Summary Of Guns, Germs, And Steel By Jared Diamond
In the book entitled Guns, Germs, and Steel, author Jared Diamond centers his argument around the idea that “societies developed differently on different continents because of different continental environments” (Diamond, 9). Dissimilar to the prevailing belief that genetics play a role in determining societal development, Diamond argues that geographic factors and environmental influences substantially shape the distribution of wealth and power. J.R. McNeill’s article, “The World According to Diamond” correctly identifies the explanatory limits of Diamond’s argument. He restricts the influence of geographic and environmental influences on global development to the evolution of crops and the domestication of animals. Diamond overextends the influence of geography and environmental influences when analyzing temporary phenomenons and axis orientation; however, he brilliantly constructs a comprehensive “big picture”
…show more content…
image of how the world develops.
In Guns, Germs, and Steel, Diamond overly attributes a large component of societal development from axis orientation. In chapter ten, Diamond emphatically states that axis orientation affects the spread of agriculture and domestication. For Diamond, the Fertile Crescent and Eurasia had such a large, rapid spread of crops because of its east-west axis. In his theory, “localities distributed east and west of each other at the same latitude share exactly the same day length and seasonal variation” and thus Eurasia developed at a rapid rate because “germination, growth, and disease resistance of plants are adapted to precisely those features of climate” (Diamond, 183-184). Diamond’s explanation of the necessity of east-west axis for proper plant development only mildly suffices. The issue with this theory that McNeill points out is that Eurasia’s east-west axis, compared to the America’s and Africa’s north-south axis, could not have provided much advantage in the spread of domesticable animals due to “its extreme variety of climatic conditions, its high mountains, deserts, and tropical forests” (McNeill, 172). McNeill argues that the diffusion could not (and did not) perfectly occur from east to west. This counter-argument holds validity as most domesticable animals such as cattle, goats and chickens do not have the body structure nor ability to travel thousands of miles across an axis as Diamond suggests. Even if they did, there are geographic barriers, like mountains, that would prevent their transportation into India and the rest of Eurasia. Though Eurasia has a similar latitude across, Diamond disregards the affect of seasonal wind patterns, earth tilting and axis spinning on the actual climate of these places. Coastal areas, like parts of Eurasia, would receive far more rainfall than Diamond suggests the landlocked inland of other parts of Eurasia would. . For instance, warm water around Southeast Asia gets pushed further south into the eastern coast of Africa which differs significantly from the other side of Eurasia, in which warm waters from the western coast of Africa get pushed far north to Britain and Spain. Thus climatically, the transportation and diffusion of domesticable animals along the east-west axis fails.
Author, J.R. McNeill draws attention to the faulty argument that Diamond makes in regards to the dominance of Europe in certain centuries. In the Afterword, Diamond argues that “Europe’s fragmentation did, and China’s unity didn’t, foster the advance of technology, science, and capitalism by fostering competition between states” (Diamond, 437). However, the disregard for cultural and religious practices without further analyzes negates the impact that one’s views play in shaping human drive and goals. For instance, the European Judeo-Christian tradition holds the belief that it is their duty to spread the word of God and make disciples; whereas certain African and Middle-Eastern beliefs do not have this principle. Religion and cultural beliefs have always had a role in the history of Eurasia and to disregard its relevance detracts from the entire picture. Diamond illustrates the world in a way that leaves little control to humans and more to chance. McNeill supports his argument that geographic fragmentation is not necessarily an advantage by providing other instances, namely India, where fragmentation lead to a nation’s ruin rather than growth. This evidence further detracts from the ‘ultimate geographic factor’ that Diamond claims determined continental dominance versus submission.
