Guns, Germs and Steel

I still haven't read the book, but here's what I wonder (Bryan Caplan and Megan McArdle are barking up the same tree).

Diamond's thesis seems to revolve around the ideas that Europeans were successful and certain things that others weren't - like domesticating animals (or popularizing guns, spreading germs, and making a lot of steel).

Has anyone else noticed that there isn't much there about what the Europeans tried and failed to do, or what non-Europeans tried and succeeded at?

It seems to me there is a 2x2 strategic game here. Europeans on one side, and non-Europeans on the other. The opponents choose one of two strategies, leading to one of the four cells being the outcome.

Diamond's idea is fine - but what about the other outcomes? Why did Europeans domesticate animals instead of doing something else? Why did non-Europeans choose not to?

Interpreting Diamond seems to be a lot like listening to jazz - the silences are as important as the notes that are hit.

Comments

[Dan Hill]

As I interpret Diamond's thesis, it wasn't that Europeans where better at domesticating animals (and cereal crops) or more inclined to do so, but simply through the vagaries of nature they had access to better candidates. Actually, it began in the Fertile Cresent, and spread to Europe (which is roughly on the same latitudes, an important point).

I think Diamond provides a good explanation of why the Middle East / Europe led in producing large scale urban societies and all that entails (based on their superior ability to generate agricultural surpluses), but where he falls down is in addressing the cultural and political factors that explain why our advanced industrial society emerged in western europe in particular.

Suggest you read the book.

[Factory]

"The opponents choose one of two strategies, leading to one of the four cells being the outcome."
As I read it, GGS implies that all societies are trying all the strategies at once, it's just that the Europeans had easier access to materials to play their strategies. Also IMHO large populations seem to be the dominant strategy.

"But where he falls down is in addressing the cultural and political factors that explain why our advanced industrial society emerged in western europe in particular."
GGS doesn't even try to answer that question, the book is essentially asking why the europeans conquered the world, which started before the industrial age happened.

[Dave Tufte]

REPLY TO DAN:

Oh ... I'll read the book. Probably sometime this winter.

I agree with your comment that the vagaries of nature is Diamond's thesis. I'm just not sure I buy into it. It requires a high degree of investment in a technology (better animals) that didn't pay off for a long time.

REPLY TO FACTORY:

Agreed. I think Diamond has overgeneralized. There's something about culture and society that was more important and came somewhat later. His argument doesn't seem to be able to explain why, if Europe dominated the world, did the England (and later the US) come to dominate Europe.