Idiot fodder. Tries to explain populations solely in terms of inventions. A blockhead approach to history...
Really good. It explains how available environmental resources can explain the way civilizations developed or didn't, and why some could outcompete others. I'm really not sure how much of the book, you read, if any, but that wasn't at all what Diamond was saying. Populations developed based on what kind of domesticatable animals they had, or if the continent they lived on had any at all. The Americas have only one or two animals that were domesticated; the biggest being the llama. But llamas make crummy herd animals, and even worse mounts. Also, living with large numbers of animals is a good way to pick up animal viruses. Eventually, the human in proximity with the animals became immune to the diseases. When the humans carrying animal diseases, like smallpox, encountered those that hadn't domesticated any animals.... Well, there aren't that many Aztecs left, are there?
Domesticating animals is an invention, in historical-speak. The dude leaves out more than he addresses.
It provides an approach to explaining the different rates of technological and cultural development amongst the different races/cultures. As is basis and left unexplained, is that all human races/cultures are equal in terms of intelligence and that disparity in development can be explained by environmental factors like climate change, rivers, etc etc. The idea is that already adapted to the environent of Africa, those that stayed had little reason to change, and that those humans who migrated to the other continents were faced with environment factors that required adaption. Those that successfully adapted and well had to develop the utilities necessary to battle said factors-- these utilities, like writing, agriculture, etc is civilization or cultural/technological progression. The problem with his theory, as with any theory that attempts to unify complex progressions that spans so many cultures and that are interwoven, is that the attempt invariably leaves out other factors. The attempt to unify results in a simplification that generalizes a more textualized problem. It's a noteworthy approach and correct in some respects but by no means the only factor or explanation for the different rates of progression amongst the human races/groups.
Except not all animals can be domesticated. If you live in a place without domesticatable animals what are you going to do? Build a robotic horse?
Or if you accidentally eat them all before some bright boy comes up with the idea of domestication... Horse? Yummy. It's kinda ironic that after the advent of white man and his horses into the native American's life, the Horse became a totem for new technology. The 'new way'. This sheds some light on Crazy Horse as he was going against the old ways of his people and embracing the white man's ways to use against him. Fight fire with fire. A little bit late though. If only they hadn't eaten all their horses...
Uh. North 'America before the white man came. You might not be aware of this, but the natives ate all their horses a long time ago. They might have been able to domesticate the buffalo or maybe a few other animals here and there, but for the most part there were none until reintroduced by the Europeans.
It's pretty much believed everywhere that every animal that can be domesticated, has. And there are only so many. They have to be docile, herbivorous or scavengers, and social. That rules out all carnivores and all the mega-fauna of North America. Dogs are wolf descendents who actually became scavengers, eating what humans left over.
