurasia. The analysis of the rest of the world is not always great. The chapter on why China became Chinese is remarkably limited. The chapter on Africa is fairly good, showing the Bantu expansion as a good case study explaining why the Bantu societies triumphed over Khoisan and Pygmy but could only go as far as their food package could take them.The chapter on the Americas leaves open the most obvious question. Why did they not develop boats? Polynesians boated to extraordinary lengths yet Meso-Americans failed to develop seafaring capability to navigate along a coastline in ways which could have led to contact between Meso-American and South American states. It is not a particularly difficult thing to do - the Celts of course having moved up from Iberia to the British Isles exactly that way.Diamond begins to address some of the criticisms of his work in a well-crafted epilogue. This was presumably written after the first publication when the most glaring flaws came to light. In particular he posits a believable theory about why China has not been the dominant force in human history. Frankly China should always be the leading player but has never managed to achieve that position. Diamond offers a new idea not present in his earlier discussion - that societal formation itself is determined by biogeography. Europe is divided into smaller States because of its geography which means more competition for ideas and much less possibilty of turning off progress. China is stilted by its dominance of its own expansive landmass and the centralisation of power in the hands of just one who can turn off progress.The epilogue argument is fascinating because it develops Diamond's theory to effectively begin identifying that it is geography that determines how a society works. This is now a well-regarded and much used idea which can explain how peoples in different parts of the world can develop similar proclivities because of having the same kinds of terrain. The great martial races of the world are of course all from tough places, mostly mountainous ranges.There are of course areas for development from Diamond's theory. Most obviously why advanced western socieities stopped trying to conquer the rest of the world after World War II. Equally the role of the individual in history must play some role. Diamond suggests it was inevitable that power would shift from the Fertile Crescent west but that is only an analysis of what happened without it being truly inevitable. Would it really be inevitable that Europe would rise had Sparta not defeated the Persian invasion, or indeed had Sparta later defeated Athens? Would the global system of an international rules-based global order be in place had the Axis powers sued for peace in 1944? Such butterfly effects cannot surely have had no impact on the longue duree.For all the potential critiques of Diamond's work though it is a fabulous piece. It may be turgid at times with the repitition of phrases and argument but it is a defining work in the now widely accepted notion that the environment shapes the socities that inhabit it, and that the success or failure of societies depend on the resources they can draw from the place in which they live.
one of 3 top all tie science books
Dense, academic, slow and possessing an onslaught of illustrative examples. Not the most entertaining read, and I probably retained very little. Worthy of a Pulitzer? Absolutely.
Jarod Diamond examines the question of why are some societies more successful than others. Ultimately, why was it the Europeans who dominated exploration and conquest of the world? Why not China or Africa? Diamond explores the idea of "accidental conquest" based on geographic luck. This informational text is best suited for high school students because of the complexity of ideas. Diamond won the Pulitzer Prize (General Nonfiction) in 1998 for this book and in 1999 and 2004, it was placed on the ALA Outstanding Books for the College Bound list.
The author hypothesizes that the reason for the success of Western civilization in colonizing so much of the world is pure chance, a combination of guns, pathogenic bacteria, and steel. Also, the location of these societies played a large role in their success. It's an interesting thesis, and I suspect at least partially right, though much of his evidence can be interpreted more than one way. Also, some recent findings in molecular biology may have require some alteration of his ideas. Certainly a book people should read.
Lots of great ideas. I've heard it criticised for not being rigorous enough, and I thought it was too wordy full stop but the author acknowledges all of this and the big picture I don't know how you would get the picture without all the words.
The author gives a well researched factual account of how the European continent managed to conquer Africa and North America. The luck of beneficial geographic placement and easily domesticated species gave them the greater competitive edge - and explains so much about how the world was explored and subsequently colonized. Very interesting book - National Geographic did a dvd companion piece that was good also.
Diamond takes an evolutionary approach to the advancement of conquering cultures through the rapid advancement of crop cultivation, domestic animals, and survival of the fittest through disease. Unfortunately, it is in desperate need of an editor. Hundreds of pages should have been cut or redesigned. The last three chapters alone could have been cut to just a few pages. When Guns was first published it was considered quite revolutionary; however, current scholarship has challenged it with a bite.
