Guns, Germs, and Steel

“Understanding is more often used to try to alter an outcome than to repeat or perpetuate it. That’s why psychologists try to understand the minds of murderers and rapists, why social historians try to understand genocide, and why physicians try to understand the causes of human disease. Those investigators do not seek to justify murder, rape, genocide, and illness. Instead, they seek to use their understanding of a chain of causes to interrupt the chain” 

Here, Diamond refutes the notion that describing a scenario is liable to perpetuate it. His aim in this book is to describe and explain forms of social inequality; not to endorse or maintain them. Employing some useful analogies, Diamond clarifies that physicians try to understand the causes of disease. Likewise, where people commit heinous acts, psychologists and social historians try to understand why such acts occurred. Few people would argue that these professionals are endorsing or perpetuating disease or brutal crimes. Quite the opposite, they typically seek to prevent unwanted outcomes. So, while he cannot alter the events of the past, Diamond emphasizes that to study inequality is not to encourage its continuation or repetition.

“In the average American household, the TV set is on for seven hours per day. In contrast, traditional New Guinea children have virtually no such opportunities for passive entertainment and instead spend almost all of their waking hours actively doing something, such as talking or playing with other children or adults. Almost all studies of child development emphasize the role of childhood stimulation and activity in promoting mental development, and stress the irreversible mental stunting associated with reduced childhood stimulation. This effect surely contributes a non-genetic component to the superior average mental function displayed by New Guineans”

Diamond draws upon previous studies to refute the idea that “primitive” peoples such as the New Guineans are lacking in intelligence. The studies referenced here concern the different environments in which American and New Guinean children grow up. American children have become increasingly sedentary and passive, which is due in no small part to the pervasiveness of television as a form of entertainment in many households. In New Guinea, by contrast, children are encouraged to be active and engaged with their surroundings. With research having shown the benefits of physical and mental activity in childhood, Diamond thus challenges assumptions about “backwardness” and mental inferiority.  

“Until we have some convincing, detailed, agreed-upon explanation for the broad pattern of history, most people will continue to suspect that the racist biological explanation is correct after all. That seems to me the strongest argument for writing this book” 

This quote emphasizes the moral rationale behind this book. Diamond is aware that some individuals attribute inequality to the innate superiority of some people over others, but he is convinced that there is no validity in this argument. Not only this, he is conscious that it can perpetuate racist thinking. He therefore makes it his goal to refute this biological explanation and outline an alternative explanation that focuses on geography.

“AUTHORS ARE REGULARLY asked by journalists to summarize a long book in one sentence. For this book, here is such a sentence: “History followed different courses for different peoples because of differences among peoples’ environments, not because of biological differences among peoples themselves”

This passage occurs early in the book and provides a useful synopsis of Diamond’s overall argument. Diamond covers a broad geographical area and time period throughout his study, but he is aware that journalists frequently ask for a bite-size summary. He therefore summarizes his thesis, which is that different peoples have progressed along different courses throughout history because of the diverse environments they live in—rather than biological differences between them. 

“Human history at last took off around 50,000 years ago, at the time of what I have termed our Great Leap Forward. The earliest definite signs of that leap come from East African sites with standardized stone tools and the first preserved jewelry (ostrich-shell beads). Similar developments soon appear in the Near East and in southeastern Europe, then (some 40,000 years ago) in southwestern Europe, where abundant artifacts are associated with fully modern skeletons of people termed Cro-Magnons. Thereafter, the garbage preserved at archaeological sites rapidly becomes more and more interesting and leaves no doubt that we are dealing with biologically and behaviorally modern humans” 

Diamond seeks to cover a vast period of time and geographical area, but, because of the various topics on which he wishes to focus, he cannot delve into the complete history of human evolution. The quote above is indicative of his approach, in that it manages to condense a large chunk of history. Though Diamond sketches out the origins of humanity, he is more concerned with the evolution of human beings into a more advanced state akin to that of modern humans. The first signs of evolution are provided by architectural evidence such as stone tools and jewelry, which originated in Africa but quickly appeared in other continents. Diamond refers to this period of evolution (which commenced around 50,000 years ago) as the “Great Leap Forward,” with archaeological remains becoming ever more interesting from this point on. This quote therefore encapsulates the shift from primitive humanity to beings that are demonstrably more advanced. 

“Immediate reasons for Pizarro’s success included military technology based on guns, steel weapons, and horses; infectious diseases endemic in Eurasia; European maritime technology; the centralized political organization of European states; and writing. The title of this book will serve as shorthand for those proximate factors, which also enabled modern Europeans to conquer peoples of other continents” 

This quote refers to a historical episode in which the Spanish conquistador Francisco Pizarro and his ragtag group of soldiers defeated the Incan emperor Atahuallpa and his vast army. This success might seem unlikely, but the Spaniards had various advantages: not only did they possess horses and superior weaponry, the political centralization of European states helped Spain develop and equip the necessary maritime technology, while writing enabled the relay of information. Furthermore, the Inca Empire had become divided and vulnerable due to a smallpox outbreak that had claimed the life of the former emperor and brought about a leadership contest between Atahuallpa and his half-brother. All things considered, then, this episode highlights the role that “guns, germs and steel” have played during the course of history.

