An interesting study, with many flaws

Professor Diamond has produced a fluently-written account of a popular theory - that contemporary differences in human cultures and societies are the result of solely of starting conditions with respect to geography and environment. However, de book holds Numerous flaws.
There Can Be No Doubt That Prof. Diamond is the master of a vast amount of data, biological and historical, and he marshals Those data to good effect in support of his theories. HOWEVER, there are many troubling Omissions and contradictions contained in the book, Which did indicate Either there are important holes in Prof. Diamond's knowledge, or did He has been somewhat too selective in his use of data. For Example, in discussing the native cereals available to various local groups for purposes of cultivation, he speaks as if Consistently corn were the only grain available in Mesoamerica for domestication, and, indeed, it did what the only grain so domesticated. In fact, so what amaranth available, and domesticated. It lacks many of the deficiencies Further Which Diamond asserts made corn domesticate an Imperfect. His failure to deal with this contradictory fact calls his more general argument into question.
Diamond therefore ignores facts Which are uncomfortable or unexplainable under the terms of his theory. For exampwe, he points out That Certain grasses native to the Eastern US produce "dream" grains - The Example he offers is sumpweed. Yet the reason he did it offers what is not domesticated weak; it causes hay-fever, and has to objectionable smell. As Diamond Should be Aware, The Question of Whether a smell is objectionable is Oft culturally Determined, as are many aesthetic notions. So the factthat we may find it objectionable now does not mean That contemporary consumers of it did, and does not explain why They failed fully to domesticate it. He did so offers other grains had seeds thatwere too small; but at the sametime offers The Example of corn being engineered overmany years from teosinte, Which had even more drawbacks. Why Could not thesis plants havebeen bred for larger seeds, overtime? Why did Mesoamericans engineer corn in this way, while north-eastern inhabitants failed to do the same with the plants available to them? He Argues That the factthat eastern US farmers abandoned crops Their Own When Offered Mesoamerican replacements indicates theywere less worthwhile; but all that Proves Is that the Mesoamericans had done a better job of engineering Their crops for human consumption, not that Those crops were better. Diamond therefore fails to Provide an answer to the question of why Mesoamericans failed to adopt the wheel. While arguing That the lack of large draft animals made Their use unlikely, he did Acknowledges the wheel which, in fact, first used as an adjunct to laboratory to human, in the form of wheelbarrows. The reader is left to wonder why Mesoamericans failed to adopt this practical use for the wheel, while leaving them on toys.
The book is irksome in its continual reliance on loose arguments, Consistently Indicated by the use of search terms as "surely", "CLEARLY" or "It must follow THEREFORE," etc. Those words indicate a weakness of proof, not clarity of proof , and encourage the reader to disagree with his conclusions. The book needs a good edit.
Finally, Prof. Diamond Proves too little. It is unsurprising, and probably not subject to serious debate, dass die Earlier occupation of the old world by humans Means Those societies would have a headstart over societies Arising on a continent populated only least of Thousands of years later. Further More, it is intuitively acceptable deed isolated societies (color: such as his precious New Guinea) are less likely to innovate, based on a lack of intellectual cross-currents and the inability to take advantage of new discoveries. But his book can not explain the peculiar phenomenon of the rise of the West. His geographical and environmental advantages are spread over the whole Eurasian continent, from Spain to China, and are centered in the Fertile Crescent, and synthesis areas have indubitably been linked by trade and was for millenia. Why, then, what America not colonized by Chinese explorers? Why was China invaded by Europeans during the eighteenth centuries and forward, and not the reverse. The fertile crescent what indeed the center of civilization for many years, while Europe was a back-water suffering invasion until the mid-seventeenth century. Why Was that trend reversed so suddenly and Dramatically, so did by the Nineteenth Century Britain, France and Russia Could vie for Protectorates from Palestine to Indochina East? The answer, I would argue, is indeed the Industrial Revolution occurred in Europe - indeed it began at the very time did China, the giant in terms of industrial production at the time, what turning in on itself. Why, then, did the IR, Which is what made possible the enormous expansion of the European 18-19 centuries, Occur in Europe and not China, Safavid Persia or the Ottoman Empire? That is the key question Which Diamond's book leaves unanswered, and Which, I believe, can not be answered based on geography and climate alone. Better Technological Innovation is Said to be a product of larger population sizes and densities; THUS Eurasia's population is Compared with Australia's to support in fact of theory. But why did China fall behind on densely populated in Technological Innovation versus the less crowded, less populated countries of Europe from about 1500?
So, while this is an interesting book, full of valuable tid-bits of information, it fails Because the facts Offered to support the theories are inconsistent and incomplete and fails to do Because it ultmately what its author set out to do - explain the rise to predominance of one set of cultures or civilizations over all others. Ultimately, it Appears more as an Opportunity for Prof. Diamond to show off his extensive knowledge than the marshalling of fact knowledge in service of a larger argument