However, Diamond correctly analyzes the geographical environments and ecological profiles of the Americas, Africa, Australia and Eurasia and the effects they had on development. Diamond’s argument states that the cultivatable crops around the globe varied with the most diverse and sustainable being in Eurasia (the Fertile Crescent). Archaeologists have documented the Fertile Crescent’s geography, landscape, plant and animal life thoroughly and in five thousand B.C., the Fertile Crescent crops were already “abundant and highly productive” (Diamond, 131). As Diamond shows, the plants here were annual and highly efficient in producing large, edible seeds. The Fertile Crescent—Eurasia—differed from the Americas and Australia, in this manner, as it had a high percentage of wild plants suitable for domestication. In the Americas, the wild cereals were not nearly as well versed as the barley and wheat that grew in Eurasia, which stunted their growth because they could not become farmers and herders. Consequently, they remained hunter-gathers while the people of the Fertile Crescent became food-producers and began to domesticate animals. Similar to the Fertile Crescent, Diamond describes Africa’s ideal conditions and climate as ideal for food production. Diamond points to the domestication of wild plants indigenous to the tropical climate as the catalyst of the development of African agriculture.
In contrast to Africa and the Americas, Diamond explains that the crop variety and diversity of Polynesia could have produced similar outcomes to the Fertile Crescent but the varying climate of the islands that comprise Polynesia varies drastically. Diamond elaborates to state that their indigenous food production “was restricted by the local absence of domesticable cereals, pulses and animals, by the resulting protein deficiency in the highlands” (Diamond, 144). In an even more deficient condition lies Australia, where native food production did not thrive. Diamond’s research shows that Australia had some plants available for food production such as some variations of yams and taro. However, Diamond then argues that “any food production that did arise indigenously in Australia would have been limited by the lack of domesticable animals, the poverty of domesticable plants, and the difficult soils and climate” (Diamond, 153). Thus the concept of dispersion of crops and plants remained within Eurasia until later centuries. While the rest of the world remained stagnant for a few more centuries, Eurasians evolved from hunter-gather to farmers and herders. Coinciding with plant diversity was Eurasia and Africa’s great climatic variation unmatched elsewhere. Eurasia, unlike the Americas, Polynesia and Australia, experienced optimal climate conditions for annual plants to grow and favored many wild domesticable plants. Diamond perfectly conveys how the differences in crop evolution and domesticable animals across continents shape the development of different societies. As wheat and barley began to grow as a crop in the Fertile Crescent, hunter gathers could initiate a sedentary lifestyle. They grew enough caloric rich crops that could sustain a healthy dense population. Diamond then explains the term “crowd diseases” which stems from the close proximity that the people lived in with each other combined with a lack of knowledge of proper hygiene habits—defecating where one sleeps is not the best course of action—that led to the rapid spread of germs and bacteria (Diamond, 190). This sound logic analyzes biological immunity and the evolution of antibodies within a society that selects for the most resistant genes; meanwhile explaining why populations of people were wiped out when the Europeans came into contact with them. Diamond expresses that Eurasians had the biological warfare necessary to dominate the Austronesians and Americans. Due to Eurasia’s agricultural sustainability, the population grew. Naturally, Diamond’s argued that the right geography allowed for the right crops and thus massive populations which appears to hold true because the Americas, Africa and Austronesia did not have the right conditions that would allow for this type of agricultural growth. However, Diamond does not address China and India, whose Eurasian climate conditions would have sustained this form of agricultural growth. Nonetheless, the principle that the differences of climates on crop evolution shaped the development of societies holds true as many Eurasian societies became sedentary and found other ways to occupy their time such as founding a governing body and system of functioning for the steadily growing population.
Equally valid, Diamond points that the areas that did have domesticable animals, and their germs, caused a difference in the development of societies.
Due simply to the massive size of Eurasia, they enjoyed a greater diversity of domesticable animals that served as both food and a means to grow food. Animals did assist in the agricultural advances that the Eurasians found. However, as previously stated, these newly sedentary people lacked knowledge of bacteria, infectious diseases and germs and saw no problem with living in close quarters with the animals. Diamond spells out the transferal of zoonotic diseases using measles as an example. He states that the “close similarity of the measles virus to the rinderpest virus suggest that the latter transferred from cattle to humans and then evolved into the measles virus by changing properties to adapt to us” (Diamond, 206). This argument that states domesticated animals provided food surpluses and new agricultural technology is completely plausible and suffices as a cause for discrepancies in
development. In conclusion, Diamond provides a strong argument for the role that geographical factors had on crop evolution and the effects of domesticable animals on societal developments; however, as McNeill demonstrates in his article “The World According to Jared Diamond”, Diamond’s argument contains deficiencies when attempting to correlate geography to the rise of technology, diffusion of crops (axis theory), and topography. But nonetheless, Diamond provides a unique argument, from a distinct perspective, that allows historians and scholars alike to reevaluate the perceived causes of varying societal development.
image of how the world develops.
