Summary of Guns, Germs, and Steel

For this post I am attempting to summarize Jared Diamond's Guns, Germs, and Steel. I understand that I am suppose to quote a paragraph or so. But for this post, I might as well quote the whole book, and, frankly, nobody has the time for that. So here it goes...

At the beginning of his book, Diamond relates a previous experience where he carried on an engaging conversation with a prominent New Guinea official named Yali. During the conversation, Yali posed a perplexing question to Diamond:

"Why is it that you white people developed so much cargo and brought it to New Guinea, but we black people had little cargo of our own?" 

This question lays the foundation for the rest of the book. From here, Diamond attempts to analyze the different factors which contributed to the major disparities between different world societies and the progression of Eurasian-derived civilization to dominance. So why did Europeans conquer the Native Americans, and why didn't the reverse occur? Why are some societies categorically more advanced than others? Diamond uses archaeological evidence as well as examples in history in an attempt to clarify disparate societal development.

At first, Diamond explains the ancestral beginnings of mankind starting from Africa and outward throughout Eurasia, Indonesia, Australia, and North and South America   although with relative brevity so as to draw greater focus on individual concepts rather than continents. After pondering what provided certain people groups with significant advantages, he highlights specific historical examples of disparity resulting in conquest. He first focuses on the Polynesians noting the environmental factors in shaping the distinct and varied Polynesian societies throughout the Pacific Islands. The example acts as a model for the rest of the world in its societal developments from a single ancestry to an expansive diversion of peoples. Next, Diamond highlights the convergence of the Spanish and Inca, between Pizarro and Atahualpa respectively, and the subsequent Spanish conquest of the Incan Empire. Rather than focusing primarily upon the environmental factors, this example identifies the biological factor of disease and the military imbalance due to technological innovation.

Forward from here, Diamond attempts to isolate the factors which contributed to the rise of Eurasian civilizations and the seemingly inhibited development of others. His primary argument lies in the foundation of food production. But, according to Diamond, food production alone did not guarantee the success of Eurasian peoples. Food surplus generated by food production promoted sedentary lifestyles, which, in turn, promoted population growth and consequently political organization, technological innovation, and, not of the least important, disease. However, Diamond acknowledges that several other factors played key roles. It is also interesting to note that agriculture was not always readily embraced over the earlier hunter-gatherer methods reflecting that agriculture was not always advantageous in certain regions. What's more, Diamond points to the requirement of certain traits in plants and animals which facilitate domestication. Eurasian people, for example were able to domesticate fourteen different animals whereas very few, if any, were domesticated elsewhere. Domesticated plants in Eurasia contained larger seeds as well as a higher protein content. Both of these factors led to improved agricultural efficiency, increased technological innovation, and the development of epidemic disease. In contrast, other people groups lacked these advantages and, when introduced to Europeans, were unable to oppose militarily and suffered greatly from foreign diseases. One of the greatest factors that inhibited the societal development of certain regions was the geographical orientation of the continents along either a north-south or east-west axis. A north-south axis generated environmental barriers inhibiting the diffusion crops, livestock, technology, people, and ideas. An east-west axis facilitated the diffusion of such things as it remained along a particular latitude generating little variation in climate.

Diamonds next series of concepts revolves around the development of diseases and diffusion of ideas such as technology and writing systems. Apparently, the majority of diseases are derived from animals, primarily domesticated animals with which we maintain constant interaction. This is important because it explains why Eurasian peoples developed a variety of different diseases and other people groups   most infamously the Native Americans   did not.

The development of unique writing systems are another topic of societal growth that Diamond discusses. The initial importance of writing was merely for record-keeping purposes. It helped maintain political organization, collect taxes, and keep track of the economy. However, an extensive writing system was not necessary for the functions of a vast empire; the Incan Empire never devised a system of writing, instead resorting to a record-keeping system utilizing ropes and knots. Still, Diamond acknowledges that the Spanish had a decisive edge over the Inca for that very reason. The Inca were inhibited in terms of communication, whereas the Spanish could maintain clear communication and even relate their experiences, as well as vital information, to individuals back in Europe.

