clementinereads's review against another edition
2.0
I was terribly disappointed in this book. It read like a bad text book. I found some of the info interesting, but the way it was presented? Forget it.
joyshak's review against another edition
3.0
This was more dull than I was expecting. The pace was kinda slow. I actually liked the PBS documentary better.
darshbakshi's review against another edition
3.0
I like Jared Diamond and I also like how he argued and counter argued his own points to come to the conclusion. But this book still feels like a far fetched conclusion. The world is complicated and just reducing the whole thing to 3-5 variables isn't doing it any justice. Also a lot of evidences are cloudy and are being still discussed by anthropologists. Sounds like a good book idea, logically the ideas fit but I see blind spots.
jeaniegreenie's review against another edition
I don't have the brainpower for something like this right now lol, but I will get back to it in the future!
lillulu's review against another edition
2.0
I’m probably being a little harsh, but this was just a dump of information explaining societal, historical and biological phenomena at such a high level that it made it very hard for me to grasp the connections that the author often made without feeling that he was expressing everything as an opinion, and not as a fact.
Overall it was an interesting insight, but nothing new. I think it’s formed the basis of a lot of present day discussions about the world and humans, but that’s probably only because it’s condensed enough for others to feel comfortable talking about these topics over dinner.
As a summary I don’t even think it does a good job, because if you’re interested in delving more into a topic or a region or a person mentioned, you’re not provided with anywhere to turn. Again, that’s part of the issue with the narration, asking you to take everything at face value.
If anything, this is a fascinating multi-disciplinary philosophical take on humans, humanity and our shared history, but I can’t say I gleaned enough from it for it to be worthwhile.
I’ll take it back up again at some point and annotate it to get a better grasp of the arguments…
Overall it was an interesting insight, but nothing new. I think it’s formed the basis of a lot of present day discussions about the world and humans, but that’s probably only because it’s condensed enough for others to feel comfortable talking about these topics over dinner.
As a summary I don’t even think it does a good job, because if you’re interested in delving more into a topic or a region or a person mentioned, you’re not provided with anywhere to turn. Again, that’s part of the issue with the narration, asking you to take everything at face value.
If anything, this is a fascinating multi-disciplinary philosophical take on humans, humanity and our shared history, but I can’t say I gleaned enough from it for it to be worthwhile.
I’ll take it back up again at some point and annotate it to get a better grasp of the arguments…
disastrouspenguin's review against another edition
3.0
Consumed as an audiobook. It was okay. A lot drier than I expected, and repetitive at times. I'm not sure if this is because of the narrator, or the content. If you decide to try it, I'd recommend going for the text version.
andrew_russell's review against another edition
1.0
I felt cheated by this book. It started off with such promise and like a fat person with a box of chocolates in front of them, I couldn't wait to get wired in. At one point, I decided that this book was worthy of four stars. By the midway point though I was tired. Tired of the repetition. How many times does Jared Diamond have to refer to the fact that he believes the rise of food production to be the main determinant of success for a society, before he believes the reader might believe him. It just seemed like in this book, it was (at least) one time too many.
Diamond attempts to answer an age old question; what determines a society's position in relation to the others on Earth? The problem with the approach he uses is that it is just not robust enough to be worth sharing. My first problem is that just because things are the way they are, it doesn't mean they had to be. Unless otherwise convinced (and I would take some convincing) I just can't lend any weight to the idea that history is anything other than chaotic, influenced by countless factors, many of which we remain unaware. I just could not shirk off the impression that Diamond was coming up with a theory and then shoehorning facts into the theory to lend it credence. One example of this is the idea that societies rate of progress is determined largely by what way round the landmass they inhabit lies. He fails to mention The Alps, The Mediterranean, the Himalayas or the large temperature gradient between parts of Eastern Russia and Western Europe, as potential barriers to the diffusion of ideas between societies in Eurasia, instead choosing to blithely ignore them to fit his chosen hypothesis. To me that's a bit like saying that rather than teeth evolving to fit our diet, they evolved to improve our smile and hence give us more chance of attracting a mate. In other words, making up a theory to fit the facts and using the facts themselves as justification and choosing to ignore existing evidence.
