rubiscodisco's review against another edition
5.0
This book was very interesting for me. Jared Diamond was brilliant, and I the way that he explained the broader trends of history in terms of ultimate causes that were environmental in nature is very refreshing. One can hardly accuse this history book of being about "one damn fact after another".
I do take some of his views quite skeptically. For example, his seeming aversion to point out cultural causes of disparity between nations seems to hinder his ability to answer some questions. Not that I'm saying that cultural/genetic differences are a big factor in my opinion, but it seems to me that in his fear of being labelled as racist or a western chauvinist, he would avoid some questions entirely. Questions like, for example, why after being exposed to peoples of a more technologically advanced culture, the technologically disadvantaged cultures are usually displaced, rather than adapting those higher-order technologies to remain competitive themselves.
I did like his ending chapter exceedingly though, because of a particular point he brought up. The branches of science like evolutionary biology, astronomy, archaeology, and other such historical sciences, are often seen as somewhat being less "sciencey" as opposed to things like physics and chemistry. His point is that, methods applicable for those sciences cannot be applied to the historical sciences because they involve too many variables, and laboratory experiments are usually impossible to do. Furthermore, they deal with ultimate causes rather than proximate causes. In this light, such fields of study could be considered to be a pedestal higher than those of the more "hard" sciences. That's quite refreshing, since we all know how people seem to think that those other sciences are on top of the intellectual pyramid.
I do take some of his views quite skeptically. For example, his seeming aversion to point out cultural causes of disparity between nations seems to hinder his ability to answer some questions. Not that I'm saying that cultural/genetic differences are a big factor in my opinion, but it seems to me that in his fear of being labelled as racist or a western chauvinist, he would avoid some questions entirely. Questions like, for example, why after being exposed to peoples of a more technologically advanced culture, the technologically disadvantaged cultures are usually displaced, rather than adapting those higher-order technologies to remain competitive themselves.
I did like his ending chapter exceedingly though, because of a particular point he brought up. The branches of science like evolutionary biology, astronomy, archaeology, and other such historical sciences, are often seen as somewhat being less "sciencey" as opposed to things like physics and chemistry. His point is that, methods applicable for those sciences cannot be applied to the historical sciences because they involve too many variables, and laboratory experiments are usually impossible to do. Furthermore, they deal with ultimate causes rather than proximate causes. In this light, such fields of study could be considered to be a pedestal higher than those of the more "hard" sciences. That's quite refreshing, since we all know how people seem to think that those other sciences are on top of the intellectual pyramid.
ein's review against another edition
5.0
Сверхподробное исследование причин разницы скорости прогресса для разных народов мира. За дотошность и проработку - пять баллов. Но не помешало бы втрое меньшее по объему "краткое изложение" для ленивых.
benyeagley's review against another edition
3.0
I think the value in this book is that by the end, I had accepted many theories of human history which I very quickly realized were misleading at best (thank you google search “guns germs and steel criticism”). So my main takeaway is to stop being lazy with the anthropology I choose to learn (looking at you too Sapiens).
edgaranzola's review against another edition
5.0
What do I want to learn from this book?
The dynamics that led some peoples to unroll physical and social technology.
What did I learn from the book?
At the starting line:
In just 100 years humans had conquered all of America and even Patagonia.
The arrival in Australia, New Zealand and the Polynesian islands with complex boats.
A natural experiment of history:
In Polynesia we can see how different resource environments lead to different societies, some where agriculture was achieved had a larger population due to the surplus in food and this fostered a division of labor (specialization) thus forming complex and hierarchical societies.
On the contrary, in the islands where the resources gave more for hunting and gathering (abundant fishing) the societies did not develop advanced technology and ended up being egalitarian groups.
Collision in Cajamarca:
There is always talk of the weapons, germs and steel that helped the conquest of America by the Spaniards, but an important point is the information they had about human behavior, facilitating these tactics such as kidnapping, fear and confusion against the Indians.
The power of farmers:
The agriculture gave base for the formation of complex societies by means of the generation of technologies, greater quantity of population and products derived from the first domesticated animals, all this thanks to a constant flow of energy (food).
Rich and poor in history:
Food production began approximately 11,000 B.C. in the fertile crescent, a little later in other distinct areas with no connection to the first. Helping neighboring areas learn the necessary technologies. However, this indicates that some places did not have enough factors to achieve their development.
Cultivate or not cultivate:
The strategy of cultivating became more and more powerful due to the fact that hunting and gathering was no longer efficient, in addition to the fact that agricultural technology was accumulated due to the density of the populations that made use of it.
How to make an almond:
Artificial selection probably began when we ate foods with mutations or their wild form (wheat) that were easier to consume, thus encouraging their development.
