Rethinking our origins, rethinking our progress
A late review of Jared Diamond’s timeless masterpiece: Guns, Germs, And Steel
Cover of “Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies” by Jared Diamond.
Diamond, J. (1997). Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies (2003rd ed.). W.W. Norton & Company, Inc. 498 pages
Overview
What explains the differences between developed societies and undeveloped ones? Why did Europeans develop technologies and travel the world while many people throughout the Americas, Africa and Oceania remain tribal? These are just some of the questions asked by Jared Diamond in his seminal 1997 masterpiece “Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies.” Diamond, who holds a Ph.D. in physiology and is a geography professor at the University of California at Los Angeles, argues that geography, not human biology, is the primary causal factor for the differences in societal development. His argument focuses primarily on tribal populations’ development from the dawn of human history. This development is coined the “Great Leap Forward” (p. 38-39), which started nearly 50,000 years ago, to the modern age to find a simple explanation for differences amongst societies today.
Diamond describes how human civilization first flourished in the Fertile Crescent, a crescent-shaped area spanning from modern-day Egypt and Israel to western Iran and between the Euphrates and Tigris rivers. The site contained abundant domesticable flora and large mammalian fauna, allowing humans to become sedentary and gradually abandon hunting and gathering (p. 96). Farming allowed humans to capture additional calories, thereby increasing life expectancy and population densities. Agricultural tools were developed and enabled early societies to improve agricultural yields (p. 105), creating a positive feedback loop. Adjacent populations recognized the advantages of cultivation and domestication of favourable plant and animal species relative to hunting and gathering, and so the practice spread.
Additionally, the absence of near-impenetrable geographic barriers hostile to humans throughout Eurasia, such as deserts and mountains (p. 181-182), helped species spread quickly from one society to another. More important, however, were the similar latitudes that allowed species to spread effectively since their genes were better suited to environments with similar climates and day lengths (p. 177). It explains why domesticable species were more widespread throughout Eurasia, a predominantly horizontal axis continent, than the Americas and Africa, more vertical axis continents.
Increased population densities amongst sedentary farming populations also created what Diamond calls the “lethal gift of livestock” (p. 187): the immune resistance to harmful microbes transferred from animals to humans. Small hunter-gatherer societies did not possess the immunity against such microbes, which ultimately led to their decimation when encountering agricultural communities, such as the intentional and unintentional transfer of diseases like smallpox and tuberculosis from Europeans onto Native Americans (p. 194-195). This was because sedentary human populations developed antibodies to combat various diseases through close and frequent contact with domesticated animals. Yet, diseases did not spread nearly as effectively to the invading people, likely due to their lower susceptibility.
The rapid growth in agricultural societies also led to advanced technologies and hierarchies. Hunter-gatherer tribes were relatively small, allowing group members to make collectively make decisions. But decision-making and people management became logistically complicated when populations reached the thousands. Surplus food production allowed people to specialize in non-food producing vocations to ensure their society’s efficient management of resources and people. For example, the advent of writing helped create and maintain records of transactions, rations and distribution of agricultural goods (p. 224-234). Writing, however, was exclusive to elites in these newly emerging stratified societies since it was essentially the work of bureaucrats serving their kings who maintained a robust and centralized authority (p. 273). Centralized authorities, according to Diamond, were helpful in large populations since they aided conflict resolution between people, made for more efficient decision-making, helped with the distribution of excess goods and made it easier to manage ever-expanding territories and resources (p. 274-276).
The increasing organizational sophistication of large societies combined with natural human curiosity eventually led to discoveries and inventions. Technological developments served immediate needs or morphed to solve other uses unintended and unforeseen by their creators. Knowledge and technical know-how accumulated over centuries amongst populations receptive to accepting novel creations and methods (p. 239), whether for competitive, social prestige or other reasons in which the value of an invention was quickly recognized and compatible (p. 237). Like domesticable species, favourable environments facilitated technology’s diffusion across societies (p. 250); the Sahara was a formidable obstacle between the Middle East, Europe and Sub-Saharan societies, as was the isthmus separating Tasmania from Australia.