Next, Diamond discusses the diffusion of technology. He explains that necessity does not bring about technology, but that technology brings about necessity; the inventor must convinces his/her peers of the advantages of their device. He also explains that certain factors are necessary before a device is considered advantageous or worthy which is highly dependent upon the receptiveness of the particular society. He cites an example of a nearly 4000 year old clay disk which utilized the efficiency of stamps to produce written language and compares it to the printing press. The clay disk, although utilizing highly efficient technology, never caught on because the only literate individuals at the time were record-keeping scribes whom had no use for the technology. In contrast, the printing press   also utilizing a system of stamps   was embraced. This had largely to do with the fact that the invention of paper was a much more efficient medium, recreational literature was more prominent, and literacy was rising among the general public.

Diamond also elaborates the various transitions of political organization from bands of individuals to states and empires. However, I found this section somewhat less important except for in understanding the relationship between food production and chiefdoms, although the correlation is somewhat fuzzy.

The rest of the book attempts to apply the factors previously discussed to specific regions around the world and throughout history as it relates to the present. He covers the disparate cultures of New Guinea, the monolithic society of China, the spread of Polynesia, the Native American collision with Europeans, and the transformation of African societies.

The Rebus Principle

The other day, while reading chapter 12 of Guns, Germs, and Steel, I came across a reference to pun development. 

"...it's easy to draw a recognizable picture of arrow, hard to draw a recognizable picture of life, but both are pronounced ti in Sumerian, so a picture of an arrow came to mean either arrow or life. The resulting ambiguity was resolved by the addition of a silent sign called a determinative, to indicate the category of nouns to which the intended object belonged. Linguist term this decisive innovation, which also underlies puns today, the rebus principle."   Guns, Germs, and Steel by Jared Diamond

The pun reference was mostly insignificant, but it caught my attention   naturally. What Diamond was discussing was the development of early writing systems, particularly logographic writing systems (single symbols representing whole words or morphemes) such as hieroglyphics or even Chinese script. The rebus principle is the use of preexisting symbols purely for their pronunciation regardless of their meaning in order to represent abstract subjects such as "love" or "belief"; it is easy to depict a physical entity with symbols, but very difficult to depict a concept or emotion with symbols. Therefore, symbols representing physical entities were often strung together in order to represent abstract concepts. It's very much like Pictionary: to represent "I can see you" one would write   or draw   "eye-can-sea-ewe." Similarly, puns use the rebus principle for the simple pleasure of exploiting a highly limited writing system or language to appear funny   a mere matter of opinion   or clever   also a mere matter of opinion.

American Diffusion vs. Afro-Eurasian Diffusion

"The distance between Mesoamerica and South America   say, between Mexico's highlands and Ecuador's   is only 1,200 miles, approximately the same as the distance in Eurasia separating the Balkans from Mesopotamia. The Balkans provided ideal growing conditions for most Mesopotamian crops and livestock, and received those domesticates as a package within 2,000 years of its assembly in the Fertile Crescent. The rapid spread preempted opportunities for domesticating those and related species in the Balkans. Highland Mexico and the Andes would similarly have been suitable for many of each other's crops and domestic animals. A few crops, notably Mexican corn, did indeed spread to the other region in the pre-Columbian era." 