It's easily observed that many native peoples did not develop technology at the same rate as the white Europeans who eventually conquered them. Since the times when whites first encountered these races, they believed that their lack of technology meant they were less intelligent leading to a generallized belief of Caucasions as a superior race.In this book, Jared Diamond disabuses this notion. He cites a variety of anthropological arguments for the varied rates of technoligical development, including the number of plant and animal species available in an area for humans to domesticate, the ease of spread of new technologies and newly domesticates species, and impassable landforms which left cultures isolated. Naturally, this also affected disease resistance.I have read very little anthropology, so I found this fascinating. I have no way of judging whether this is new information, or a compilation of arguments familiar to anthropologists, but I learned quite a bit. Since it is twenty years old, I noticed a few scientific inaccuracies (dogs being domesticated in more than one area is the one that stood out to me) and I'm sure that anthropology has similarly moved forward.Nevertheless, I found it worthwhile and intriguing.
Ik kan perfect begrijpen waarom dit boek zoveel succes heeft gehad: het is bijzonder helder geschreven. Diamond gaat heel methodisch te werk, neemt zijn lezer overal bij de hand, licht voortdurend zijn aanpak toe en legt zijn bevindingen ook mooi neer. En uiteraard is er heel veel te zeggen voor een benadering van de geschiedenis die vooral inzoomt op milieu-aspecten: geografie, klimaat en biologie hebben een ongelofelijke impact gehad op de ontwikkeling van het leven en dus zeker ook op de menselijke geschiedenis. Terecht zet de evolutionaire bioloog Diamond dit in de verf. Zijn conclusies houden steek, maar ? Hij begaat de fout om zijn benadering ietsje teveel als de enig mogelijke, of toch de enig echt relevante benadering voor te stellen. En dan gaat het uiteraard over zijn toch wel flagrant van tafel schuiven van culturele factoren. Ok, in zijn nawoord besteedt hij heel kort aandacht aan het belang van culturele factoren, maar hij maakt zich er van af door te zeggen dat daar weinig met zekerheid over te zeggen is. Iets te goedkoop, Jared. Desalniettemin vind ik dit toch een heel waardevol werk!
Ik kan perfect begrijpen waarom dit boek zoveel succes heeft gehad: het is bijzonder helder geschreven. Diamond gaat heel methodisch te werk, neemt zijn lezer overal bij de hand, licht voortdurend zijn aanpak toe en legt zijn bevindingen ook mooi neer. En uiteraard is er heel veel te zeggen voor een benadering van de geschiedenis die vooral inzoomt op milieu-aspecten: geografie, klimaat en biologie hebben een ongelofelijke impact gehad op de ontwikkeling van het leven en dus zeker ook op de menselijke geschiedenis. Terecht zet de evolutionaire bioloog Diamond dit in de verf. Zijn conclusies houden steek, maar … Hij begaat de fout om zijn benadering ietsje teveel als de enig mogelijke, of toch de enig echt relevante benadering voor te stellen. En dan gaat het uiteraard over zijn toch wel flagrant van tafel schuiven van culturele factoren. Ok, in zijn nawoord besteedt hij heel kort aandacht aan het belang van culturele factoren, maar hij maakt zich er van af door te zeggen dat daar weinig met zekerheid over te zeggen is. Iets te goedkoop, Jared. Desalniettemin vind ik dit toch een heel waardevol werk!
Diamond explains why some groups of humans have done well based on local circumstances: material resources, pathogens, human migratory patterns, that sort of thing. It's such a useful and non-racist theory that it holds immediate appeal. I've no idea how well it's withstood research over the past twenty years, but I'll assume that my understanding of it is too simplistic to be quite true.
Library copy.
Library copy.
A very fascinating look at just about everything that contributed to humans going from neanderthals to modern man. It explores domestication (the hows and whys of what ended up domesticated versus what's still wild [if not extinct]), types of governing (or lack thereof), how and why some societies don't develop certain technologies (including writing and animal husbandry), and how and why some societies have simply refused to "modernize."
