Titles: Episode 1: Out of Eden

Our thesis is based on Jared Diamond’s book ‘Guns, germs and steel’. Modern history is a product of conquests of European “explorers” and the Conquistadors, who led the way. The local population was utterly decimated by the few who came to the New World. With the aid of Guns, germs and steel, they were successful in taking over those lands. Ever since, people of European origin have dominated the globe, with the same combination of military power, lethal microbes and advanced technology. But how did they develop these advantages in the first place? Why did the world ever become so unequal? How have guns, germs and steel shaped the history of the world?

There have been people living in the rainforests of New Guinea for at least 40,000 years – long before the settlements of North and South America were formed. But one of the few places on earth where it’s still possible to find people hunting and gathering is the rainforest of Papua New Guinea. They are among the most culturally diverse and adaptable people in the world. So why is it that they are being ravaged by rampant poverty while their European and American counterparts sit in bungalows and have their lavish their meals?

Advanced technology, large populations, and a well-organized workforce have been common characteristics of majority civilizations. To understand the pace of the progress of each civilization in the course of history, we must need to dwell deep into the roots of the formation of each of these.
To comprehend the origins of inequality, we need to move back into the time when people all over the globe were on an equal footing. Hence, we move back 13000 years back, just after the lasting remains of the last Ice Age. Middle East, much less arid than it is today, was the area where populations flourished at that time. They were of a hunter-gatherer nature, moving along grassy plains and forests with their cattle and livestock. They moved with the depletion of green areas. These people are immensely skilled with respect to their animal hunting and catching techniques. The problem with foraging as explained earlier was its uncertainty and lack of storage. Animals were hunted in the quantity in which they were to be consumed. They could not be reserved for future use. Because of the unreliable nature of hunting, traditional societies have usually relied more on gathering. This task is usually undertaken by women, who gather food and cook. Although gathering is a more reliable way of finding food, it often does not provide enough calories to feed the whole population. Gathering in New Guinea usually encompassed the sago tree. One tree, yielding around 70 pounds of sago, took about 3 to 4 days to process to be utilized. For this amount of time, this was not a sufficient quantity, and it the sago starch was low on protein.
In the Middle East, there were very different plants to gather. Growing wild between the trees were two cereal grasses, barley and wheat. These were far more plentiful and nutritious than sago. These simple grasses would have a profound impact, setting humanity on the course towards modern civilization as they can be produced in large quantities and stored as well.
The primary types of grains stored were wheat and barley, as these were hardy enough to be stored for long periods of time. The supply of grains came from the early farming techniques from nearby sources of water. This gave way to the first farmers in the world and the domestication of crops, putting settlements to a chronic advantage than their hunter gatherer counterparts.
Other parts of the world followed this tradition. In China, the farming of grass started followed by Americas and Africa. The people in Papua New Guinea had one of the oldest systems of farming in the world. Archaeologists now believe that people have been farming there for almost 10,000 years – almost as long as the people of the Middle East.
But if they were farmers, why weren’t they propelled down the same path towards civilization as the people of the Middle East or China or Central America?
The reason for the disparity is not the ability of farmers but in fact it is due to the type of crop. New Guinea had crops like banana and taro which were low on protein, harder to farm as they had to be planted one by one and could not even be stored for a long time. So ultimately it boils down to the natural resources that a region is bestowed with. Better and productive farmers emerged in places that had better crops giving reason to inequality through the type of farming.
Further strengthening this story is the flip side of the coin via which it is described that just like plants certain areas were lucky enough to get the more productive domestic animals as well. The second system of production via which larger and more complex societies started emerging was Pastoralism. They domesticated animals so that they could get steady supplies of animal products such as meat, milk, wool, hides, leather and eggs etc throughout the year that is why they were able to live in larger groups because of increase n the amount of food available and nomadic societies began to settle down as they had plenty of resources at their disposal. Also as these people were already practicing horticulture so presence of these animals gave an additional advantage because these two meshed together to form a synergy. Animals were made to eat left over crop after harvest and in turn their dung was used as a fertilizer. Also perhaps the biggest revolution came when beast of burden were used to plough lands increasing its productivity manifolds. This is when the societies started moving towards intensive agriculture.
