Guns, Germs, and Steel
Jared Diamond · 1997
"Which civilizations ended up conquering others was driven overwhelmingly by geographic and environmental accident — access to domesticable plants and animals, and an east-west continental axis that let farming spread easily — not by any difference in the people themselves."
Diamond built an entire theory of world history around a question a New Guinean politician asked him: why did Europeans end up with so much 'cargo' and New Guineans so little? His answer had nothing to do with people and everything to do with geography.
Diamond's argument rests on a few compounding geographic accidents. Eurasia had far more species of large mammals suitable for domestication (horses, cattle, pigs) than the Americas, Africa, or Australia, providing labor, transport, and military advantage. Eurasia's east-west continental axis meant crops and livestock domesticated in one region could spread across similar latitudes and climates relatively easily, while the Americas' and Africa's north-south axes meant agricultural innovations had to cross very different climate zones to spread, slowing diffusion drastically. Denser agricultural populations living close to domesticated animals also developed immunity to diseases (smallpox, measles) that then devastated populations without that exposure history on contact — 'germs' did more to enable conquest than European weaponry alone. Diamond's broader claim is that these environmental starting conditions, not any innate difference in ingenuity or ability between peoples, set civilizations on radically different long-run trajectories.
According to Diamond, what was the primary driver of which civilizations came to dominate others?
Read more about the topic
The explanation above is written with AI assistance. These are the originals — go to them to check it.
- Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fates of Human SocietiesW. W. Norton & Company
The Structure of Scientific Revolutions
"Science doesn't progress through smooth, cumulative accumulation of facts — it alternates between long periods of stable 'normal science' within an accepted paradigm and rare, disruptive 'paradigm shifts' where the entire framework for interpreting evidence is replaced."