To reinforce this impression in my mind, Diamond concludes by trying to justify his flimsy just-so explanations in a very patronising and unconvincing manner, suggesting that the main reason for disagreeing with them lies in a misunderstanding of the historical sciences and it's methods by the majority of people. He even goes as far as including the likes of evolutionary biology and astronomy in with history, suggesting that if we believe in the findings of the former disciplines, we should give more weight to the theories of the historical sciences (history). It is my belief that the findings within both astronomy and evolutionary biology are subjected to rigorous experimental testing, a belief which Diamond clearly does not hold. I could almost feel my faith and trust in Diamond as a scientist die inside me by the time I had turned the final page.
The whole thing is pretty flimsy. A few theories, which are either extroardinarily simple (geographical difference makes the difference in societies developments not the people) or flawed and/or lacking evidential support (the axis of the continent which a society inhabits makes a considerable impact upon it's development).
Finally the book is by and large, overwhelmingly dull. Diamond repeats himself like a broken record and wading through his prose feels at times like wading through thickened treacle on rubber stilts.
If you are looking for definitive answers to the central question of this book, answers that you feel assured are reasonably likely to be robust and accurate, this book does not provide them. It contains nuggets of trivia but that wasn't the reason I picked this off the bookshelf to read it and I think that would apply to most prospective readers.
Diamond attempts to answer an age old question; what determines a society's position in relation to the others on Earth? The problem with the approach he uses is that it is just not robust enough to be worth sharing. My first problem is that just because things are the way they are, it doesn't mean they had to be. Unless otherwise convinced (and I would take some convincing) I just can't lend any weight to the idea that history is anything other than chaotic, influenced by countless factors, many of which we remain unaware. I just could not shirk off the impression that Diamond was coming up with a theory and then shoehorning facts into the theory to lend it credence. One example of this is the idea that societies rate of progress is determined largely by what way round the landmass they inhabit lies. He fails to mention The Alps, The Mediterranean, the Himalayas or the large temperature gradient between parts of Eastern Russia and Western Europe, as potential barriers to the diffusion of ideas between societies in Eurasia, instead choosing to blithely ignore them to fit his chosen hypothesis. To me that's a bit like saying that rather than teeth evolving to fit our diet, they evolved to improve our smile and hence give us more chance of attracting a mate. In other words, making up a theory to fit the facts and using the facts themselves as justification and choosing to ignore existing evidence.
To reinforce this impression in my mind, Diamond concludes by trying to justify his flimsy just-so explanations in a very patronising and unconvincing manner, suggesting that the main reason for disagreeing with them lies in a misunderstanding of the historical sciences and it's methods by the majority of people. He even goes as far as including the likes of evolutionary biology and astronomy in with history, suggesting that if we believe in the findings of the former disciplines, we should give more weight to the theories of the historical sciences (history). It is my belief that the findings within both astronomy and evolutionary biology are subjected to rigorous experimental testing, a belief which Diamond clearly does not hold. I could almost feel my faith and trust in Diamond as a scientist die inside me by the time I had turned the final page.
The whole thing is pretty flimsy. A few theories, which are either extroardinarily simple (geographical difference makes the difference in societies developments not the people) or flawed and/or lacking evidential support (the axis of the continent which a society inhabits makes a considerable impact upon it's development).
Finally the book is by and large, overwhelmingly dull. Diamond repeats himself like a broken record and wading through his prose feels at times like wading through thickened treacle on rubber stilts.
If you are looking for definitive answers to the central question of this book, answers that you feel assured are reasonably likely to be robust and accurate, this book does not provide them. It contains nuggets of trivia but that wasn't the reason I picked this off the bookshelf to read it and I think that would apply to most prospective readers.