But the inequality sprouts from the kind of animals that were domesticated in different regions. According to diamonds research the conditions that are necessary for an animal to be domesticated are that it should be a herbivore, sociable, living in groups with internal hierarchy (herds), short maturity and reproduction cycle and a considerable size(over hundred pounds). Diamond identified 148 such animals and throughout history man has tried to domesticate almost every single one of the animals that satisfy these traits but they have been successful in taming and using only 14 of them. Of these 14 (Goats, Sheep, Pigs, Cows, Horses, Donkeys, Bactrian camels, Arabian camels, water Buffalo, Llamas, Reindeer, Yaks, Mithans, and Bali cattle) not one was from new guinea. The only domesticable animal they had pig which came a lot later from Asia. Pigs only provided meat not wool, milk hide or agricultural help. The other 13 were all from Asia, North Africa and Europe. The most important ones amongst them (due to size) cows, pigs, sheep and goats, were from to the Middle East. This meant that the area possessed the best animals as well as the best plants and this area was named by historians as the “Fertile Crescent”.
The Fertile Crescent had been dealt a splendid hand by nature because it had the best sources of both production assets and that is why it was able to produce a lot more food. This excess production gave rise to all those features that were explained earlier associated with the methods of production as you move towards intensive agriculture. They stopped being nomadic, village sizes grew, there was more hierarchy and in equality within the society and more wars as a result of surplus. The surplus gave rise to another one of these attributes that gave rise to the onset of civilization and that was specialized roles. Because the society produced excess food it was able to support individuals that did not take part in food production and instead specialized in other traits attaining new skills and discovering new technologies. This phenomenon can be evidenced through the archeological sited located in that area which proves that those villages had a number of attributes which provide starting point for modern technological progress. Their houses were ventilated and plastered meaning they had discovered the process of heating lime stone to convert it in to plaster. This process formed the basis of discovery of steal. Also there were present structures that archeologists identified to be the first granaries. This means that the excess food that was produced was stored. The 9000 old archeological site in guar is an example.
But new Guineans never developed these technologies because they were never able to produce the surplus required to support these individuals. They spent all their time looking for the next meal because of their less efficient methods of production.
But the problem is that if we believe this theory then the Fertile Crescent should be the most well developed and powerful area in the world which is clearly not the case. The reason for that is that this area had a strong weakness. Although it had the resources, it did not have the environment necessary to support them. The land was dry, water scarce and natural system fragile which collapsed after a while when people over exploited it through continual intensive farming and use.
As the land became barren people had no other choice but to migrate but they took their high yielding animals and plants with them. So wherever they went they transformed communities. They migrated to east and west of the Fertile Crescent to India, North Africa and Europe. The reason for that is these areas lied in the same lines of latitude and hence shared the same length of the day, climate, ecology, climate and vegetation. That’s why the crops and animals of the Fertile Crescent were able to flourish in these areas. They revolutionized cultures everywhere from the Egyptian pharos building pyramids and an everlasting civilization to the Greek Roman empires, European renaissance and spread of colonialism to America all that advancement had high yielding production as its base pillars for which the animals and plants of the Fertile Crescent are to be thanked.
A lot of criticism to this theory sprouts from the fact that his explanation seems too simple. Can the disparity between different parts of the world really be broken down to what we eat and produce? But according to Jared “people around the world are fundamentally similar. Wherever you go, you can find people who are smart, resourceful and dynamic. No society has a monopoly on those traits. Of course there are huge cultural differences, but they’re mainly the result of inequality, they’re not its root cause. Ultimately what’s far more important is the hand that people have been dealt, the raw materials they’ve had at their disposal”.