“In short, plant and animal domestication meant much more food and hence much denser human populations. The resulting food surpluses, and (in some areas) the animal-based means of transporting those surpluses, were a prerequisite for the development of settled, politically centralized, socially stratified, economically complex, technologically innovative societies” 

If plant and animal domestication are successful, it follows that food production and population density will increase. Where food surpluses result, these can be stored and used to feed non-food-producing specialists, such as kings and bureaucrats, soldiers, priests, metalworkers, and scribes. So, while hunting and gathering societies are largely egalitarian and have only small-scale political organization, we see a different arrangement start to emerge here—an arrangement marking a shift towards the kind of advanced, modern social structures that are commonplace today.

“Those imported domesticates may be thought of as ‘founder’ crops and animals, because they founded local food production. The arrival of founder domesticates enabled local people to become sedentary, and thereby increased the likelihood of local crops evolving from wild plants that were gathered, brought home and planted accidentally, and later planted intentionally” 

Where people have not had access to suitable domestic plants or animals, they have sometimes been able to make up for this with imported domesticates. Known as “founder” crops and animals, these imports have been important in enabling people to establish sedentary, food-producing lifestyles. Becoming sedentary also had further consequences, as people would gather wild plants to bring home but would spill them or deposit them unwittingly, only to find that the seeds were taking root and evolving into crops. After a time, people began to plant the seeds deliberately, thus demonstrating a growing awareness and proactive approach towards food production. 

“Even in the cases of the most rapid independent development of food production from a hunting-gathering lifestyle, it took thousands of years to shift from complete dependence on wild foods to a diet with very few wild foods. In early stages of food production, people simultaneously collected wild foods and raised cultivated ones, and diverse types of collecting activities diminished in importance at different times as reliance on crops increased” 

In this quote, Diamond emphasizes that the transition from hunting and gathering to food production was not as fast as one might think. We should not imagine that, once people were aware of the benefits of food production and had access the necessary materials, they cast aside their former lifestyle and devoted themselves to food production alone. Even where food production developed independently and most rapidly, it still took a long time for it to completely supersede hunting and gathering. Also, this was not an either/or scenario; in reality, people continued to collect wild food while engaging in early food production. It was only as people became increasingly reliant on crops that wild foods decreased in importance.

“Once food production had arisen in one part of a continent, neighboring hunter-gatherers could see the result and make conscious decisions. In some cases the hunter-gatherers adopted the neighboring system of food production virtually as a complete package; in others they chose only certain elements of it; and in still others they rejected food production entirely and remained hunter-gatherers” 

This quote provides further evidence that hunting-gathering and food production were not mutually exclusive. Also, the transition—or partial transition—from one to the other could often be the result of a conscious decision. Once some people had turned to food production, others could observe its advantages or drawbacks in comparison with hunting-gathering. As we can see, then, food production was not merely something that “happened” or that was imposed; rather, it could be adopted following reflection on its potential benefits.

“The much denser populations of food producers enabled them to displace or kill hunter-gatherers by their sheer numbers, not to mention the other advantages associated with food production, including technology, germs, and professional soldiers. In areas where there were only hunter-gatherers to begin with, those groups of hunter-gatherers who adopted food production outbred those who didn't” 

While people could make a conscious choice about whether or not to adopt food production, some decisions were liable to work out better than others. As we see throughout this book, those who remained hunter-gatherers sometimes found themselves overpowered or excluded as food production took hold on a large scale. Sometimes they could be killed outright, while, in other cases, more indirect means such as disease epidemics could bring about the same result. Though hunter-gatherers continued to exist after the onset of food production, their numbers dwindled, while food producers grew in number and in power. Many hunter-gatherers therefore found it judicious to turn to food production.

“Much as the Industrial Revolution changed the environment for moths, farming changed the environment for plants. A tilled, fertilized, watered, weeded garden provides growing conditions very different from those on a dry, unfertilized hillside” 

Diamond explains the evolutionary processes of domesticated plants by drawing a parallel with moths in Britain. During the period of industrialization in the 19th century, darker moths became more common than their pale counterparts. This was because the environment had become dirtier, and darker moths were less likely to catch the attention of predators when resting on trees. A similar process occurs in plants, which will develop differently—or fail to develop—depending on their environment and the suitability of growing conditions. Where wild plants have become subject to domestication, then, it follows that this will shape the course of their evolution.  

