Guns, Germs, and Steel

After the end of the last Ice Age, in around 11,000 BCE, societies began to develop along different lines, dividing into advanced, literate societies that used metal tools, non-literate farming societies, and hunter-fathers who used stone tools. Now that the first type of society has conquered/exterminated the others, Diamond addresses why human fates have differed throughout the course of history.

Diamond recalls an incident 25 years ago, while he was studying bird evolution in New Guinea, when he spoke to a local politician named Yali. They got on well but were aware of the tension between their respective societies, with New Guinea being subject to colonial rule. The colonists brought with them a variety of ‘cargo,’ including metal weapons, medicines, and clothing. Yali consequently asked 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?” (14). This may seem a simple question, but Diamond found it difficult to answer.

This issue goes beyond New Guinea, as people of Eurasian origin dominate the world’s wealth and power. This cannot be attributed solely to colonization, as continents already differed greatly prior to this period. Diamond recognizes the significance of colonization in propagating inequality, as empires with strong weaponry conquered tribes with more primitive tools. Still, there remains the question of how humanity reached this point.

Peoples on all continents were hunter-gatherers until the end of the last Ice Age. Different rates of change in societies occurred between 11,000 BCE and CE 1500, with new developments occurring earliest in Eurasia. This brings us back to the question of why societies developed at different rates. This is not just a matter of history, but also political conflict and forms of inequality that persist to this day. Africa, for example, is still suffering from the legacies of colonialism.

Diamond recognizes that some people may take offense to his query for several reasons. Firstly, they might argue that explaining how some kinds of people came to dominate others justifies domination. However, Diamond stresses that explaining something is not the same as advocating it—quite the opposite, trying to understand an outcome may help to decrease the chances of it happening again.

Another argument is that addressing a question such as Yali’s involves focusing solely on Western Europe and Europeanized America. In response, Diamond explains that his book will discuss non-Europeans and will examine interactions between different non-European peoples—not just interactions between Europeans and non-Europeans. This will show that many of the basic elements of western European civilization originally developed elsewhere. Diamond therefore avoids glorifying or focusing exclusively on western society.

A third potential argument is that phrases such as ‘rise of civilization’ imply that civilization is good and tribal societies are bad. Here, Diamond makes it clear that he does not assume that industrialized societies are superior. He believes that they entail mixed blessings: People in these societies receive better medical care, but less social support from friendships and extended family. Diamond’s aim is to understand, not to hold one kind of society up as superior.

Some people have claimed that biological differences are at the root of cultural differences, but, for Diamond, this emphasis on biology is the root of prejudice. He also argues that there is no sound evidence to indicate that human differences in technology mirror human differences in intelligence. It is hard for testing procedures to distinguish between innate intelligence and cultural learning. Given the effects of upbringing and presence of learned knowledge, such tests have failed to demonstrate variances in intellect across societies.

In his own experience, Diamond has often found New Guineans to be intelligent, alert, and inquisitive. It is only natural that they would fail at tasks that westerners learned how to perform, though westerners may interpret this as stupidity. A westerner seems similarly stupid to New Guineans—it is a matter of context. For thousands of years, Europeans have been living in heavily populated societies in which disease epidemics were the main cause of death. In New Guinea, by contrast, the high mortality rate was traditionally due to murder, warfare, accidents, and difficulties in finding food. The result of this difference is that intelligent people are more likely to survive in New Guinea, whereas intelligence has little bearing on mortality associated with epidemics in Europe.

Another reason for this difference is that modern western children spend much of their time passively entertained by television and other forms of media. Studies have consistently shown that stimulation and activity are important in promoting mental development during childhood, and New Guinean children have an advantage in this respect.

Diamond expands these conclusions beyond New Guinea to suggest a similar contrast between technologically primitive societies and their more advanced counterparts. This raises the question: if people such as the New Guineans are not lacking in intelligence, then why are they technologically primitive?

Diamond considers and discards various theories, concluding that there has been no generally accepted answer to Yali’s question. However, he reiterates that there is a moral reason to pursue this matter. People have fared differently throughout history and continue to do so, leading to ideas about innate biological differences in intelligence. Diamond believes that these ideas are inaccurate and harmful, and he therefore seeks to dismantle them and offer an alternative explanation.

Diamond contends that it is necessary to draw on a variety of disciplines in order to address this matter adequately. His own background has enabled such an approach: his mother is a teacher and a linguist, his father is a physician, and he himself has adopted an interdisciplinary approach to his studies. His fieldwork has also fostered an affinity with the societies in which he has spent considerable time.