Jared Diamond identifies three factors that he believes are responsible for the differences in the development of civilizations on different continents. These three causes are plants, animals and viruses, and topography, and let’s take a look at them to see what Jared Diamond was trying to say.

Why read the book?

“Guns, Germs, and Iron was written by Jared Diamond in 2005, so it’s more than a decade old, but it’s also the number one borrowed book at Seoul National University’s central library. I don’t usually read books, so I thought I should try a bestseller.
In the book’s prologue, author Jared Diamond begins the story with a conversation he had with Yali, a friend he made when he moved to Papua New Guinea to study ornithology. “Why didn’t we black people make such ‘cargo’ like the white people?” he asks, asking why, in prehistoric times, all humans lived as hunter-gatherers, but 13,000 years later, there are marked differences in the development of civilization across continents. The question cuts right to the heart of the author’s cultural anthropological and historical interests. Jared Diamond’s wide-ranging academic background in anthropology, ornithology, physiology, and biology allows him to analyze and answer the question from a variety of perspectives. He argues that the reason is not differences in physical abilities between races, but rather “environment”. The reason for the difference in civilizations is simply the natural environment, and the main reasons are analyzed in three ways. Unlike previous studies that classify the development of civilizations according to differences in technology, this book describes the differences in civilizations by continent. In contrast to the views of existing scholars, the author explains the development of civilizations from an evolutionary biological perspective. Since Darwin’s theory of evolution appeared under the name of ‘natural selection’, it has been approached through genetics and evolutionary biology.
The book’s testimonials from other authors state that it is free of imperialist bias. However, some have argued that it was a theory put forward by Europeans to emphasize their superiority over other races, so I found this perspective interesting and approached it with interest.

Plants – the direct cause of differences in food production

The author suggests that differences in the distribution of plants were at the root of the civilization gap. Most of the major crops and livestock of modern societies originated in the Eurasian continent, which is often referred to as the “Fertile Crescent”. The difference between hunter-gatherers and farmers was in food production, and as farming became more population-sustaining, the abundance of labor allowed for more people to be freed from farming. These were the “managers” of civilization, mostly involved in religion and politics, who accelerated the development of civilization by developing various technologies, establishing governance systems, and building cities instead of producing food. This led to differences in civilization development on each continent. Drawing on a variety of disciplines, the author analyzes the causes of the differences in food production across continents, which led to differences in civilization development.

Animals and viruses – more terrifying than guns and swords, the weapons of conquerors

The authors note that differences in the domestication of animals also led to differences in food productivity, just as they did with plants. The domestication of animals also brought with it the challenge of transmitting infectious diseases from animals to humans, but those who survived the epidemics developed immunity. This immunity, the authors explain, was a more effective means of invasion than weapons for European countries like Spain when they later invaded other continents. The Native Americans, who had failed to domesticate animals, had no exposure to infectious diseases and were wiped out by the Spanish “conquistadors.
The example of the Spanish “conquistadors” made me question whether it is correct to analyze human civilization and its behaviors solely as “biological” caused by the environment. According to the author’s analysis, the Spanish invaded the Incas, but the Incas were unable to invade the Spanish because of the environment and conditions. Differences in civilization development, such as weapons, germs, and metals, helped the Spanish conquer the Incas. It is important to note that the Spanish conquistadors attacked the Inca Empire, not that they won. Guns, fungus, and iron may be reasons to attack another group and win, but I don’t think they are reasons to attack. The author interprets the Inca emperor’s unarmed participation in the Spanish conquistadors’ party as a lack of information due to the absence of written texts. The Inca’s lack of written history meant that they didn’t know from previous history that they should be wary of outsiders, and they approached them based on their military numbers.
I think there is room for a different interpretation: the Incas and Indians at the time tried to show goodwill and be friendly to the newcomers, while the “conquistadors” slaughtered and enslaved them for their own profit. Only recently, after World War II, has the world been trying to coexist and live together, but racism still exists in many forms, including racism. In light of this, I think it is unreasonable to consider the genocided races, the American Indians and the Incas, as examples of the author’s point of view, as simply being backward in civilization and trying to reach out and do favors to other races. From a 21st-century perspective that seeks to foster harmony, it seems more likely that they had cultures and institutions that were “humane. Another historian, James Blatt, criticizes Diamond for merely substituting a different kind of Eurocentrism for the old Eurocentrism. Another way of interpreting the author’s idea is that it is another hypothesis that was put forward by some Europeans to reduce the backlash against the idea that they had created a superior civilization based on superior racial characteristics. In other words, it is just another rationale for Europeans to maintain their vested interests.

Topography – a fundamental cause of differences in the development of civilizations

As we said indirectly in the example of animals and plants, geography influenced plants and animals, which means that topography is the most influential of the three causes. In reality, people evolve into hunter-gatherer societies, tribal societies, chiefdoms, and ancient states. Along the way, they interact with their neighbors, conquer and are conquered, become more powerful, and develop their own civilizations. Therefore, it can be said that, above all, the conditions for developing a civilization are essential to be able to interact with other tribes geographically.
If you think that civilizations only develop when people live in good enough conditions, there is one counterexample. China fits the author’s description of the environment. Its fertile soil and large land area allowed for plenty of interaction with other races. In fact, the Yellow River civilization of China is one of the four major civilizations. Europe, on the other hand, was not among the four major civilizations, and until the 16th and 17th centuries, it was lagging behind China. The authors attribute the difference between China and Europe to the “principle of optimal division”. The principle of optimal fragmentation states that innovation occurs most rapidly in societies that are optimally to moderately fragmented, and that overly integrated or too fragmented societies are disadvantaged. Ultimately, due to geography, China integrated early and remained a unified country for most of its existence, which stalled its development, while the European continent was divided, which fostered competition between countries, which led to advances in technology, science, and capitalism.
My opinion on this is that China had a good terrain for civilization to develop from an environmental point of view, so the law of optimal division does not fit with the author’s logic so far. This can be interpreted as a difference in ideas due to racial differences in the development of civilization. In addition, the fact that civilization blossomed in the Indus River valley before the fertile Ganges River can be seen as a constant effort to pioneer one’s own environment, not as a result of humans succumbing to the harsh natural environment. Humans are animals that are highly influenced by their environment, but we have made great efforts to overcome this, and we are still constantly pioneering our own environment.

Questions from the book

Ultimately, his position boils down to environmental determinism. His position boiled down to environmental determinism: that the environment had a huge impact on the development of civilization and that there are no differences in physical abilities between races. In his opinion, if there were indigenous peoples of other continents in the same environment, they would have developed in the same way as Europe. In other words, the development of civilization was advanced because of the “luck” of geography and climate.
The author argues that more advanced civilizations expand their power by invading less advanced ones, which can be interpreted as the “spread” of technology. This could be interpreted as the more advanced civilizations teaching the less advanced ones about their technology and civilization, and their invasions would be justified in the future. If that were the case, humanity would be in a constant state of anxiety, with wars, genocide, invasion, and conquest. While it is novel to analyze the development of civilization as a process of adaptation to the environment and conditions in which humans find themselves, I think it is difficult to argue that the development of civilization is based solely on guns, fungi, and iron, which were the advantages of Europeans when they conquered other continents. Environmental factors can be seen as an important factor in the development of humanity, but I think there are also cultural and genetic differences between different races. “Other books, such as Clocks and Civilization, interpret this as a difference in the way we view new technologies. I think it is difficult to compare the development of these civilizations in terms of guns, bacteria, and iron.