As societies continued to grow and as domesticable species and technologies spread from one society to another, those greatly endowed with favourable geographic variables and were more inclined to adopt new technologies developed faster than others and ruled over, absorbed or eradicated other societies. Eurasians had an approximate 5000-year lead over humans who populated the Americas, where they first entered Alaska in 12,000 B.C. and the southern tip of South America by 10,000 B.C approximately (p. 348). No political, economic or cultural arrangement could have prepared them for the arriving Europeans with their genetic resistance to microbes, writing and other superior technologies. Such was the case for many indigenous people throughout the world.
A compelling case
Jared Diamond’s thesis is well-supported throughout the book. The evidence he provides helps us understand early societies and is also interesting to learn; he found a simple explanation that helps explain many differences between societies today. Readers will be hard-pressed to identify slanted language or tone favouring one ideology or population over others, especially since he supports his arguments using geographic, anthropological and archeological data. These data are often presented in easy-to-read graphs and maps, helping those without a scientific background comprehend the complex material. The approach is more valuable and relevant than presenting reams of socio-economic data, considering the book’s primary unit of focus: Indigenous, tribal populations and early humans.
Focusing on evolutionary differences of tribal populations more than modern societies is a breath of fresh air for many readers since the book is not conveyed as Eurocentric. Far too often, books on history and societal development overwhelmingly focus on European societies, such as ancient Rome or the British Empire. Focusing on tribal societies gives readers something new and exciting to learn if they haven’t already heard of or read this immensely popular book. However, Diamond neither romanticizes nor glorifies past or contemporary tribal societies. For example, the public often assumes that tribes and bands are predominantly happy, egalitarian and nurturing. Diamond disputes this popular claim, mentioning that, though tribes have relatively egalitarian decision-making, they are still stratified since influential men in power likely obtained their status with their charisma, strength and decision-making skills over others (p. 276). Contending with the facts of the situation objectively and unapologetically, Diamond delivers a fair representation of the nuances of his arguments and case studies.
Aside from discussing overlooked peoples, Diamond’s work adds to our understanding of human history and political philosophy because he counters Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s social contract theory. Rousseau argued that state formation occurred when people rationally calculated their interests and agreed to disband from smaller societies (p. 271). Diamond, however, offers clear evidence that state formation was not a conscious, calculated decision amongst inhabitants of the early Fertile Crescent. Instead, increased population density, resulting from favourable geographic conditions, warranted greater, more complex social organization.
Diamond also carefully notes exceptions to his argument and does not exaggerate his claims for complex-societal development. He adds that complex societies can indeed form without becoming entirely sedentary “under exceptionally productive conditions for hunting-gathering” (p. 273); such was the case of the inhabitants of Abu Hureyra in modern-day Syria. MIT and Harvard scholars Daron Acemoglu and James Robinson overlooked this point when they criticized Diamond in their book “Why Nations Fail.” As Diamond explains, the inhabitants resided in year-round communities and simultaneously hunted, gathered and unconsciously cultivated domesticable species (p. 139). These practices formed the nascent steps for conscious domestication. It is unlikely that these actions were entirely the result of a conscious decision by political rulers, as Acemoglu and Robinson claim, seeing that settlement’s formation depended entirely on extremely favourable geographical variables.
Though he did not initially address political and economic factors, Diamond briefly comments on the role of “good institutions” in human history in his 2003 afterward. Good institutions include the rule of law, private property rights, limited corruption, free trade, and incentives for investment, to name a few. Diamond admits that institutions are essential for societal development but claims good institutions are ultimately “rooted in geography”(p. 445). His acknowledgement of counterarguments makes a strong case for his book since it demonstrates that he is willing and able to address new criticisms and omissions in his research when they arise, an admirable quality for anyone.
