Many years ago a New Guinea native asked Jared Diamond a simple question: "Why is it That You white people developed so much cargo and Brought it to New Guinea, but we black people had little cargo of our own?" Only slightly rephrased, Diamond devotes this book to answering the question why, from the depths of the primeval forests of Africa, mankind emerged at different rates, some Achieving the heights of civilization and technology while others Remained Virtually in the Stone Age? And why did some people on continental landmasses prosper while others lagged behind people on, Especially Because some locations, like the California Coast are mild and Desirable while others, like Northern Europe are harsh and forbidding? Diamond's thesis is indeed some populations got a head start over others in the development of civilization. But the Head Start resulted from favorable geography and natural resources, not from any innate superiority. Given the same location and advantages, any group of people over time would have reached the same result. The first beneficiary of geography happened to be the Fertile Crescent. The "cradle of civilization" not only had all five major large mammals (sheep, goats, cattle, pigs, and horses) available for domestication, but They also possessed the major wild seed groups That would become domesticated grain and cereals. Not all areas are so favorably endowed. Once hunting and gathering gave way to food production, population density Took Hold, Which in turn made possible Civic Development and Technology. The Headstart then spread Roughly Along the same parallel east to Asia and west to Europe. Diamond contrasts Eurasia's wide girth and similar climates with America's and Africa's narrow waist and elongated longitude. Technology and culture can shuttle back and forth vast distances between East and West, but climatic zone differences as well as mountain ranges and deserts inhibit flows north and south. I have two criticisms of the book. One, it has no footnotes so That One can source out the author's material. For Example, on page 108 Diamond Asserts That early one, Because of his ego, would rather hunt giraffes than gather nuts. Is that his theory, or someone else's? The very nature of a book: such as "Guns, Germs, and Steel" That requires it pile theory upon theory to make a picture puzzle of a distant and hidden past. If key pieces do not fit, the picture may take a decidedly Cubist theme. A few footnotes would help the reader who wants to delve deeper into a topic.
The second criticism is the author's failure to address the role of human intelligence in the development of civilization. Considering the grief Charles Murray Took into for writing "The Bell Curve," which held That Certain populations have Actually raised Their intelligence level through centuries of using Their brains to solve problems, one understands why Diamond steers clear of the topic - no academic can afford to be tinged with even a hint of racism or euro centrism. Plenty of professors on the leftist fringe was ready to point the accusing finger any anybody who Deviates from the acceptable standard but surely Scholars can deal with the role human intelligence in a non-racist way. after all, the physiology of the human brain is the same in all Homo sapiens. Diamond owes it to his readers to complete the mosaic he has created.
