Jared Diamond's Guns, Germs, and Steel is an attempt to explain why Eurasian societies have consistently been able to survive and come to dominate other societies by examining the environmental factors that first allowed these societies to develop. He explains that key developments such as the specialization of labor and agriculture were naturally aided by geographic advantages, for example the large amount of tamable species for domestication in Eurasia. Diamond that these environmental factors have been the key reason why Eurasian societies have been able to thrive throughout history.
I thought this book was incredibly interesting, especially when Diamond outlined the differences in agricultural opportunities between North America and Eurasia, but I thought that Diamond's analysis of the last few centuries of human development and activity was a little lacking. For example, Diamond posits that early farmers in Eurasia had a natural advantage over those in North America, who had to work maize. But over the last century, corn has become the basis of the industrial food chain from which the majority of American meals are derived. Diamond also gives little attention to some of the most important social and political developments over the last couple of centuries, including colonialism, capitalism, and the Industrial Revolution.
While Guns, Germs, and Steel certain provides a unique perspective on history worth considering, I don't think that Diamond gave enough weight or attention to some of the most impacting developments in recent human history.
I completely agree with this criticism of the book. I think it’s admirable that Diamond tries to provide a general outline of how continents have developed differently in the last couple of centuries, but his explanation is too broad. The problem seems to be that Diamond relies too much on his theory that environmental reasons are the reason people in different geographical environments evolve into different types of societies, to explain how continents evolved in recent times. I think this explanation works earlier in the book, when he’s describing history in more general terms. However, the last portion of the book glosses over a huge amount of detail. I realize his book isn’t meant to go into specific detail, but I think for modern times, those details are necessary to provide an accurate historical account. His hypothesis isn’t sufficient.
ReplyDeleteI agree as well. I also appreciate your comment about corn manufacturing in North America, because it confused me as well. I believe the overall book would have been better off just focusing on the first portion, since I feel like the second have gave very little insight into modern times, and how these differences have been maintained so drastically now. I also think that Samantha's reasoning behind the problem is correct, his theory is just not entirely applicable in explaining modern evolution. Overall, however, I think this was a very interesting and insightful book.
ReplyDelete