Book review: “Guns, germs and steel” by Jared Diamond
January 11th, 2006 at 9:59 pm“Guns germs and steel” (GGS in short) is a widely acclaimed, Pulitzer prize winning work of the historian Jared Diamond, who tells about the history of human societies since their inception, focusing on the question of why were those the Europeans who’ve settled the Americas and Australia, and not the other way around.
With this as the main line of narration, Diamond provides breathtaking accounts of early human history, since around 10,000 BC, when the first real human societies (at least the documented ones) began. The reader will learn, in quite some detail, the history of food production, agriculture, animal domestication, human societies, from packs to tribes to states. In addition, the authors spends some time presenting the early history of the colonization of Australia and Polynesia, the discovery and conquest of America by Europeans, and the geographic and cultural differences between China and Europe, in ancient times and today.
Another topic discussed is writing and alphabet, how and why it developed in various parts of the world and how it affected the fates of different societies.
The author is very diligent in trying to bash the common opinion that states that the differences in human societies stem from basic genetic differences between the people. His claim, on the other hand, is that the reason is different geography and environment. My only criticism of this book is really that he tends to repeat this a bit too much, and in the end it starts to feel like “old news”.
To summarize, this book is very well written and is very enjoyable. Reading a history book was never so much fun for me before.
Related posts:
December 12th, 2008 at 14:41
Diamond does not give his readers the whole truth and nothing but the truth. In fact, he gives them much less. Inexcusably for an evolutionary biologist, Diamond fails to inform his readers that it is different environments that cause, via natural selection, biological differences among populations.
What seems to be true (from preliminary studies) is that the gene variants that were under strong selection (reached fixation) over the last 10k years are different in different clusters. That is, the way that modern people in each cluster differ, due to natural selection, from their own ancestors 10k years ago is not the same in each cluster — we have been, at least at the genetic level, experiencing divergent evolution.
In fact, recent research suggests that 7% or more of all our genes are mutant versions that replaced earlier variants through natural selection over the last tens of thousands of years. There was little gene flow between continental clusters (“races”) during that period, so there is circumstantial evidence for group differences beyond the already established ones (superficial appearance, disease resistance).
http://infoproc.blogspot.com/2008/01/no-scientific-basis-for-race.html
December 12th, 2008 at 16:35
I’ve finished the book a year and a half ago, but I remember that somewhere in the first chapter Diamond tries to misspell the myth that Europeans are inherently smarter than people of other races, by telling of his observations of Papua Guinean natives.
True, there are gene differences between races. This is immediately obvious if you look at two people from different races but of relatively pure ancestry (i.e. not mixed). However, it is not clear just how much phenotypic difference there is between races. We look different, yes, but this difference is very slight. After all, it’s been only few 10Ks of years after we separated, which is hardly 1000 generations. 1000 generations is not a sufficient amount of time for really significant variations, I think. So don’t see what there is to blame Diamond for.
December 14th, 2008 at 01:49
“True, there are gene differences between races. This is immediately obvious if you look at two people from different races but of relatively pure ancestry (i.e. not mixed). However, it is not clear just how much phenotypic difference there is between races.”
Steve Hsu makes an interesting point about this on his blog discussing the implications of the Risch & Tang study from a few years ago.
“We see that there can be dramatic group differences in phenotypes even if there is complete allele overlap between two groups – as long as the frequency or probability distributions are distinct. But it is these distributions that are measured by the metric we defined earlier. Two groups that form distinct clusters are likely to exhibit different frequency distributions over various genes, leading to group differences.
This leads us to two very distinct possibilities in human genetic variation:
Hypothesis 1: (the PC mantra) The only group differences that exist between the clusters (races) are innocuous and superficial, for example related to skin color, hair color, body type, etc.
Hypothesis 2: (the dangerous one) Group differences exist which might affect important (let us say, deep rather than superficial) and measurable characteristics, such as cognitive abilities, personality, athletic prowess, etc.
Note H1 is under constant revision, as new genetically driven group differences (e.g., particularly in disease resistance) are being discovered. According to the mantra of H1 these must all (by definition) be superficial differences.
A standard argument against H2 is that the 50k years during which groups have been separated is not long enough for differential natural selection to cause any group differences in deep characteristics. I find this argument quite naive, given what we know about animal breeding and how evolution has affected the (ever expanding list of) “superficial” characteristics. Many genes are now suspected of having been subject to strong selection over timescales of order 5k years or less. For further discussion of H2 by Steve Pinker, see here.
The predominant view among social scientists is that H1 is obviously correct and H2 obviously false. However, this is mainly wishful thinking. Official statements by the American Sociological Association and the American Anthropological Association even endorse the view that race is not a valid biological concept, which is clearly incorrect.
As scientists, we don’t know whether H1 or H2 is correct, but given the revolution in biotechnology, we will eventually. Let me reiterate, before someone labels me a racist: we don’t know with high confidence whether H1 or H2 is correct.
Finally, it is important to note that any group differences are statistical in nature and do not imply anything about particular individuals. Rather than rely on the scientifically unsupported claim that we are all equal, it would be better to emphasize that we all have inalienable human rights regardless of our abilities or genetic make up.”
http://infoproc.blogspot.com/2007/01/metric-on-space-of-genomes-and.html
December 14th, 2008 at 19:28
Ben,
I completely agree with his analysis. It’s all summed all up very nicely. I also don’t know whether H1 or H2 is correct, and I’m not sure if anyone does. But I agree that further advances in biotech and genetic analysis will bring us closer to the answer.
And yes, strongly believing H1 is wishful thinking based on some scientists’ intrinsic anti-racist feelings. However, as you said we don’t really know if it’s false, and most probably the truth is somewhere in between anyway, we just don’t know where.
That said, I don’t think that Diamond can be rightly accused of sidestepping this issue. Given that it’s quite contested at the moment and no one has a proved conclusion, his treatment of it in the book was adequate IMHO.
December 30th, 2008 at 13:51
I read this book years ago and found it interesting in parts incorrect in parts and naive in most parts. To just give one example – he states that Africans had antibody resistance to malaria (I think they don’t in fact – but have some resistance through sickle-cell-anemia, but that is beside the point ), which allowed the Africans to survive where whites couldn’t, but then goes on to say that one causes of poverty today in Africa are the problems of disease and especially Malaria. You can’t have it both ways. Malaria is a solvable problem but requires money and political will. The money has poured in to Africa, and Africa has huge natural resources, but corruption in African political systems lead to the money being diverted into African leaders cars and jewellery and not health-care systems anti malarial programs. Diamond would never however say anything critical about anyone with dark skin.
If he had ever lived in a few poor countries instead of writing about it from his air-conditioned university office in the USA he might have a better idea about the real world, rather than this naive anti-western view.
June 4th, 2009 at 14:32
I find it annoying and shallow that some commentors use small specifics here or there or focus on recent history when discussing this book. Modern times require an entirely different look.
Technological advances have led to constant entanglement of nations and cultures. Anyone who thinks that self-determination is a reality on the African continent is dumb or lying.
Certainly for at least three centuries now, the paths of peoples have been far more dependent on either keeping the boot on or trying to get the boot off the necks of the dispossessed than on various peoples “showing their stuff”, so to speak. Technology in military weaponry, transport, communications mean that, in modern times, imperialists can suffocate almost any and all “undesireable” independent innovative activities, be they political, economic, scientific, etc…