"But other crops and domestic animals failed to spread between Mesoamerica and South America. The cool highlands of Mexico would have provided ideal conditions for raising llamas, guinea pigs, and potatoes, all domesticated in the cool highlands of the South American Andes. Yet the northward spread of those Andean specialties was stopped completely by the hot intervening lowlands of Central America."   Guns, Germs, and Steel by Jared Diamond

When I first read this, I was floored. The idea that Fertile Crescent crops diffused throughout Afro-Eurasion crops from a single ancestral region while American crops largely failed to is astonishing! The most interesting fact was that, although most crops did not diffuse between the two regions, both Mexican highland and Andean highland peoples cultivated many of the same crops   with a few exceptions. This means that the people of the respective regions domesticated some of the same plants independently. In contrast, many of the crops in Afro-Eurasia were only domesticated once and then diffused from their ancestral origins through trade and travel. Diamond explains that major reason for this strange disparity is the difference in climates along the major axes of the landmasses. Climate is greatly influenced by latitude and altitude, and, therefore, traveling east-west is much less difficult than traveling north-south. As well, differences in altitude provide differences in climate similar to how latitude does with lower altitudes resembling regions closer to the equator and higher altitudes resembling regions farther from the equator. This is why the Mexican highlands and Andean highlands generate similar climates despite the variation in latitude and therefore support similar crops. However, between the two mild highlands are tropical lowlands. Different climates create different barriers. Different climates generate different diseases which is a major factor in trade; you can't trade if the people succumb to disease before reaching their destination. As well, tropical rainforest is very difficult to traverse because of the thick vegetation. In contrast, travel along the Eurasian landmass generates much less drastic climate variation. This facilitated the transport of crops and livestock throughout north Africa, Europe, and Asia west of the Himalayas. However, African diffusion faced similar issues that American diffusion did. Although southern Africa was capable of supporting Fertile Crescent crops, it never acquired them. The drastic climate variation between Ethiopia and southern Africa generated devastating diseases and difficult terrain. Therefore, it was an unreasonable feat to attempt to traverse it.

Pizarro and the Inca vs. Gideon and the Midianites

"The most dramatic moment in subsequent European-Native American relations was the first encounter between the Inca emperor Atahuallpa and the Spanish conquistador Francisco Pizarro at the Peruvian highland town of Cajamarca on November 16, 1532. Atahuallpa was absolute monarch of the largest and most advanced state in the New World, while Pizarro represented the Holy Roman Emperor Charles V (also known as King Charles I of Spain), monarch of the most powerful state in Europe. Pizarro, leading a ragtag group of 168 Spanish soldiers, was in unfamiliar terrain, ignorant of the local inhabitants, completely out of touch with the nearest Spaniards (1,000 miles to the north in Panama) and far beyond the reach of timely reinforcements. Atahuallpa was in the middle of his own empire of millions of subjects and immediately surrounded by his army of 80,000 soldiers, recently victorious in a war with other Indians. Nevertheless, Pizarro captured Atahuallpa within a few minutes after the two leaders first set eyes on each other. Pizarro proceeded to hold his prisoner for eight months, while extracting history's largest ransom in return for a promise to free him. After the ransom   enough gold to fill a room 22 feet long by 17 feet wide to a height of over 8 feet   was delivered, Pizarro reneged on his promise and executed Atahuallpa."   Guns, Germs, and Steel by Jared Diamond

It seems almost as if this account was simply a story, but various personal recorded accounts verify its accuracy and archaeological evidence indicates that such numbers are plausible. Population estimates for the indigenous peoples of the Americas in about 1500 C.E. range between about 57,000,000 and 70,000,000 Native Americans. As a matter of comparison, European population estimates sit at about 70,000,000 individuals. Of course, the numbers elaborated by the conquistadors in the account are likely somewhat exaggerated, but they are not outside the realm of truth. What is most fascinating though is the fact that a mere 168 conquistadors conquered an estimate of about 80,000 Incan soldiers without losing a single soldier of their own! Diamond continues in explaining the reasons for such Spanish success   their superior technology, frightening appearance, and advantageous circumstance   but I merely want to make a comparison. While reading the account I could not  help but recall the Old Testament account of Gideon's army of 300 men against 135,000 Midianite soldiers. The imbalance was very significant (yet, not nearly as significant as between the conquistadors and the Inca) and victory was awarded to Gideon and his army. The situation was similar: both Gideon and Pizarro led a surprise attack; both the Midianites and Inca stumbled into confusion; and both parties with the numerical disadvantage succeeded. However, it would seem reasonable to conclude that Gideon's army didn't possess the same technological advantage over the Midianites that Pizarro had over the Inca. Then again, perhaps he did. We don't know because we have yet to discover any evidence of the biblical battle. Still, I thought it was an interesting comparison that reminds us that their are many determining factors for any outcome. As well, it is ignorant to conclude that any result is inevitable.

