Ithika ([info]brokenhut) wrote,
@ 2007-08-06 22:32:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Share this!  Next Entry
The book, ‘Guns, Germs and Steel’

I’ve recently been working my way through Jared Diamond’s Guns, Germs and Steel. It’s been hard work but worthwhile too. But let’s start at the beginning, before I start to whine too much. The book is an examination of human history since the last ice age, about 13,000 years ago. At that point, when humanity started to properly deviate from its ape ancestors and form civilisations and technologies, that things become interesting. Different peoples in different parts of the world developed at different rates. The middle east was the site of the first crop farming, while the same didn’t happen in the Americas for thousands more years. The Australian humans were still using stone-age technology when Europeans arrived a few hundred years ago. Guns, Germs and Steel is an attempt to examine what might have caused these disparities and to follow that line of reasoning.

The general conclusion is that people in different parts of the world were constrained by their geography. Why did the people in middle east get crop farming but the Australians not? Essentially, because there were more crops there to begin with. The ‘fertile crescent’ in the stretch of land from Turkey and Iran is vastly more hospitable to many types of life than Australia.

And so the reasoning follows from there. With crops and farming come the facility to support extremely large and sophisticated empires with specialised soldiers, craftsmen and bureaucrats. Elsewhere, peoples who subsisted on nuts and clams and berries could only support small family-tribes. At this level, there was no chance to develop the rich empires needed to fund the trappings of modern society. It’s just like a game of Civilisation, innit?

But back to the whining. The ideas in this book were fascinating. There was a lot of interesting stuff about the development of dangerous diseases, which I would never have even guessed at. But eventually you realise that the book has fully explained the thesis and is just ploughing through page after page — and chapter after chapter — of examples. And that does get really dry, especially with the author’s writing style which involves asking lots of rhetorical questions. It makes one feel like the classroom know-it-all who gets ignored by the teacher, even though they strain and stretch their arm in the air. “Me, me! I know! You told me in the first half of the book!”

So I have to confess I’ve given up with at least a chapter to go. I don’t often do this. I mean, he might turn round and say “actually, I was just kidding…”. But there are more tempting books waiting in my pile right now, so Mr Jared Diamond is going to find himself back on the shelf.




(3 comments) - (Post a new comment)


[info]blu_matt
2007-08-06 09:41 pm UTC (link)
Hmmm. This one is currently sitting in my to-read pile (admittedly not near the top) but it was the free one in a buy-two-get-third-free offer, so I'll give it a whirl anyway. At some point.

(Reply to this)


[info]h2_the_foodie
2007-08-06 10:55 pm UTC (link)
I have to confess to having felt much the same about his "The Rise and Fall of the Third Chimpanzee". Which is not to say that I did not enjoy it and get a great deal out of it. It was just that towards the end it felt like it was just repeating the previous chapters, only in different colours/countries/flavours/moods.

(Reply to this)


[info]lurkinggherkin
2007-08-07 04:02 am UTC (link)
This sounds similar to the experience I had with Stephen Oppenheimer's Eden In The East. The book's premise is an interesting one, touching on a field of science that I think is less confidently settled than others - namely, the history of early human civilisation. I gather that Oppenheimer's idea of a SE Asian proto-civilisation that succumbed to post-glacial flooding is an unpopular one amongst other researchers in the field, but I can't help feeling that there's a bit of a knee-jerk going on against the whole flood thing. Personally, I don't have any psychological issues with the possibility of a rapid post-glacial flood. And I don't think that accepting this possibility means you have to buy into all the other religious paraphernalia that gets tagged on to your average flood myth.

Which brings me back to the book. Oppenheimer doesn't come across as a religious nut trying to prove the biblical flood happened. The first half of the book is really very good, and focuses on evidence from geology, archaeology, genetics and linguistics.

Then in the second half, he starts by listing a bunch of flood myth examples. Now as folk tales are the somewhat weaker evidence that might set you on the trail to look for something harder, I would have expected this to come at the beginning of the book.

After this it really goes downhill. He starts detailing all the flood myths in the list and comparing their similarities. By the third one you're thinking 'Yeah, yeah, we've got the idea, now let's get back to the genetics', but no, he ploughs on and spends the whole second half of the book on a very dry assessment of gazillions of flood myths (well, it felt like that).

He has some interesting ideas, but he really needs to learn how to write a book.

(Reply to this)


(3 comments) - (Post a new comment)

Create an Account
Forgot your login or password?
Log in with OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…