“Knowledge of wild species was presumably even more detailed before the rise of food production, when everyone on Earth still depended entirely on wild species for food. The first farmers were heirs to that knowledge, accumulated through tens of thousands of years of nature observation by biologically modern humans living in intimate dependence on the natural world. It therefore seems extremely unlikely that wild species of potential value would have escaped the notice of the first farmers” 

Before food production, people relied on wild species of food and would therefore have accumulated considerable knowledge in this area—knowledge that would have been passed down to the first farmers. Such expertise is likewise evident from interaction with peoples who are still hunter-gathers or farmers who depend heavily on wild foods. In New Guinea, for instance, Diamond observed the detailed knowledge that local tribes possessed about their environment and the local plant life. It is when people become increasingly dependent on domestic plants that this knowledge becomes dissipated. Where wild foods are still significant, the knowledge of those who gather these foods is typically extensive.

“Like hunter-gatherers of the Fertile Crescent, those of New Guinea did evolve food production independently. However, their indigenous food production was restricted by the local absence of domesticable cereals, pulses, and animals, by the resulting protein deficiency in the highlands, and by limitations of the locally available root crops at high elevations. Yet New Guineans themselves know as much about the wild plants and animals available to them as any peoples on Earth today. They can be expected to have discovered and tested any wild plant species worth domesticating” 

These examples convey the impact that geography and ecology can have on food production. The Fertile Crescent is notable as one of the earliest areas of food production, with its name testifying to its landscape and climate. This was an area in which food production was able to evolve independently, and the same applies to New Guinea. However, there were only specific areas of New Guinea that were suitable; likewise, resources were limited and lacking in protein. So, even where food production has been possible, it has sometimes been subject to difficulties that contrast with the image conveyed by the Fertile Crescent. As Diamond emphasizes, moreover, this was not due to any failings on the part of the people themselves, with New Guineans displaying expert knowledge of the local landscape. It was purely a matter of the environment and resources available. 

“Members of most solitary territorial animal species cannot be herded. They do not tolerate each other, they do not imprint on humans, and they are not instinctively submissive. Who ever saw a line of cats (solitary and territorial in the wild) following a human or allowing themselves to be herded by a human?” 

Even where there are animals that can theoretically be domesticated, this is not always feasible in practice. As Diamond points out, some animals, such as wild horses, naturally form themselves into hierarchical herd patterns, and this increases their suitability for domestication. Conversely, some animals are independent and solitary, with cats being a prime example. Such animals are not used to following a leader or being part of a pack, and this means that any attempt to herd them is likely to result in failure.

“WHY WAS THE spread of crops from the Fertile Crescent so rapid? The answer depends partly on that east-west axis of Eurasia with which I opened this chapter. Localities distributed east and west of each other at the same latitude share exactly the same day length and its seasonal variations. To a lesser degree, they also tend to share similar diseases, regimes of temperature and rainfall, and habitats or biomes (types of vegetation). For example, Portugal, northern Iran, and Japan, all located at about the same latitude but lying successively 4,000 miles east or west of each other, are more similar to each other in climate than each is to a location lying even a mere 1,000 miles due south”

There are various reasons why food production has flourished in some regions while struggling in others, and one of these reasons concerns latitude and longitude. In Eurasia, which includes the Fertile Crescent, regions that are distributed at around the same latitude tend to share similar features in terms of climate and habitat. Where regions are located along a north-south axis, then environment can differ more significantly—even over short distances. Eurasia has been able to take advantage of its east-west axis, which has helped with the diffusion of food production across large distances. Were its main axis to run from north to south, as in the Americas, then it might not have been so fortunate.

“Writing marched together with weapons, microbes, and centralized political organization as a modern agent of conquest. The commands of the monarchs and merchants who organized colonizing fleets were conveyed in writing. The fleets set their courses by maps and written sailing directions prepared by previous expeditions. Written accounts of earlier expeditions motivated later ones, by describing the wealth and fertile lands awaiting the conquerors” 

This quote effectively summarizes the role that writing has played in enabling the conquest of one party over another. While writing can have various uses, both practical and artistic, one important function has been to convey information and instructions during expeditions. Not only could commands be issued in this format, earlier writings were useful in providing guidance before and during such expeditions. This could take the form of sailing directions or accounts of earlier expeditions. Writing therefore offered a considerable advantage; especially when facing non-literate adversaries. 