Human Exploitation and Mass Extinction

"The settlement of Australia/New Guinea was perhaps associated with still another big first, besides humans' first use of watercraft and first range extension since reaching Eurasia: the first mass extermination of large animal species by humans. Today, we regard Africa as the big continent of big mammals. Modern Eurasia also has many species of big mammals (though not in the manifest abundance of Africa's Serengeti Plains), such as Asia's rhinos and elephants and tigers, and Europe's moose and bears and (until classical times) lions. Australia/New Guinea today has no equally large mammals, in fact no mammal larger than 100-pound kangaroos. But Australia/New Guinea formerly had its own suite of diverse big mammals, including giant kangaroos, rhinolike marsupials called diprotodonts and reaching the size of a cow, and a marsupial 'leopard.' It also formerly had a 400-pound ostrichlike flightless bird, plus some impressively big reptiles, including a one-ton lizard, a giant python, and a land-dwelling crocodiles."   Guns, Germs, and Steel by Jared Diamond

Diamond continues explaining that "all of those Australian/New Guinean giants disappeared after the arrival of humans." An interesting correlation indeed, but what truly caused such mass extinctions. I've always been fascinated with paleontology; even as a 5 year old child I would sit down and watch a 3 hour long documentary about dinosaurs. So this question really resonates with me in relation to my past ventures into prehistory. I am most familiar with the demise of the large North American mammals which scientists often correlate with the arrival of human beings. However, I've never drawn comparisons with Australia/New Guinea and North America to Africa. It is true that while Africa is now considered synonymous with massive animals, other regions, particularly North America, were at once also home to massive animals   some even being larger as is the case with the Columbian woolly mammoth. Yet, most large animals that did not reside in Africa are now extinct. Some scientists blame this phenomenon on drastic climate change following the end of the ice ages, while others blame human hunter-gatherers. Diamond sides with the theory which blames human beings and elaborates upon the possible reason that African giants still exist while Eurasian, Australian, New Guinean, and American giants perished. According to fossil evidence, human beings evolved in Africa; therefore, they co-evolved with African biology. This means that African animals were familiar with human beings prior to their development of advanced weapons, and, therefore, were familiar with their behavior and regarded them as dangerous respectively   they knew to be cautious. However, as humans diffused across Eurasia and even further, they came across valuable game animals which were not familiar with human behavior. It reminds of an expedition which was taken by a group of scientists into a remote region of rainforest which had never been introduced to human beings. Many of the fauna were much less frightened by the presence of the scientists upon their arrival than what is typically observed. It would be somewhat reasonable to expect a similar reaction amid animals upon the arrival of prehistoric humans. This, combined with the fact that humans had developed advanced weapons and hunting strategies by the time of their arrival, produced a major disadvantage for the exploited fauna.

A Critique Review

David Denby, writing in The New Yorker, after declaring that the movie is not “just bad,” but “dreadful,” goes on to report himself “deeply embarrassed because all around me … people were sitting rapt, awed, absolutely silent, only to burst into applause after some of the numbers.” What embarrasses Denby is the decline in “the taste of my countrymen” in the face of something that is to him so obviously “overbearing, pretentious, madly repetitive”; and he seconds the judgment of Anthony Lane, also a New Yorker reviewer, who dismisses the film as “inflationary bombast.” (Something a bit inflationary about that phrase, perhaps.)    ‘Les Miserables’ and Irony by Stanley Fish of the New York Times

