I found it fascinating and important. It was an ambitious work and it takes a little dedication to read, but those who appreciate the question Diamond attempts to answer will find the book rewarding. ( )

Couldn't even start it. Way too dry. Thought it would be fascinating! ( )

Interesting framework

This seems to me like am interesting framework from which to view history however I don't see how this information helps in looking at current times or the future. If environment and geography are ultimate causes how can those factors be changed? Does this mean that in a few thousand years poorer countries will become less poor as they become more acclimated to the factors rich countries have longer exposure too? Overall I found the book pretty dry and was put off by the numerous times the author accused competing theories as simply racist. ( )

Top 10 books I read. Definitely in the list of books to carry to a desert island. ( )

A compelling argument for interpretation of societies in relation to environmental change. ( )

Interesting, but way too drawn out and dry. The idea of "Why did X develop in one part of the world but not another?" is neat, but he has a tendency to go off-topic and get into too much unrelated detail. Also, there is a strong bias towards New Guinea. ( )

I read 2/3 of this in the mid-2000s and let's be real, I'm never going to finish that last 1/3.

Social Conditions

I started "Gun, Germs and Steel" with great anticipation, as this is one of the most often recommended book. Subject, prima facie, appears a bit dry, but given popularity of this book, I decided to go ahead with reading. Prologue left me with mixed and conflicting feelings.

First, the problem statement, as posed by the author, that why did different regions of world evolved at different rate, and how come world is as it is, seemed to violate Anthropic Principle. That irrespective of however the civilizations could have evolved, there is only one course they could have taken, and one current state which could have been observed, and that such question could have always been asked, even if there is inherently nothing but randomness in the path chosen.

Second, author's compelling motive to write this book, even admitted by him, is that alternate explanation is a racist one. Author goes on to great lengths to suggest that this book's explanation is not racist. As any alert reader can gauge, that a scientific enquiry, pre biased to seek explanation of certain form, cannot really be objective. There is unexplained and assumed obvious premise that racist explanations of the problem statement are wrong, because they are "loathsome". Why should they be? Even as author himself clarifies that explanation of worldly discrepancies in not support for such discrepancies, and that explanation of cause is not justification of outcome, he conveniently forgets that even explanation based in racists root doesn't imply condoning racism. In fact, repeated assertion that this is no racist explanation belies narrow prism of view.

Third, even if I go along with author on racism, author's definition of racism is very narrow and unworthy of any intellectual. In his quest to prove himself non-racist, author goes on to suggest, on mere power of his hunch and observation, and not rooted in any scientific experiment, that native tribes of New Guinea are smarter than white Europeans, and not even blinking at apparent 'racism' inherent in this statement. In his opinion, claiming white people superior to native is racist, but vice-versa is not. Inherent imbecility of this world-view is akin to illogical excuse rendered by many people, that they cannot possibly be homophobic since they have gay friends.

Fourth, last part of prologue goes onto grandiose self-aggrandising that how author is uniquely qualified, by birth and education, to undertake such monumental task of synthesizing multi-disciplinary subject of human history including evolutionary biology, linguistic, and social history.

Rest of the book, though, admittedly is interesting for it provides history of various defining institutions of human civilization like tools, language, farming, diseases and organizations in very convenient way. Parts of book are verbose and obvious explanation why diseases evolved from animals to humans goes on to greater length than necessary to make the point. While at no point one comes across explicit bias and explanation pass the scientific inquiring nature of reader, one cannot help wonder if they are mere post-hoc rationalization of things that have happened in certain way, or would have happened in any one way anyway. ( )

I read about half of this in high school for a class. From what I remember it was good but I don’t plan to pick it back up. I am just marking this as read to get it off my to be read shelf. ( )

The fates of Europe, the Americas, Australia, and Sub-Saharan Africa all turned out differently for some there is the question of why? Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies by Jared Diamond looks to answer that question while also challenging the colonialist rationale that has dominated 19th and 20th Century discussion.

Diamond’s argument comes down to environmental differences in which human groups had to work from the end of the Ice Age, circa 11,000 B.C. There were three factors that Diamond highlighted the domesticable plants to create large agricultural societies, domesticable animals that helped in agriculture as well as transferring diseases from animals to humans, and finally the continental axis that allowed for easier spreading of innovations in Eurasia compared to the Americas or sub-Saharan Africa. Using a multiple of scientific disciplines, Diamond builds his case as to why overarching historical patterns played out like they did while not completely taking out the impact of individual decisions but also saying that those individuals that had a big impact on history had advantages that others living on the planet didn’t. Overall, the book is an overview of large historical factors that resulted in the world we’re living in, the case Diamond makes can either be accepted in whole, in part, or completely rejected and while I some merit to his overall thesis I think it isn’t the entire explanation.