Dr. Diamond. Now there’s a name begging to be assigned a character in a superhero movie. Jared Diamond might agree.
Guns, Germs, and Steel derives from a thesis Dr. Diamond has about how some societies were able to accumulate so much “cargo” compared to other peoples. He attempts to dissuade readers from ideas that individual or cultural superiority must be the basis of explanation.
This is a good topic but my interest in his argument fell off in proportion to the number of pages read. Not an obstacle, though. Dr. Diamond so often presented fun ideas and information that a thematic excuse to continue on wasn’t needed.
As one example of what I found fun: why zebras did not come to serve as the African horse.“Zebras have the unpleasant habit of biting a person and not letting go. They thereby injure even more American zookeepers each year than do tigers! Zebras are also virtually impossible to lasso with a rope—even for cowboys who win rodeo championships by lassoing horses—because of their unfailing ability to watch the rope noose fly toward them and then to duck their head out of the way.”
Pretty damn good, zebras. Born to be wild!
ALTHOUGH, I must point out, in the movie Hatari a zebra is lassoed by the character played by John Wayne. Now, no shame being lassoed by the Duke, of course. And it’s possible the movie exercised some sleight of hand to fool us. Maybe it was a zebra-striped horse (it really does look like a zebra though). Or maybe, just maybe, the “unfailing” zebras sometimes fail when chased a long distance by a bunch of people in a truck, a technique not available to ancient Africans. Is Dr. Diamond still interested? He should discuss this.
One annoyance was the book’s misleading title, which could better have been Germs! Germs! Germs! And Other Stuff. As a kid I didn’t like germs but I liked guns (the plastic toys) and I liked steel. The boy in me wanted to read about the stuff I’d liked. But those grim germs run rampant here, laying waste to the guns and the steel and their metaphorical counterparts.
Nor does it help that at times Dr. Diamond will talk so much about a single subject that the reader is apt to expire before finishing. His aim is to convince and if entertainment suffers from the effort, so be it.
The merit of the book is that the author gives well-articulated reasons in the effort to convince and he entertains often enough. Even when he fails and writes something dull or irritating, it’s easy to be forgiving because there will be something good coming up again. For example: “With the rise of chiefdoms around 7,500 years ago, people had to learn, for the first time in history, how to encounter strangers regularly without attempting to kill them.”
Let us bow to the chiefdoms! Without them, how could road trips be the attraction they are today?
This book was highly recommended to me by a former political science professor of mine about a year ago. I picked it up last week, and though reading it appears to be an intimidating endeavor it turned out to be quite interesting and manageable to get through. This Pulitzer Prize winner attempts to cover massive ground in under 500 pages, and while it would seem that small amount of space would sell short the fates of human societies, Diamond does a stellar job of incorporating all the aspects required of this topic into a relatable masterpiece.Part of what makes Guns, Germs, and Steel so effortless to read is its repetitiveness, which also tends to be one of its major critiques. I think that the breadth of this book made repetition not just acceptable, but useful. The reader could easily lose track of what was being discussed if the focus was not continuously being brought back to the main ideas Diamond pursued. The big question this book tries to answer is why some societies advanced and prospered while numerous others did not. In short, it is a brief history of how human societies proceeded to their present state.Diamond’s hypothesis is that there are many different reasons for how societies came to be the way they are today, but that racial differences is not among them. The four factors that he claims contributed most to the success or failure of societies are the differences in wild plant and animal life on the continents, the orientation of the continents’ major axis, the rate of diffusion between continents, and the total area and population size of each of the continents. For instance, Eurasia had 13 of the 14 domesticatable animal species in the world, has a major axis orientation of west-east rather than north-south, was least impeded by geographic barriers to spread information, and has the largest land mass and population size of any of the continents. This book documents how each of these factors affected the populations of each continent in the development of human societies.One of the major sections of