“In fact, many or most inventions were developed by people driven by curiosity or by a love of tinkering, in the absence of any initial demand for the product they had in mind. Once a device had been invented, the inventor then had to find an application for it. Only after it had been in use for a considerable time did consumers come to feel that they ‘needed’ it. Still other devices, invented to serve one purpose, eventually found most of their use for other, unanticipated purposes” 

It is often said that necessity is the mother of invention, but Diamond argues that the opposite is often true. In many cases, inventions have resulted from curiosity and experimentation exercised by people regardless of demand. It is only after they had invented something that they found an application for it Consumers may not initially feel that they need such a product, but, once it has made some headway in the market and established its validity, they are more likely to feel that they do need it after all. Additionally, some inventions may come to serve a purpose that differs from the inventor’s original objective.  

“Austronesian food-producers migrated into two regions (New Guinea and Indonesia) occupied by resident peoples who were probably related to each other. The residents of Indonesia were still hunter-gatherers, while the residents of New Guinea were already food producers and had developed many of the concomitants of food production (dense populations, disease resistance, more advanced technology, and so on). As a result, while the Austronesian expansion swept away the original Indonesians, it failed to make much headway in the New Guinea region” 

The differing fates of New Guinea and Indonesia highlight the role that food production has played in shaping the course of history. Austronesian food-producers journeyed into both New Guinea and Indonesia but, in the case of New Guinea, they were met with people who were already food producers and who had acquired the concurrent benefits; namely, advanced technology, disease resistance, and dense populations. The Austronesians therefore made little progress in New Guinea but found greater success in Indonesia—a region sparsely populated by hunter-gatherers. So, while these two regions were close to each another geographically and their populations were most likely related, Indonesia was left essentially powerless because it lacked those defenses that grew out of food production.  

“Sedentary living was decisive for the history of technology, because it enabled people to accumulate nonportable possessions. Nomadic hunter-gatherers are limited to technology that can be carried. If you move often and lack vehicles or draft animals, you confine your possessions to babies, weapons, and a bare minimum of other absolute necessities small enough to carry. You can't be burdened with pottery and printing presses as you shift camp” 

One of the running themes in this book is the influence of food production on the evolution of human society. In the quote above, Diamond points to the significant ways sedentary living facilitated technological progress. Whereas hunter-gatherers were often limited in what they could carry due to their nomadic lifestyle, sedentary living enabled the accumulation of more substantial items. This is not to say that all early food producing communities were technologically advanced, but they did not have to concern themselves with the same issues as hunter-gatherers. Diamond consequently offers pottery and the printing press as examples of the kind of technology that depended on sedentary living. 

“Besides justifying the transfer of wealth to kleptocrats, institutionalized religion brings two other important benefits. First, shared ideology or religion helps solve the problem of how unrelated individuals are to live together without killing each other—by providing them with a bond not based on kinship. Second, it gives people a motive, other than genetic self-interest, for sacrificing their lives on behalf of others. At the cost of a few society members who die in battle as soldiers, the whole society becomes much more effective at conquering other societies or resisting attacks” 

As food producing societies have developed into modern states, they have no longer operated along the egalitarian lines that characterized earlier forms of social organization, such as bands and tribes. With populations larger than ever before and no longer connected by familial times, states required a more formal, politically centralized structure to bind people together. The government is the bedrock of authority but has traditionally drawn on institutionalized religion to justify its position—which has been especially useful for kleptocrats—and its involvement in wars of conflict. By appealing to religion, societies have been able to gain public support for such wars and convince people to sacrifice themselves for the greater good.

“The interface between New Guinea and Australia across Torres Strait was thus reminiscent of the children's game of telephone, in which children sit in a circle, one child whispers a word into the ear of the second child, who whispers what she thinks she has just heard to the third child, and the word finally whispered by the last child back to the first child bears no resemblance to the initial word. In the same way, trade along the Torres Strait islands was a telephone game that finally presented Cape York Aborigines with something very different from New Guinea society” 

Diamond discusses a puzzling issue in Chapter 15: New Guinea and Australia are linked by the Torres Strait, which is dotted with numerous islands, and traders made regular visits between these islands, and Australia and New Guinea. However, the Aborigines on the Australian coast never saw a mainland New Guinean, and New Guinean traits did not get transmitted to Australia. This seems surprising given the islands that would appear to provide a bridge between the two. As Diamond explains, though, New Guinea culture became dissipated along this island chain to the point where it had petered out by the time it reached the Australian coast. 

“If it had not been for those extinctions, modern history might have taken a different course. When Cortes and his bedraggled adventurers landed on the Mexican coast in 1519, they might have been driven into the sea by thousands of Aztec cavalry mounted on domesticated native American horses” 

When the Spanish conquistador Hernán Cortés arrived in Mexico in 1519, he and his army managed to conquer the Aztec Empire—despite being vastly outnumbered. There were various reasons for this success, one of which was that most of North and South America’s large wild mammal species had become extinct in the Late Pleistocene era. As a consequence, the Aztecs had no horses with which they could drive back the Spaniards from the Mexican coast. This episode therefore provides one of many instances in which past events and inequalities have shaped the course of history.