Guns, Germs, and Steel is an intellectually stimulating read for anyone interested in history, but whether you agree with Jared Diamond or do not this is a very good book to read. ( )

The book is at least three times as long as it needs to be, and the eponymous list of reasons is at least half as long as presented inside, but a fascinating read nonetheless if you can power through. A word of advice: read chapters 1-3 and 18-19, then return to any other sections that sound interesting. You won't regret it. ( )

I was going to give this book five stars until I read the "Afterward," published in 2003, six years after the book's original printing. The entire premise of Diamond's work is that the randomness of geography determined the presence of certain types of plants, animals, and topographically configurations, which together in turn highly determined how different societies developed around the globe. It's a fascinating, informative, extremely compelling argument and piece of analysis.

However, Diamond should have stopped there and not let the messages from Bill Gates and business consultants convince him to apply this type of frame to business and government organization, without first understanding the assumptions embedded in their views. Those assumptions are revealed most clearly by Diamond's surprise that German beer production is not industrialized the way it is in the U.S., nor is Japanese food production. This is surprising, since he begins the discussion of those examples describing how he and his wife bring back German beer in their suitcases because they are so delicious. Somehow he can't make the leap between small scale production and unique, delicious beer. Similarly, he talks about the Japanese hyper focus on "fresh food," presumably in contrast to industrially commoditized food, as though wanting fresh, nutritious, high quality food is a poor choice. This window into his approach to these questions make it clear that I will not be reading any of his other books.

So read this one, but skip the Afterward.
( )

This was a very interesting read (for about the first 2/3 of its length). The author does a good job of explaining and making the reader think more deeply about how geography, environment, biology, sociology, politics and language all work together to influence technology and what most of us regard as progress. I gained new insights into the origins of farming, writing, disease and government and how and why they might have been unevenly distributed throughout the world.

I share the same concern as others that the writing does get a bit repetitive. This seems to be a common shortcoming of academics writing for a wider audience. They need to realize that their readers might not be researchers in their field, but we're still pretty smart and can pick up on themes and ideas without having them pounded into our skulls with a mallet.

Even so, I do recommend this book. Read the good parts. Skim the boring bits. Think about the complexity of the world. ( )

Great information, but it can be very dry. I think I'm used to more narrative. This is more like a textbook. ( )

Jared Diamond’s Pulitzer Prize-winning book seeks to answer the question of why some cultures evolved into world powers with the means to survive and conquer —guns, germs, and steel — while other cultures did not. He answers the question quite succinctly with the dry and somewhat repetitive nature of a thesis paper, but I found the topic fascinating enough that I didn’t care so much about the presentation. (I listened to the audio at about 1.4x normal speed which may have helped.) Overall, Guns, Germs, and Steel is a bit boring, but the subject matter overcame the dry style. ( )

I really thought I'd read this, but it turns out I'd only read excerpts.

An incredibly informative read. Highly recommended to anyone who's not afraid of facts about the history of the human civilization. ( )

I cannot bear to retract the 5 stars I originally gave this book that inspired my fascination with 'Big History': long-term, globally comparative history that attempts to answer questions like why Europe, and not China or any other civilization, went on to conquer the globe. So much of the content is fascinating, especially the role of the biogeography of plants, animals and diseases in history.

But the central line of argument, that European conquest of so much of the rest of the world was determined by biogeography, and specifically that one can work back from Pizarro's capture of Atahualpa to the geographical base of world history, has been subject to coruscating criticism. Diamond stands accused of such mistakes as taking conquistadors at their word on how their guns, horses and bravado overwhelmed the Aztecs and Incas, while ignoring the role of native allies in what were in reality interventions in civil wars; inaccurately attributing epidemic diseases which killed millions of Native American to Eurasian livestock; and obfuscating the role of colonial enslavement and oppression in the Native American death toll. See:

https://www.reddit.com/r/badhistory/comments/2bv2yf/guns_germs_and_steel_chapter...

https://www.reddit.com/r/badhistory/comments/2cfhon/guns_germs_and_steel_chapter...

The thesis is too simple. It's not quite right. But where it is wrong, it is at least interestingly wrong, and further reading to work out how and why it is wrong is very worthwhile.