Guns, Germs, and Steel focuses on food production and dissemination, which I found particularly interesting. Diamond explains that having domesticatable animal and plant species is essential to progress a human society. The comfort of our current culture is a result of our ancestors transitioning from hunter-gatherer lifestyles to sedentary farmers. Stockpiling food, branching into handicrafts, creating a written language, and building up immunities to germs transmitted by livestock would never have been possible if humans had not begun to cultivate the land. As this book jaunts on, the layers from which society is constructed are clearly presented and reiterated, so that by the end you will have no trouble explaining why the hundreds of thousands of Aztecs were conquered by the few hundred Spaniards, or why the Australians never independently developed agriculture. As Diamond notes and demonstrates, history is indeed like an onion.While an impressive amount of information is covered in this work, I got the sense that a lot was being left unsaid. Not until the epilogue does Diamond begin to point out historical instances that are more than just anomalies in his theory. For example, China had advantages in every area Diamond suggests is important to advancing society, and yet it was Europe, not China, that colonized the Americas. He asserts this to China being so unified that the decision of a single person could impede the progress of the entire nation. (Interestingly, this is what led to China abandoning everything from mechanical clocks to the entire school system at one point!) Europe, on the other hand, had many competing rulers and opinions which helped it advance ahead of China. This makes sense, but seems to be in conflict with Diamond’s hypothesis, which is that geography and resources are what gave cultures advantages, not the humans within the cultures. This is not a racist explanation, as Diamond was trying to avoid, since there has probably been someone in every society who thought it would be best to do away with seafaring ships at one time or another. It just happened that that person was in a position of power in China at an unfortunate time.Diamond does a fantastic job of working through the history of human societies on every continent and explaining why they are the way they are today. He employs the knowledge of many disciplines, including linguistics, geography, biology and agronomy, to name a few. Though the scientific method may not have been properly used here, as Diamond presents only information that supports his hypothesis, the premise and conclusion are logical and well presented. Guns, Germs, and Steel is a definite asset to anyone’s bookshelf.
Widely read and popular, Guns, germs and steel. The fates of human societies has a simple and compelling thesis: Geography lies at the basis of the success of civilizations. The long horizontal axis spanning the Eurasian continent resulted in successful transmission of cultural and agricultural discoveries, while the vertical axes of the American and African continents were less conducive to such promotion. Thus, the civilizations on the Eurasian continent were ultimately more successful than civilizations of other continents.Guns, germs and steel. The fates of human societies includes descriptions of all continents and major civilizations, with some more prominence for places the author knows better from previous work. The fact that the book first appeared in 1997, 1999 does not seem to be of major impact. Although in the meantime significant progress has been made in describing human ancestry, new findings do not seem to undermine or challenge Diamond's thesis on main points.Guns, germs and steel. The fates of human societies does take a rather reductionist stance, and the main arguments in the conquest of Latin America seem to be a bit forced, downplaying simple luck. Psychological traits of the conquerers, such as agression, deceit and drive to conquer are not juxtaposed to the characteristics of other peoples in the world.Still, Guns, germs and steel. The fates of human societies remains a very interesting book to read.
A lot of time spent dwelling in more tedious areas in the beginning, but the chapters toward the end were fascinating.
As a former history major, I've been told a number of times over the years that this is a book I SHOULD have been required to read, so I finally got around to reading it (or rather, listening to it on audiobook). More so than history, I felt like this book was reminiscent of my college anthropology courses, with its lengthy discussions of early human population movements and agriculture and animal domestication. All this makes for interesting reading overall, but it's easy for a reader to get bogged down in the details of early human migration movements and plant domestication.