In Guns, Germs, and Steel, Diamond overly attributes a large component of societal development from axis orientation. In chapter ten, Diamond emphatically states that axis orientation affects the spread of agriculture and domestication. For Diamond, the Fertile Crescent and Eurasia had such a large, rapid spread of crops because of its east-west axis. In his theory, “localities distributed east and west of each other at the same latitude share exactly the same day length and seasonal variation” and thus Eurasia developed at a rapid rate because “germination, growth, and disease resistance of plants are adapted to precisely those features of climate” (Diamond, 183-184). Diamond’s explanation of the necessity of east-west axis for proper plant development only mildly suffices. The issue with this theory that McNeill points out is that Eurasia’s east-west axis, compared to the America’s and Africa’s north-south axis, could not have provided much advantage in the spread of domesticable animals due to “its extreme variety of climatic conditions, its high mountains, deserts, and tropical forests” (McNeill, 172). McNeill argues that the diffusion could not (and did not) perfectly occur from east to west. This counter-argument holds validity as most domesticable animals such as cattle, goats and chickens do not have the body structure nor ability to travel thousands of miles across an axis as Diamond suggests. Even if they did, there are geographic barriers, like mountains, that would prevent their transportation into India and the rest of Eurasia. Though Eurasia has a similar latitude across, Diamond disregards the affect of seasonal wind patterns, earth tilting and axis spinning on the actual climate of these places. Coastal areas, like parts of Eurasia, would receive far more rainfall than Diamond suggests the landlocked inland of other parts of Eurasia would. . For instance, warm water around Southeast Asia gets pushed further south into the eastern coast of Africa which differs significantly from the other side of Eurasia, in which warm waters from the western coast of Africa get pushed far north to Britain and Spain. Thus climatically, the transportation and diffusion of domesticable animals along the east-west axis fails.
Author, J.R. McNeill draws attention to the faulty argument that Diamond makes in regards to the dominance of Europe in certain centuries. In the Afterword, Diamond argues that “Europe’s fragmentation did, and China’s unity didn’t, foster the advance of technology, science, and capitalism by fostering competition between states” (Diamond, 437). However, the disregard for cultural and religious practices without further analyzes negates the impact that one’s views play in shaping human drive and goals. For instance, the European Judeo-Christian tradition holds the belief that it is their duty to spread the word of God and make disciples; whereas certain African and Middle-Eastern beliefs do not have this principle. Religion and cultural beliefs have always had a role in the history of Eurasia and to disregard its relevance detracts from the entire picture. Diamond illustrates the world in a way that leaves little control to humans and more to chance. McNeill supports his argument that geographic fragmentation is not necessarily an advantage by providing other instances, namely India, where fragmentation lead to a nation’s ruin rather than growth. This evidence further detracts from the ‘ultimate geographic factor’ that Diamond claims determined continental dominance versus submission.
However, Diamond correctly analyzes the geographical environments and ecological profiles of the Americas, Africa, Australia and Eurasia and the effects they had on development. Diamond’s argument states that the cultivatable crops around the globe varied with the most diverse and sustainable being in Eurasia (the Fertile Crescent). Archaeologists have documented the Fertile Crescent’s geography, landscape, plant and animal life thoroughly and in five thousand B.C., the Fertile Crescent crops were already “abundant and highly productive” (Diamond, 131). As Diamond shows, the plants here were annual and highly efficient in producing large, edible seeds. The Fertile Crescent—Eurasia—differed from the Americas and Australia, in this manner, as it had a high percentage of wild plants suitable for domestication. In the Americas, the wild cereals were not nearly as well versed as the barley and wheat that grew in Eurasia, which stunted their growth because they could not become farmers and herders. Consequently, they remained hunter-gathers while the people of the Fertile Crescent became food-producers and began to domesticate animals. Similar to the Fertile Crescent, Diamond describes Africa’s ideal conditions and climate as ideal for food production. Diamond points to the domestication of wild plants indigenous to the tropical climate as the catalyst of the development of African agriculture.