To read as a counterpoint: [b:Seven Myths of the Spanish Conquest|174710|Seven Myths of the Spanish Conquest|Matthew Restall|https://images.gr-assets.com/books/1390408627s/174710.jpg|168768] ( )

Amazing read! It is unexpected how much I enjoyed reading this, especially since the main focus being of history through the lenses of geography and science in their many technical facets. I usually find these subjects a bore, especially geography, but I am currently trying to read more of them. Alhamdulilah, this book only contributed to furthering my interest in these subjects, not lessening it.

What I learnt was how interconnected so much of the world already was, thousands if not tens of thousands of years ago. Indeed, this is so much so that I've been thinking of the term 'Eurasia' a lot lately in contrast to 'Europe' and 'Asia' as we know it today. Diamond gives fascinating insights into the developmental effects upon a society by factors such as: food production, geography, climate, proximity to other societies and even the axis of continents. He takes a very broad approach of singling out continents rather than specific nations or empires, and a timeline spanning thousands of years rather than centuries or decades. Further, he compares classes of hunter gatherers, bands, tribes and empires.

Diamond is careful to note of specific critiques of 'geographical determinism'. I personally had some slight impressions of this before reading it, however, I really think it's just explaining history through the factoring in of many different scientific fields. It doesn't have to be one or the other, I still lean very much towards societies having the ability in choosing their own course, but within the material parameters set out by their times I suppose.

The central question of this book ("Yali's Question") is why Europeans colonised the New World rather than vice versa. And finishing the book, I think Diamond better answered the question 'why certain empires from the Old World were able to conquer the New World rather than vice versa'. Thus, he gives the factors behind both landmasses into their trajectories in material advancements and explains their clashes during first contact.

Along the way there's chapters dedicated to early humans and their migration patterns, the earliest food producing civilisations around the Fertile Crescent, the Chinese expansion, the Indonesian migration (indeed, all the way to Africa and Australia!), the clashes between hunter gatherer and food producing societies etc.

There's a lot this book has made me think about. I recommend it to everyone with even a slightest interest in history or human societies in general.
( )

I really wanted to like this book but oh my I doubt his writing could have been any more boring. Totally reads like a textbook, and the author restates the same things over and over and over again.
Academics have the unique ability to take any subject, no matter how interesting or fascinating and they somehow make it painful and boring to read about. ( )

I somewhat enjoyed this book. The author covers a tremendous volume of information and does so relatively well. I admit, I had to press through some of the chapters as they were less engaging than others, but I guess that is to be expected in a book of this type, tackling such a large topic. I had been on my tbr for some time and I’m glad I read it. ( )

so i finally got to this in 2021, and luckily i am over basic takes and uninteresting frames. and it’s honestly really at best reductionist. i took too long and got too gigabrained from the periphery of existing around people who cannot stop talking about it while never really explaining it
this is my permission to relieve you from this burden ( )

This book that reads like a transcript for a documentary, analyzing why some civilizations flourished and others did not in all of human history. It is well-written and well-organized. Diamond examines such topics as the development of agriculture, domestication of animals, geographical location, the surrounding environment, proliferation of languages, transmission of diseases, and so much more. To fully appreciate this book, I think it requires a strong interest in sociology, anthropology, history, biology, archeology, or, preferably, a combination of many of these areas. It contains a wealth of information and is conveyed in an impartial manner. Diamond makes a compelling case against the various rationales that have been used to justify racism. I found it fascinating. ( )

I have always been interested in the progress of Modern humans. How did they live in prehistoric times? What was family structure like? When did we develop technologies? How did religion materialize? I eventually stumbled on this Pulitzer Prize winning book and I definitely recommend it.
This book starts with the question of "How did European progress and colonization come to rule much of the world?". Or to ask another way why didn't colonization and domination come from Africa, Australia, or South America? Why didn't China dominate the rest of the world when they clearly had earlier advantages in technology, writing and farming? How about the Middle East and northern Africa? Why did some hunter gatherers develop agriculture, which in turn turned to metal work, religion and others did not? I believe Mr Diamond does an admirable job of NOT looking at these questions from Eurocentric Christian beliefs. This is a fascinating look at how our world is the way it is today. Mr Diamond writes in an easy understandable manner which helps.

BUT, yes here comes my BUT. It is long and tedious. It is nonfiction and he wants to prove his points with facts of which I agree is necessary but tedious. I jumped around a lot so I recommend anyone who reads this to feel free to do the same. I think there is great material in the book but I don't think a person with a casual interest in human history needs to read every word.
( )