Guns, Germs, and Steel The Fates of Human Societies

Makes a geographical determinism argument for why civilization developed in some parts of the world (Eurasia, Americas) and not others (sub-Saharan Africa, Australia), and why it did so at a different pace. The gist of the argument goes as follows: the transition from hunter-gathering from farming is key in the development of complex societies and civilization. This is because (i) farming communities can grow faster (populational growth in hunter-gathering communities is limited both by how time-intensive it is to acquire calories and by the fact that parents need to carry their kids when moving locations until kids are old enough to move themselves) and (ii) farming produces more calories per work-hour hence not everyone needs to focus on acquiring food; people can then specialize and become e.g., leaders or craftsmen. Specialization leads to progress. The main factor in determining if and to what extent farming develops is the amount and suitability of species available for domestication. Something similar is true for animals. Animal domestication is also a great aid in the development of complex societies: animals provide food, make agriculture more efficient, can be used for transport, can be used for war and while in the short term they may infect their domesticators with diseases, in the long-term they will develop immunity.

It so happens that there were more plant and animal species suitable for domestication in Eurasia than elsewhere, and that the geographic characteristics of the continent (notably its major east-west axis, implying similar climates even over long distances) made spread of domesticated species easier than in other continents (for example the Americas, with its major north-south axis).

This is a very impressive book (and Jared Diamond is a very impressive man), drawing from a variety of fields including Archaeology, Anthropology, History and Ecology. It is my understanding that the argument put forward by the book is not universally accepted, and that the book has received some criticism for apparently oversimplifying. I think this is impossible to avoid when trying to answer such a complex question, and the book is definitely still worth a read.