From the opening line of the preface, Jared Diamond’s Guns, Germs, and Steel is nothing if not an ambitious work: “This book attempts to provide a short history of everybody for the last 13,000 years” (Diamond, 9). This is a bit misleading, however, as Diamond’s motivation is not simply to provide an overview of our species since the dawn of civilization; his aim is to answer the question of “why history unfolded differently on different continents” (Diamond, 9). In the near five-hundred pages of the book, he makes a valiant effort to answer the question in terms of geography (with the adjoining environmental explanations). Indeed, his argument is exceptionally persuasive, and provides strong evidence that Eurasia’s dominance over other parts …show more content…
In fact, this is one of the major points that McNeill takes issue with. Diamond says that the domestication of plants and animals tends to be concentrated in a few, favorable areas on each continent, and that it is diffusion (along with migration) that allows this to spread to other parts of the continent. He contends that these rates were much higher in Eurasia because of its major east-west axis, as well as its manageable physical characteristics, such as geographical barriers (Diamond, 390). Geographical barriers, such as mountains and inhospitable climates, are obvious deterrents to migration and diffusion of many species; this is hard to deny. McNeill, however, is thoroughly unconvinced by Diamond’s suggestion that East-West axes eased migration (McNeill, 171). His evidence is nearly as convincing as Diamond’s, but in his attempt to undermine the pro-East-West argument he highlights a point that shifts both sides of the dispute into a new light. “The spread of useful species,” McNeill writes, “was usually a conscious act” (McNeill, 172). This line pinpoints the main issue; it’s likely that neither side is entirely right or entirely wrong. Even McNeill cedes to Diamond’s point regarding how necessary genetic adaptation (due to change in day-lengths) would make North-South migration of some plants slow, favoring East-West diffusion. He’s not persuaded that the spread of …show more content…
Diamond provides solid evidence to support this, successfully making this outcome seem natural to the reader. However, near the end of the book, Diamond takes his explanation even further when he tries to extend geography as an answer to the question “Why Europe?” Why did Europe emerge as the leading power, when the Fertile Crescent and China were such exceptional opponents? Diamond believes it was because Europe’s geography led to high amounts of political fragmentation, whereas China’s fairly consistent geography fostered a single, unified nation. The political fragmentation of Europe gave it an edge because of the competition it fostered, whereas in China the unitary people developed at their own pace, without the threat of extinction through obsolescence (Diamond, 393-397). This also, according to Diamond, means that Europe had an advantage over China because it was not at the whim of single ruler, who could prevent indispensable advancements if they so wanted. The Fertile Crescent eliminated itself by destroying its own supply of resources, thereby committing what he calls “ecological suicide” (Diamond, 395). So, despite the fact that China was technologically superior throughout most of history, and that the Fertile Crescent had a better baseline for agriculture, Europe ultimately became the most