Guns, Germs and Steel: The Very Long Run
A summary of Jared Diamond's important arguments in Guns, Germs and Steel about why growth began where it did thousands of years ago.
User Contributions (0) and Related Materials (1)
Ask a Question
Obviously we can't go watch other planets to see whether Diamond's important-for-growth factors influence things there. Suppose I created and successfully marketed a large online video game that randomly assigned players to geographic areas that had features associated with Eurasia and then watched as the game evolved. Would these observations carry much weight in academia? Should universities be doing this sort of thing?
If you wanted, you could probably look at the "geography" of online video games (thinking specifically of EVE and World of Warcraft) by national internet access and reliability, server location and population, etc. Just cause it's the internet doesn't mean geography doesn't matter.
It may be difficult to identify geography of players online, but EVE in particular has a very interesting, free-market "economy/sandbox" that could lend itself to analysis. I believe CCP (the developer) employs analysts that look at it for game balancing. Nice to see another 'gamer', btw.
James, if you simply gave a World of Warcraft starting area different resources, you would not be recreating Diamond's idea. You would simply be giving some players more resources than others.
To make it Diamond-esque, the game would have to change the number of players tied up to keep the community afloat. If you had some kind of Ancient Tree that needs to be nurtured that 80 percent of the players in one area or everyone dies, and only 60 percent in another, you would have a fair model.
I don't know, but wonder if later versions of Sid Meyer's Civilization might get into this. Certainly, my kids and their friends spent many hours in high school playing this game, so you might want to give it a try before doing anything on your own. (I haven't played the game myself, but it allows you to change the course of history by modelling civilizations on various factors.)
Video game economics is still considered weird but that is starting to change because, as you note, it is possible to do randomized controlled experiments in large, virtual worlds that are not otherwise possible. Here is a recent article on this from The Washington Post
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/09/28/the-economi...
I've always found Jared Diamond's argument interesting but selective and even self-serving. For example, Tenochtitlan, the capital of the Aztec empire, was bigger than any city of Europe in its day and had none of Diamond's five domesticable animals. An example of his selective use of historical facts.
Moreover, if he had written his book a thousand years earlier, China and the Islamic world would be the clear success stories, not Europe and the United States. Yet the geography, geology, and native flora/fauna didn't change. His chosen vantage point is rather self-serving, being an American. Isn't the real story having a strong, enlightened government that can nurture the peace and cultural open-mindedness necessary for technological advance? Societies with weak governments and intolerant or closed cultures are those that fall behind. In fact, one can argue that's what happened to both China (post-Zheng He) and the Islamic world (post-Abbasid).
But Jared Diamond's thesis makes for a more digestible story for many of his intended readers, suggesting geography destined them to rule the world.
Interesting take. I interpreted Diamond's argument as a corrective to ideas of innate racial superiority; i.e., saying it's not the people themselves, but external factors that have sorted the world into the rich and poor. Of course, I've read most of Diamond's argument's from Guns, Germs, and Steel in the form of articles for Discover magazine in the 1990s and still have the book around waiting to be read.
I do know that Diamond does take the role of culture seriously. After all, in his other major book, Collapse, he details cultural factors that caused several human societies to adapt poorly to crises that led to their downfalls.
I picked up the same corrective as you did in Diamond's argument. In fact, I think Christine's comment "suggesting geography destined them" asserts an ethno-centrism I don't see. However, her point that the analysis is partial appears to have merit.
I agree that this is a potential flaw in GG&S but look back to the second half of the lessons' title: The Very Long Run. Where Diamond excels is at explaining differences in growth and development of early societies around the world and what happens when advanced societies come in contact with primitive ones. But, fast forward to medieval Europe, dynastic China, or the Islamic Golden Age and it gets harder to see how the ideas he outlined in GG&S apply. I haven't read Collapse and he may have developed his ideas further but I'd like to suggest another answer: institutions. Societies with early advantages like those Diamond identifies are going to have a head start at forming institutions which make a great difference centuries down the road. The role of institutions seems to be an important and recurring theme in the course and you allude to it when you write "Isn't the real story having a strong, enlightened government that can nurture the peace and cultural open-mindedness necessary for technological advance? Societies with weak governments and intolerant or closed cultures are those that fall behind."
It seems like the effect of institutions gets brought up frequently in these discussions, and it would appear to be a fairly straight forward explanation that makes a lot of sense. More open (i.e. adaptable) systems tend to be more successful, kind of like a hardy weed that changes quickly with its environment, whereas closed systems resemble something closer to the banana, that's cultivated as a monoculture and gets decimated on a fairly regular basis. What I can't ever recall seeing is an exploration into why Western societies would be more open and adaptable, should that actually be the case, and how it came to be. Are you aware of any theories on that?
