In his masterpiece called ‘Guns, Germs, and Steel’, Jared Diamond presents a thought-provoking question on global inequalities. Curious about why some societies prospered while others remained stagnant, he set out on a quest to find the causes of this asymmetry. With these first 55 minutes in the video, we visit a thrilling journey that plunges us into an analysis of geography, biology, and choices made by humans concerning this gap.
According to Diamond, it is not the fact that people’s differences ever existed at all when inequality started but rather a result of the changing system and transition from hunter-gathering cultures to agriculture (Diamond, 1999). This fundamental inflection point varied according to the geographic setting. However, land areas such as the region of Fertile Crescent, endowed with abundant natural sources and animal life that was easy to domesticate, presented rich premises for primitive agriculture about 12 millennia ago. However, regions such as New Guinea and its vast variety of terrain, yet rather difficult territory with lots of goals, are additionally far more significantly threatening for development.
This contrast stands out when indigenous plants and animals of these regions are compared. The Fertile Crescent sure had wild wheat, barley, and rye in abundance that could hardly be left to grow on their own since they were eminently cultivable (Pieterse, 2020). Compared to New Guinea, however, it had few grains that were easily domesticated, and its staple was the taro root, which created problems in large-scale production. In the same way, large mammals such as sheep, goats, and cattle were plentiful in the Fertile Crescent; they were easy to tame, and people looked at them for livelihood. On the other hand, only a few large domestic animals existed in New Guinea, thus slowing down the evolution of the most powerful drafts.
With the speed of success in agriculture by people hatched from Fertile Crescent, there was a boom in population and evolution encryption at specializes—people who did other work aside from food production. This specialization led to several innovations, like the invention of technologies such as writing, the introduction of metal making, and military weaponry. These innovations, missing in societies crippled by the intricacies of domestication, only further gaped the chasm between ‘haves’ and ‘have-nots’.
This advancement was not fettered in the Fertile Crescent but rather diffused beyond it into other geographical zones. With good geography, such as the Nile valley in Egypt, creating similar agricultural benefits, these innovations spread. In the long run, these innovations drove the formation of mighty empires such as Mesopotamia, paranoiac Egypt, and Rome, which consolidated power that only they had. Although the video does not describe in detail how far these improvements spread to empires outside of the Fertile Crescent, a map depicting their flow could show this westward into Europe and southward through Africa, developing different civilizations.
While there was fertile land in America, domesticable animals such as horses and oxen, essential to better agriculture, were absent. Diamond implies the Bering Land Bridge migration would have taken place after megafauna had disappeared from North America, restricting domestication options. This, coupled with the continental isolation of the Americas that delayed advanced inventions and implementations, made them impoverished enough to stand before European colonization centuries later. Though the argument made by Diamond is highly convincing as a cause for the initial differences, Yali’s question rightfully directs us beyond geography and biology. He invites us to reflect on the combined act of human evolution and the historical probability aspect of global power structures (Diamond, 1999). Values could ensure that societies propel themselves forward if they stress warfare or maritime exploration. Displaying a wide range of political structures, from centralized empires down to decentralized networks, could shape resource allocation and innovation. Even mere coincidences such as disease epidemics or resource finds would shift paths. Investigation of these very factors beyond just “guns, germs, and steel” is critical to understanding why conquest happened as it did. For example, there is a lack of domestic animals in New Guinea. But what if it had a local social arrangement of these people or their technological advancement and trade relations? An honest answer to Yali’s question presupposes getting even more profound, calling it a balance of forces—each is a leading part and is expected to be mentioned.
Jared Diamond’s adventure for an explanation provides us with a stimulating paradigm to trace the path to the origin of global injustice. By emphasizing the when and how of agricultural change, he helps us understand better the random geographical conditions that made for different histories. But it is crucially important to note that history was not born out of these disparities alone. This is why, identifying the intricate dynamics involved and constantly striving for a more enlightened grasp transcending one-dimensional views becomes central to ensuring greater equality in tomorrow.
Reference
Diamond, J. M. (1999). Guns, germs, and steel: The Fates of Human Societies. W. W. Norton.
Pieterse, J. N. (2020). Global Culture, 1990, 2020. Theory, Culture & Society, 37(7–8), 233–240. https://doi.org/10.1177/0263276420958447
write