Jared Diamond has pulled off a startling amalgamation of Bill Bryson's 'Short History of Nearly Everything' and Jacob Bronowski's 'The Ascent of Man'. He writes with great clarity and illuminates a number of turning points while seeking to explain why some societies around the world achieved ascendancy over others. Diamond's principal hypothesis is that until around 11,000 BC all of the fledgling societies scattered around the globe were on a roughly equal footing, struggling to get by as hunter-gatherers. From that time onwards, different groups started to move towards a more structured mode of agriculture featuring the domestication of livestock and the ability to regulate arable crops. Throughout the book he stops to ask why it was that the European nations colonised Afria, Asia and the Americas, rather than the other way around. Why were those European states able to establish their supremacy?The dreadful impact of diseases prevalent among Europeans upon the new societies that they encountered throughout the New World and Australasia is well documented. Diamond asserts that some of that contagion was initially contracted from the livestock that formed the basis of their sustaining agriculture. Diamond explores these issues with a mixture of history, archaeology and anthropology, drawing evidence from all around the world. These are not areas that I know much, if anything, about, and I found Diamond's book completely engrossing. I might question some of his conclusions, but they are all soundly constructed, and liable to provoke lively debate.
I know it won the Pulitzer Prize for non-fiction. The premise of the book in the reviews I read sounded interesting. But I just found the book dull to read and I couldn't finish it.
This was a very insightful book that provided plausible theories that account for things I had wondered myself about human societies. I had always wondered why it was Europeans who created empires around the globe as opposed to other cultures. Also, I was aware that there were no beasts of burden in North America and that played a role in hindering technological advancement. But the author expounded on this and other factors in a way that painted a pretty clear picture on the discrepancies that separate geographically distinct societies around the world.
Loved this book on the first read. Have been wanting to reread and found a great bargain on a used copy. I would have preferred a hardcover but, as long as I have the book, it's all good.
A fabulous book that does justice to a huge and controversial field, covering evolution, paleobiology, genetics and early human history. The breadth and depth of this work is staggering- this book is not for the fainthearted as it is long, very detailed yet thankfully very readable.
Fascinating and captivating read. I would have read it a lot faster if not for selecting it as my 'exercise reading matter', meaning it only got attention in short bursts!
Jared takes on the question of why some parts of the world kept to dominate others, and not vice versa, from a historically scientific standpoint, looking at food production and the effect it has on just about everything else - like the innovations of technology, society, politics and so forth. Why did Eurasia serve as a better platform for so many factors than the Americas, Africa or Australia?
I found myself re-reading sections sometimes because of the revelations therein, or mulling over the concepts at length long after I'd inserted my bookmark and put the book down. Jared asks so many questions I have never considered before, and yet in his consideration of them have found myself wishing I'd applied myself more in my own studies!
Something as simple as why did Chinese political unity serve as a poorer platform for dominance than the fractured political mishmash of Europe, despite the Chinese people have piles of technologies and societal advances so long before those of West Eurasia? (well, I say simple, which it isn't... but after reading it, it seems like such a simple explanation).
Loved reading this - grappling with the impact of wild plants and potentially domesticated animals on the progress of world. Considering the roles of isolation, geographic orientation, language, and so many other factors. My eyes have been really opened, and I appreciate it!
Jared takes on the question of why some parts of the world kept to dominate others, and not vice versa, from a historically scientific standpoint, looking at food production and the effect it has on just about everything else - like the innovations of technology, society, politics and so forth. Why did Eurasia serve as a better platform for so many factors than the Americas, Africa or Australia?
I found myself re-reading sections sometimes because of the revelations therein, or mulling over the concepts at length long after I'd inserted my bookmark and put the book down. Jared asks so many questions I have never considered before, and yet in his consideration of them have found myself wishing I'd applied myself more in my own studies!
Something as simple as why did Chinese political unity serve as a poorer platform for dominance than the fractured political mishmash of Europe, despite the Chinese people have piles of technologies and societal advances so long before those of West Eurasia? (well, I say simple, which it isn't... but after reading it, it seems like such a simple explanation).
Loved reading this - grappling with the impact of wild plants and potentially domesticated animals on the progress of world. Considering the roles of isolation, geographic orientation, language, and so many other factors. My eyes have been really opened, and I appreciate it!
So far an incredible book...This book basically asks the question why is it that some races, peoples, and ethnicities have far outpaced others in terms of technological achievement, understanding, and civilization?
Chapter 1-Up to the starting line
The great leap forward happens about 40,000 years ago. Man himself emerges only about 100k years ago, diverging evolutionarily from Neandertal then. Neandertal and Cro-Magnon (first modern man) coeval in Europe.