Diamond himself tries to answer this question in his review of Acemoglu and Robinson's "Why Nations Fail."
His thesis:
"There is no doubt that good institutions are important in determining a country’s wealth. But why have some countries ended up with good institutions, while others haven’t? The most important factor behind their emergence is the historical duration of centralized government."
He then goes on to argue, as he does, that geographical factors are the heart of these differences. I have similar concerns that others have expressed here, though I found his argument thoughtful and insightful. You can read his review here:
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2012/jun/07/what-makes-countrie...
Your comment seems to tease out the idea that conflict between societies is an essential aspect of our development, moreso than intrinsic sustainability and incremental improvement. So what are the factors that set up one civilization for domination when there has been conflict. Are those the factors that Diamond cites? The point about China and Islam is intriguing, but I would argue that China, Islam and Western Europe at that point would all be successes that had not yet come into conflict or competition. It would be very interesting to gauge these factors in the case of China or Islam to determine the universality of Diamond's study.
I think you're are only representing part of Diamond's story. Just a few points of clarification: Diamond didn't say that a lack of large domesticable mammals would prevent having a large population. The size of the Aztec population can be explained in part by human slavery, the ongoing but unsustainable exploitation of neighbors, and somewhat less need for intensive agriculture for food.
Also, another subtlety is that by extracting from their sparser and sparser neighbors the Aztecs could maintain a large dense city, but not a large and growing population across the countryside. Populations in Europe vs NA or SA are not as different as Tenoch vs Paris.
Diamond's point about cities was less the scale of the cities but about "any city" with a dense population mixed with living very close to domesticated animals. This combination leads to crazy germs and Eurasian trading made those germs ubiquitous.
Diamond's lesser point is how the animals and "cities" led to the development of better tools and technology and a culture that would adopt and expand them. For whatever reason (reliance on slavery, not needing to develop farming tools, culture), the Aztecs and the Americas didn't see the technology revolutions that Eurasia did.
That's not to say that gov't, institutions, culture, and genetics don't play a substantial role. But Diamond's points are still really compelling and his exact arguments do fit the obvious data very well.
Well then , how does Diamond explaines the great development of the people of karnak or the Incas in suth america or the Aztecs in Mexico who where much more advanced tecnologically to build their cityes for starters,or how they got all that knoledge on mathemathics, the pythagoras theorem, or all the astrological knoledge they had if this societies where so far appart from Europe; I think that as recognized as he is , his agenda is already planted for many to follow because someone is needed to "tell" somebody elses teachings.
Nice summary of Guns Germs and Steel. However, the course starts by comparing Eurasian societies in 1500 to the rest of the world. It misses the first step, that is, explaining how development happened in the first place. How did we evolve to create agriculture from hunting and gathering and the first food surplus (e.g. did agriculture lead to cities, or cities –trade centers—led to agriculture as Jane Jacobs postulates?), the first divisions of labor (religion/astronomy? Government?). It is obvious that agriculture and food surplus and division of labor did not require guns, germs or steel, otherwise the Aztecs/mayans wouldn’t have been so powerful or advanced.
Good point. It would seem that the key factors affecting development are guns, germs and steel since 1500; domesticatability of animals and crops, access to water routes and other factors before that.
Could it be that superior societies, social arrangements being the models compared, simply advanced more quickly? European and US societal arrangements advanced past the arrangements in China and MidEast. And, what does he imply by 'weak govt'. That which doesn't have the power to repel foreign invaders?
Geography. . . Greater land mass. . Greater amount of people. . . Greater exchange of ideas and information?
Some of the videos have trouble with editing. They get chopped half way at the end of a sentence sometimes. In this module, from 6:40 as in "...even showing panda porn, but not much seems to wor...(cut up)" I don't know if this is intentional, but I've found these in other videos, too. I am posting this just in case you are not aware.
I didn't really notice it in the other videos I've watched, but I saw lots of it in this one.
Dogs, housecats, turkeys, and chickens don't count as domestic animals?
While it's notable that chicken meet world production level is currently higher than the same of cattle meet, none of the animals in the list could have been similarly important.
Historically, cows and horses and other large animals were not only a meat source, but also provided milk for nutrition, skin for clothes, mechanical energy for construction, agriculture, and transportation (and warfare).
Dogs aren't so energy efficient because of being predators (though, I remember something about eatable dogs), chicken, rabbits and other small animals are too small. So while domesticating such animals may have improved the living, they are not samely important.
I, however, think domesticating the wolf should be praised much more.
Yes, in common with Christine, above, and others, I always take these sorts of broad brush historical arguments with a grain of salt. At the end of the day, it's thought provoking and the various arguments no doubt have elements of truth to them. But you could tell me some other story tomorrow using an entirely different point of departure (the weather, ancient greece, abrahamic religion), and I'd probably find it equally satisfying.