Even though I've never seen "Les Miserables"    although I want to    I can still relate to this passage. Fish is analyzing the reviews of a few critics whom very much disliked the film, although he himself loved it, in order to figure out what their conclusions are based upon. Ultimately, his intellectual excursion leads him to the concept of irony and the article continues. But I find his disagreement with the critics of most interest. I don't read movie reviews at all, but I do take reviews into consideration before purchasing a video game. Sometimes I'll even read or watch a review of a game which I already have in order to gain their perspective. Many times I'm not surprised by their verdict or I begin to notice attributes which I had not necessarily noticed previously. But other times I find myself utterly confused or even defensive in response to their verdict; I feel that the game deserves better. Yet, I sometimes find myself becoming borderline obsessive over negatively critiquing something simply because I don't like the premise of that particular game. Such an attitude has affected my opinion of everything from music to television to food or even motor vehicles. Do I necessarily understand what I am critiquing? Probably not; yet, I do it anyway. Therefore, I can't help but wonder how they formulate their conclusions. Are they influenced by perceived notions? Do they establish preferences simply do to perhaps a single element? Obviously, every individual is subjected to bias, and, therefore, they perceive the world differently. Although the purpose of a review is to help an individual decide upon the value of a decision, sometimes it is better to merely decide for yourself. Otherwise, you may be missing out.

Equality?

But the “gay” passage of Obama’s speech underscored the lingering gap between the American ideal and the American reality. “Our journey is not complete,” he said, “until our gay brothers and sisters are treated like anyone else under the law — for if we are truly created equal, then surely the love we commit to one another must be equal as well.”    A Map of Human Dignity by Frank Bruni

This passage, as well as the article's overall message, reminds me a lot of the struggles for racial equality that had gathered nationwide attention decades ago. Now this may seem like a shallow analysis, and it likely is from a narrow comparative perspective, but the same principle applies as reflected in Barack Obama's speech. The Declaration of Independence reads: 

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal..." 

Interestingly, the 16th president of the United States, Abraham Lincoln, the president whom Barack Obama has recently been compared to in correlation with the political divisions that occured during the 2012 election, alluded the very same passage of the Declaration of Independence during his famous Gettysburg Address: 

"...our fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation, conceived in liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal."

This nation continues to strive for equality, but it seems to have difficulty defining it. This is evident from the "separate but equal" determination by the Supreme Court over the Plessy vs. Ferguson case in the late 19th century. Plessy Argued that the forced separation of blacks from whites inherently implies that blacks are inferior to whites and that forced separation was, therefore, a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Supreme Court ruled: 

"...it is not by reason of anything found in the act, but solely because the colored race chooses to put that construction upon it."

However, in 1954, the Supreme Court repealed this decision in their ruling of Brown vs. Board of Education, putting an end to public school segregation and, by extension, segregation altogether, although not immediately or easily. It seems obvious that our interpretations of what is right or wrong, what is equal or unequal, is determined by societal context. Our definitions continue to change. Fortunately, the Civil Rights movement finally established equality for blacks in the eyes of the government, but even today racial tensions are prevalent among ordinary citizens. This is where it gets difficult to define equality. Are they equal in the eyes of the government or in the eyes of the people? Government recognition equality merely indicates a person's right to vote, to hold office, to be protected by law under the same circumstances. Public recognition is deeper. The government isn't greatly concerned as to one's physical appearance, personal backgrounds, or personal choices    the people are. We perceive, and then we judge based upon the principles and doctrine we hold to ourselves. Inherently, a black individual is not characteristically equal to a white individual, a Hispanic individual, or any other individual of a distinctive race. As well, a homosexual is not the same as a heterosexual    they are characteristically different. So is it important that LGBT's are extended the same marital rights as other human beings? Well, that really depends on one's definition of marriage. Marriage has been conventionally defined as between a man and a woman; it is a precedent that has been established for millennia but has been given legal significance in relation to government. Does its legal significance mean that every individual is entitled to it despite there sexual orientation, or should marriage remain a strictly heterosexual union as defined by its significance based on biological definition?