Neandertal went extinct likely from being out competed by Cro-Magnon, by 40,000 years ago, humans have populated much of the easter hemisphere (Eurasia, Australia) having arisen from Africa.
The origin of the great leap forward remains controversial - did it happen simultaneously and in parallel globally, or did it happen in Africa, and then disperse out? At about the great leap forward large mammalian and large fauna extinction coincides with Man's appearance and technological prowess. Such extinction likely attributed to the docility of animals to humans because no previous encounters with Man.
Human colonization of the new world happens between 16000 and 11000 B.C. from human migration across the Bering Straights of Alaska. Two early sites, Clovis (ll000 BC) and Meadowbrook (16000 BC) argue for two different colonizations. Does having settled and occupied a land region (like a continent) confer a "head" start in civilizational advancement, if Eurasia possessed humanity far longer than say the polynesian islands or the New World?
Chapter 2 - A natural experiment of history
Human expansion into the polynesian islands exemplifies an experiment of how geography influences culture and advancement; Moari's invade and slaughter other islanders, who two generations prior, were from the same land - in essence, were the same people. Geography creates political, economic, and cultural seperation.
Each successive polynesian island outward from the pacific rim, had different geographies and climates, imposing on settlers different agricultural, political, military, and cultural philosophies
Geographies that imposed subsistance living fostered communitarian, distributive, and peaceful approaches to culture; geographies supportive of intensie farming enabled specialized societies that were heirarchical, mercantile, specialized, and militarized.
Conquest becomes a function of resource acquisition to support political and economic sustainability.
Chapter 3 - Collision at Cajamarca
Pizzaro captures and kills the Inca king, and conquers the Incas with ease - virtually no loss of life, despite being vastly outnumbered and being in "hostile territory" - how is that possible?
Spanish were not interested in negotiated outcomes, but religious zealotry to convert perceived "heathens" to Christianity; never really any intent to convert for the sake of enlightenment, but for enslavement and pillaging.
Spanish were successful in conquering Incas and Aztecs (to the north) because of several proximate causes:
Horses and military superiority of weaponry based on steel; horses had never been encountered in the New World until European introduction. Horses were trained for war, gave height, weight and speed advantage over footmen. Steel and metallurgy allowed for swords and guns.
Infectious disease; European immunity built on centuries of pestilence and disease killed millions of Indians who never encountered such disease like small pox. Disease spread ahead of European expansion inland so that many societies were weakened or destroyed. Interestingly, many Old World diseases like malaria inhibited EU conquest of Africa and Asia.
Political astuteness and understanding of human nature, as a function of centralized political organization
Literacy as a mode of creating and transmitting competitive intelligence over other peoples; EU learned quickly about tactical success over the indians because of writings that were disseminated over Spain. Indians were misinformed and uninformed because prior encounters with Europeans were undocumented and not communicated.
European maritime technology; the ability to travel en masse quickly and in strength from one location to another.
Question: why did all of the above not happen to New World Indians? And why did they not conquer the old world?
THE RISE OF FARMER POWER
Chapter 4- Farmer power
plant and animal domestication intensified population growth
Food surpluses and animal transportation enabled settlement, political centralization, social stratification, and economically complex technologically savvy societies
Domestication in Eurasia explains why empire, steel, and literacy arose there
Weaponization of animals, horses and camels gave military prowess over those societies where domestication did not occur.
Chapter 5- histories haves and have nots
Food production, animal domestication and agriculture occurred DeNovo in only half a dozen locations globally- each independent from the others.
Occurred on each of the major continents, and temporally distinct from each other
First in SW Asia and China (8500-8000 BC), then two thousand years later in the US
Outside of the six or so locales, food was imported to other locales with founder crops and animals.
Other locales either were invaded by other farmers bringing founder crops, or through trade, or through duplicating what had been done at other locales. E.g. Egypt seems to have adopted SW Asian crops and animals in lieu of hunting and gathering.