Apples or Indians:
The author believes that some areas started agriculture late because they did not have enough species of plants and animals for it. A different example is what happens in the fertile crescent where the greatest amount of cereals and animals suitable for domestication are found.
Goats, unhappy marriages and the principle of Ana Karenina:
Eurasia had the largest number of animals suitable for domestication (5). The lack of this process in other parts of the world is due to the fact that they did not have large animals or animals with a lack of any special characteristic.
The deadly gift of cattle:
With more domestic animals increased interactions between species generating the evolution of disease-causing germs. The populations with a lack of animals were not affected by this type of diseases.
Original projects and borrowed letters:
Writing could develop in complex societies, due to the incentive for the first "institutions" to account for, register and generate laws.
The mother of need:
Many of the uses in technology are fortuitous, so they are at the mercy of circumstances. Those that have had the capacity to create and recombine these are those that have managed to conquer others.
From egalitarianism to kleptocracy:
As population density increased, it was necessary to centralize decision-making to avoid chaos, forming the first hierarchies we see now. We stopped being small groups where we all knew what was happening and could make decisions together.
Conclusion:
Human beings developed different societies based on the environment and circumstances surrounding them. This led some of them to have more resources to conquer others thanks to better energy and information management systems.
The dynamics that led some peoples to unroll physical and social technology.
What did I learn from the book?
At the starting line:
In just 100 years humans had conquered all of America and even Patagonia.
The arrival in Australia, New Zealand and the Polynesian islands with complex boats.
A natural experiment of history:
In Polynesia we can see how different resource environments lead to different societies, some where agriculture was achieved had a larger population due to the surplus in food and this fostered a division of labor (specialization) thus forming complex and hierarchical societies.
On the contrary, in the islands where the resources gave more for hunting and gathering (abundant fishing) the societies did not develop advanced technology and ended up being egalitarian groups.
Collision in Cajamarca:
There is always talk of the weapons, germs and steel that helped the conquest of America by the Spaniards, but an important point is the information they had about human behavior, facilitating these tactics such as kidnapping, fear and confusion against the Indians.
The power of farmers:
The agriculture gave base for the formation of complex societies by means of the generation of technologies, greater quantity of population and products derived from the first domesticated animals, all this thanks to a constant flow of energy (food).
Rich and poor in history:
Food production began approximately 11,000 B.C. in the fertile crescent, a little later in other distinct areas with no connection to the first. Helping neighboring areas learn the necessary technologies. However, this indicates that some places did not have enough factors to achieve their development.
Cultivate or not cultivate:
The strategy of cultivating became more and more powerful due to the fact that hunting and gathering was no longer efficient, in addition to the fact that agricultural technology was accumulated due to the density of the populations that made use of it.
How to make an almond:
Artificial selection probably began when we ate foods with mutations or their wild form (wheat) that were easier to consume, thus encouraging their development.
Apples or Indians:
The author believes that some areas started agriculture late because they did not have enough species of plants and animals for it. A different example is what happens in the fertile crescent where the greatest amount of cereals and animals suitable for domestication are found.
Goats, unhappy marriages and the principle of Ana Karenina:
Eurasia had the largest number of animals suitable for domestication (5). The lack of this process in other parts of the world is due to the fact that they did not have large animals or animals with a lack of any special characteristic.
The deadly gift of cattle:
With more domestic animals increased interactions between species generating the evolution of disease-causing germs. The populations with a lack of animals were not affected by this type of diseases.
Original projects and borrowed letters:
Writing could develop in complex societies, due to the incentive for the first "institutions" to account for, register and generate laws.
The mother of need:
Many of the uses in technology are fortuitous, so they are at the mercy of circumstances. Those that have had the capacity to create and recombine these are those that have managed to conquer others.
From egalitarianism to kleptocracy:
As population density increased, it was necessary to centralize decision-making to avoid chaos, forming the first hierarchies we see now. We stopped being small groups where we all knew what was happening and could make decisions together.
Conclusion:
Human beings developed different societies based on the environment and circumstances surrounding them. This led some of them to have more resources to conquer others thanks to better energy and information management systems.
cdeane61's review against another edition
5.0
Finally finished this one! A book well worth reading with great insight into how we have ended up where we are as a species. The title, to me is a bit of a misnomer - there is so much more involved here than just these three elements, but I guess it's a lot catchier than "Agriculture, Herding, and Alignment".
The authors argument holds true for me, switch any two peoples who are on opposite sides of this spectrum and the results for the region, regardless of race or ethnic background, would be the same.
I already have a copy of "The Third Chimpanzee" and am looking forward to it.
The authors argument holds true for me, switch any two peoples who are on opposite sides of this spectrum and the results for the region, regardless of race or ethnic background, would be the same.
I already have a copy of "The Third Chimpanzee" and am looking forward to it.