In contrast to Africa and the Americas, Diamond explains that the crop variety and diversity of Polynesia could have produced similar outcomes to the Fertile Crescent but the varying climate of the islands that comprise Polynesia varies drastically. Diamond elaborates to state that their indigenous food production “was restricted by the local absence of domesticable cereals, pulses and animals, by the resulting protein deficiency in the highlands” (Diamond, 144). In an even more deficient condition lies Australia, where native food production did not thrive. Diamond’s research shows that Australia had some plants available for food production such as some variations of yams and taro. However, Diamond then argues that “any food production that did arise indigenously in Australia would have been limited by the lack of domesticable animals, the poverty of domesticable plants, and the difficult soils and climate” (Diamond, 153). Thus the concept of dispersion of crops and plants remained within Eurasia until later centuries. While the rest of the world remained stagnant for a few more centuries, Eurasians evolved from hunter-gather to farmers and herders. Coinciding with plant diversity was Eurasia and Africa’s great climatic variation unmatched elsewhere. Eurasia, unlike the Americas, Polynesia and Australia, experienced optimal climate conditions for annual plants to grow and favored many wild domesticable plants. Diamond perfectly conveys how the differences in crop evolution and domesticable animals across continents shape the development of different societies. As wheat and barley began to grow as a crop in the Fertile Crescent, hunter gathers could initiate a sedentary lifestyle. They grew enough caloric rich crops that could sustain a healthy dense population. Diamond then explains the term “crowd diseases” which stems from the close proximity that the people lived in with each other combined with a lack of knowledge of proper hygiene habits—defecating where one sleeps is not the best course of action—that led to the rapid spread of germs and bacteria (Diamond, 190). This sound logic analyzes biological immunity and the evolution of antibodies within a society that selects for the most resistant genes; meanwhile explaining why populations of people were wiped out when the Europeans came into contact with them. Diamond expresses that Eurasians had the biological warfare necessary to dominate the Austronesians and Americans. Due to Eurasia’s agricultural sustainability, the population grew. Naturally, Diamond’s argued that the right geography allowed for the right crops and thus massive populations which appears to hold true because the Americas, Africa and Austronesia did not have the right conditions that would allow for this type of agricultural growth. However, Diamond does not address China and India, whose Eurasian climate conditions would have sustained this form of agricultural growth. Nonetheless, the principle that the differences of climates on crop evolution shaped the development of societies holds true as many Eurasian societies became sedentary and found other ways to occupy their time such as founding a governing body and system of functioning for the steadily growing population.
Equally valid, Diamond points that the areas that did have domesticable animals, and their germs, caused a difference in the development of societies.
Due simply to the massive size of Eurasia, they enjoyed a greater diversity of domesticable animals that served as both food and a means to grow food. Animals did assist in the agricultural advances that the Eurasians found. However, as previously stated, these newly sedentary people lacked knowledge of bacteria, infectious diseases and germs and saw no problem with living in close quarters with the animals. Diamond spells out the transferal of zoonotic diseases using measles as an example. He states that the “close similarity of the measles virus to the rinderpest virus suggest that the latter transferred from cattle to humans and then evolved into the measles virus by changing properties to adapt to us” (Diamond, 206). This argument that states domesticated animals provided food surpluses and new agricultural technology is completely plausible and suffices as a cause for discrepancies in
development. In conclusion, Diamond provides a strong argument for the role that geographical factors had on crop evolution and the effects of domesticable animals on societal developments; however, as McNeill demonstrates in his article “The World According to Jared Diamond”, Diamond’s argument contains deficiencies when attempting to correlate geography to the rise of technology, diffusion of crops (axis theory), and topography. But nonetheless, Diamond provides a unique argument, from a distinct perspective, that allows historians and scholars alike to reevaluate the perceived causes of varying societal development.