Chapter 1-Up to the starting line
The great leap forward happens about 40,000 years ago. Man himself emerges only about 100k years ago, diverging evolutionarily from Neandertal then. Neandertal and Cro-Magnon (first modern man) coeval in Europe.
Neandertal went extinct likely from being out competed by Cro-Magnon, by 40,000 years ago, humans have populated much of the easter hemisphere (Eurasia, Australia) having arisen from Africa.
The origin of the great leap forward remains controversial - did it happen simultaneously and in parallel globally, or did it happen in Africa, and then disperse out? At about the great leap forward large mammalian and large fauna extinction coincides with Man's appearance and technological prowess. Such extinction likely attributed to the docility of animals to humans because no previous encounters with Man.
Human colonization of the new world happens between 16000 and 11000 B.C. from human migration across the Bering Straights of Alaska. Two early sites, Clovis (ll000 BC) and Meadowbrook (16000 BC) argue for two different colonizations. Does having settled and occupied a land region (like a continent) confer a "head" start in civilizational advancement, if Eurasia possessed humanity far longer than say the polynesian islands or the New World?
Chapter 2 - A natural experiment of history
Human expansion into the polynesian islands exemplifies an experiment of how geography influences culture and advancement; Moari's invade and slaughter other islanders, who two generations prior, were from the same land - in essence, were the same people. Geography creates political, economic, and cultural seperation.
Each successive polynesian island outward from the pacific rim, had different geographies and climates, imposing on settlers different agricultural, political, military, and cultural philosophies
Geographies that imposed subsistance living fostered communitarian, distributive, and peaceful approaches to culture; geographies supportive of intensie farming enabled specialized societies that were heirarchical, mercantile, specialized, and militarized.
Conquest becomes a function of resource acquisition to support political and economic sustainability.
Chapter 3 - Collision at Cajamarca
Pizzaro captures and kills the Inca king, and conquers the Incas with ease - virtually no loss of life, despite being vastly outnumbered and being in "hostile territory" - how is that possible?
Spanish were not interested in negotiated outcomes, but religious zealotry to convert perceived "heathens" to Christianity; never really any intent to convert for the sake of enlightenment, but for enslavement and pillaging.
Spanish were successful in conquering Incas and Aztecs (to the north) because of several proximate causes:
Horses and military superiority of weaponry based on steel; horses had never been encountered in the New World until European introduction. Horses were trained for war, gave height, weight and speed advantage over footmen. Steel and metallurgy allowed for swords and guns.
Infectious disease; European immunity built on centuries of pestilence and disease killed millions of Indians who never encountered such disease like small pox. Disease spread ahead of European expansion inland so that many societies were weakened or destroyed. Interestingly, many Old World diseases like malaria inhibited EU conquest of Africa and Asia.
Political astuteness and understanding of human nature, as a function of centralized political organization
Literacy as a mode of creating and transmitting competitive intelligence over other peoples; EU learned quickly about tactical success over the indians because of writings that were disseminated over Spain. Indians were misinformed and uninformed because prior encounters with Europeans were undocumented and not communicated.
European maritime technology; the ability to travel en masse quickly and in strength from one location to another.
Question: why did all of the above not happen to New World Indians? And why did they not conquer the old world?
THE RISE OF FARMER POWER
Chapter 4- Farmer power
plant and animal domestication intensified population growth
Food surpluses and animal transportation enabled settlement, political centralization, social stratification, and economically complex technologically savvy societies
Domestication in Eurasia explains why empire, steel, and literacy arose there
Weaponization of animals, horses and camels gave military prowess over those societies where domestication did not occur.
Chapter 5- histories haves and have nots
Food production, animal domestication and agriculture occurred DeNovo in only half a dozen locations globally- each independent from the others.
Occurred on each of the major continents, and temporally distinct from each other
First in SW Asia and China (8500-8000 BC), then two thousand years later in the US
Outside of the six or so locales, food was imported to other locales with founder crops and animals.
Other locales either were invaded by other farmers bringing founder crops, or through trade, or through duplicating what had been done at other locales. E.g. Egypt seems to have adopted SW Asian crops and animals in lieu of hunting and gathering.