The ultimate factor in Diamond's model is the East-West axis, yet that is also (as I understand it) his weakest assumption. Has there been any new research in the area to either justify the assumption or a new ultimate factor?
I agree that the east-west axis argument seems weak. For starters, several continents only appear to have a strong north-south alignment if you're looking at a map with a distorted projection. Africa is almost equally east-west as it is north-south, with the distance between Senegal and the easternmost tip of Somalia approximately the same as from South Africa to Tunisia. Meanwhile, North America may be vertically aligned, but large parts lie too far north to be easily cultivated, and the same can be said for much of Eurasia. South America tails off to the south making it appear to be vertical, but there is still a broad area of land running east-west.
It seems to me that the only continent for which the north-south axis is a huge factor is Africa, not because Africa is vertically aligned, but because the east-west axis is dominated by the Sahara. The Americas are not affected by the north-south axis so much as by the inherent lack of domesticated crops and animals. I think the more important Eurasian factor has less to do with being along an east-west axis, and more to do with being massive and connected, not only by land, but by navigable water routes.
Was it the ultimate factor? It appears to me being just one of a bunch. Though, I must agree with its weakness.
It was always obvious to me that the distinction between Europe and Asia was due to geography, not only culture: Eurasian East-West axis seems broken in the middle. (Two of the earliest agricultural regions develop independently in Eurasia, it smells like a piece of evidence)
Go to 14:20 in the video, East-West axis is at the top of the Ultimate Factors >> Proximate Factors chart. I haven't read the book, but the argument seems weak to me too. North America has a wide open east-west plain that covers what, 2/3 of it? Corn being harder to grow and harvest than wheat and rice sounds like the ultimate factor to me.
I have read it and the axis argument seems not only weak, but also minor to me.
I think it's an odd factor, too. If you think about it, trade in East Asia often happened across a "north-south axis" (think of trade between China and areas much farther south connected by the Chinese diaspora communities). Why wasn't there more extensive water trade along the coasts of the Americas?
There is a lot of benefit from reading Diamond's book because it gets you thinking about the bigger picture of the evolution of civilization. However, I would be intellectually depriving myself if I did not read scholarly criticisms of many of Diamond's conclusions.
Think this is a very good introduction, my impression is that in Eurasia experienced a stop start progress Roman technology or Greek thought not really bettered for 500 or more years etc but in other parts of the world a more stable pattern was present.
Guess the question we will never answer is what would of south america or Australia be like after 500 years without any invasions, i guess the point is they would be broadly the same as they were before 1500.
The point although trite is that perhaps these civilizations were more in touch with the only the most fundamental resource mother earth, so perhaps an expansion to rape mother earth would not of being contemplated.
I find the germs story very compelling regarding the conquest of the Inca Empire and the desolation of North America that the Pilgrims found. The book 1491 focuses a lot on this, and compares the effect of Pizarro arriving when he did to if Genghis Khan arrived in Europe following the Black Plague (although that killed 1/3 of Europe, not potentially 90% like smallpox).
Somewhat depressingly, it seems like these epidemics were an inevitable result to the mixing of New World and Old World.
Even assuming that Diamond's assessment of the axes of the continents is accurate, was there really that much in common (as far as domesticable animals and crops) along any given latitude in Eurasia? I don't have an answer to this, but am only posing the question. It seems like the animals/crops domesticated in, say, France would have been different from those in the same latitues of the Mid- or Far-East.
I would like to propose an additional answer to the reasons why Pizarro conquered the Inka empire. Besides all the good reasons portrayed by Diamond, another important one was the absence of individual freedom among inka people. A breaking point was when Pizarro captured Atahualpa, the Inka Ruler. This happened because Athaualpa according to some information from their Generals thought the Spaniard were going to decline their purpose when they saw the son of God, the Inka. That way he underestimated the spanyards and when the Inka people saw their father and the sense of their lives captured by simple men they thought were cowards, they did the only thing they could: Just let themselves to be captured and defeated. No quick reaction was possible because the lack of independence and individual initiative.
I want to carp about that last item on the final slide, which I thought used inappropriately normative language. Strictly speaking, rich countries don't have 'good' institutions. They have institutions that foster the creation of wealth. Or, if you prefer, institutions that are good for creating wealth.
Why, yes, I *am* obnoxiously pedantic. Why do you ask...?
Have you read Diamonds book "Guns, Germs and Steel"? Its a great intellectual achievement. Geography has been a key influence in the differing developments of peoples, cultures and states in the various regions of the world. Universities might take your video game seriously for modelling demonstrations, but they definitly take Diamonds work seriously. UCLA is fortunate to have him.