Above all, the book’s most crucial strength lies with the counterarguments addressed in each chapter. For example, readers prone to take umbrage at the importance of geography may find themselves asking questions such as: “if geography is so important, what explains the development of one society over another within the same continent?”, “what if the populations that failed to develop simply didn’t know how to exploit their resources effectively?”, “why were some species domesticable while others not?”, or even “what about societies that developed and eventually reversed their progress?”. For each of these questions and criticisms, Diamond consistently links the explanation to geography. He examines contemporary and ancient human societies instead of relying on pseudoscientific racial rationalizations that some may hold privately. You will, however, have to read to book to find the answers to each of these questions. It is difficult for any amateur or professional to belie his central argument.
Some minor quibbles
Despite some of the more recent economic literature (mentioned above) validating Diamond’s theory, indeed, the geography hypothesis does not necessarily stand the test of time. As argued in “Why Nations Fail,” political and economic institutions can drastically affect a society’s outcomes regardless of their previous geographic headstart. The importance of institutions is evident when comparing countries with the same geography, history, language, culture and other factors, including genetic ancestry. Consider the stark differences between North and South Korea. North Korean institutions extract and enrich the elites resulting in widespread poverty, while South Korean institutions are relatively egalitarian compared to the North, therefore making their society more sophisticated and developed. Israel is another example since it is a country without abundant natural resources like its Arab neighbours, yet its citizens fare better economically thanks to intelligent policy and limited corruption. Israelis have clearly accomplished more in science, technology, poverty reduction, and democratic governance than all their Arab neighbours combined in a short period since their country's recent founding in 1948. Relatively egalitarian institutions and smart policymakers may therefore matter more in the contemporary age than geography, regardless of any favourable geographic origin.
Or, perhaps, Diamond’s argument could evolve to better suit the times. Geography may remain the most important causal factor assuming a person or group (such as a corporation) maintains ownership and control of geographic goods such as natural resources and their supply chains. States that are not bountiful in resources may also control the means of production and distribution of a valuable commodity located outside its jurisdiction. A state could then undoubtedly use the revenues to develop itself. That could include a Western company outsourcing agricultural production, for example, to a more favourable regulatory environment only to then sell the commodities to Western clients. The same could be said for raw materials later fabricated into more usable goods.
As of writing, with the Covid-19 crisis halting much of the world’s economic activity, some countries have responded to serving their citizens’ needs by banning exports of high-demand goods such as food. Only a government that produces such goods can achieve such a feat; a tragic situation for the countries that must buy from elsewhere. Moreover, scientific and technological advancements will inevitably alter the playing field between nations. Previously unexploitable resources can become usable and more efficient resource alternatives can become available as our understanding of the material world improves. Demand for unethically obtained lithium and coltan in the Democratic Republic of Congo, for instance, may move elsewhere as new deposits become readily available in other areas — though I’m uncertain if this will happen any time soon. Not owning the means or know-how of production of resources may matter more than simply having them in proximity.
Lastly, and most controversially, if geography was the main catalyst for human civilization to flourish, Diamond’s rejection of the genetic differences between populations as an explanation for why some societies advanced faster than others is problematic. Environmental stressors influence biology, making organisms more predisposed for certain advantageous traits and qualities, so it would be impossible to acknowledge the role of genetics when comparing different populations. Of course, this book was written before the genome was fully sequenced, so we cannot judge him too harshly.
Overall Impression
Jared Diamond makes a clear, convincing case that geography is an essential variable explaining the differences in development between societies globally, starting from the dawn of agriculture. For those seeking a more scientifically rigorous explanation, from an actual scientist, as to why some societies are different from others, this is the book to have on your bookshelf – no pre-science knowledge or experience necessary. It will come as no surprise to the reader as they make their way through this book that it was the winner of the general non-fiction Pulitzer Prize in 1998.