Questions About Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies

Reader Q&A

To ask other readers questions about Guns, Germs, and Steel, please sign up.

Answered Questions (8)

Many historians have reexamined and abandoned the notion that Africa was always primitive and poor. John K. Thornton, for example, argues that Africa's backwardness is a recent phenomenon; before perhaps the 18th century, societies in sub-Saharan Africa were just as advanced as those in Europe or Asia. How does this square with Diamond's theory that Africa was geographically predisposed to poverty and backwardness?

MegaSolipsist He never said it was geographically disposed towards poverty and backwardness, just that the geography inhibits the spread of domesticated crops that …moreHe never said it was geographically disposed towards poverty and backwardness, just that the geography inhibits the spread of domesticated crops that are vital for agriculture and contained much less domestic-able animals than Eurasia, thereby severely limiting the speed of it's development. Two very different things.(less)

flag

Despite the fascinating subject matter I found this book a bit dry. I found the book almost as boring as the mandatory ongoing professional development class pursuant to my subversive reading of a book connected to reality that led me to the initial acquisition of the book. Nevertheless; Mr. Diamond's knowledge and subject matter expertise would be---in my opinion--beyond reproach. Any Thoughts?

Roger don't be so damned pedantic.…moredon't be so damned pedantic.(less)

flag

I'm looking for other books that try to explain the huge diversity within the human civilization and how it evolved into so many different forms of societies and cultures. What are your suggestions? I'm looking for all kind of perspectives (economic, environmental, genetic, political, ...).

Gaby Parenteau I would suggest "the archaeology of politics and power". It explains the birth of states (china, Indus civilisation, egypt etc.) and why they come to …moreI would suggest "the archaeology of politics and power". It explains the birth of states (china, Indus civilisation, egypt etc.) and why they come to be the way they are. The goal of the book is not explaining diversity so you have to evaluate the differences by yourself. The presentation is not as easy as gun germs and steel but it is more scientific, wich is a good thing cause you have the source for everything that is said and can do further research after that. (less)

flag

Jared Diamond states that the Eurasians were the ones who conquered the world due to geographical circumstances. However, the Middle East (the Fertile Crescent) also had everything to conquer the world, so why didn't the Middle East conquer the world? I was surprised Diamond did not address this issue since it is one of the main points he was trying to make. Does culture come into play in this case?

Gustavo I believe that answer is in the last few chapters, when he explains why China has not expanded its territory. He also talks about the Mongols — who we…moreI believe that answer is in the last few chapters, when he explains why China has not expanded its territory. He also talks about the Mongols — who were unable to enter Europe for geographical reasons, reaching at most as far as Hungary. In the case of China, he says that, compared to the Europeans, there was never a collective interest in conquering or even expanding the Chinese empire to the west. And China, unlike Europe, was united. Europe, in turn, due to dispute and disunity, went on a run around the world, always seeking to be ahead of the neighboring country. I believe that in the case of the Middle East, the “unity” factor counts as the main reason, since the Islam shaped the paths of this region and part of Asia (at least for a while). A religion has become a voice for a region, before headless, in a pseudo empire. Although Muslims reached Spain and Portugal, religious expansionism was not enough, since it Jared gave credit to multifactorial events to justify the success of some to the detriment of others.(less)

flag

Does this author express racist thoughts against white people? I've read a few pages and his wording seemed very controversial to me. Does he think that native Americans and Aborigines were all innocence incarnate and white people are all evil?

Laura Johnson No, and no. Diamond makes no moral judgements. His theories are based on geography. He does make the point early on that so-called
“primitive” people …moreNo, and no. Diamond makes no moral judgements. His theories are based on geography. He does make the point early on that so-called
“primitive” people are very intelligent, as shown by how they survive in often hostile environments. But he never claims one group is all innocence and the other all evil. I doubt a book like that would even find a publisher.(less)

flag

Load 3 more questions