Geography is destiny. Or is it? Back in 1997, a UCLA professor named Jared Diamond dropped a massive book called Guns, Germs, and Steel, and honestly, the world of popular history hasn't been the same since. It wasn't just a bestseller; it became the default explanation for why Europeans ended up conquering the Americas and Australia instead of the other way around. But if you spend ten minutes in an anthropology department today, you'll realize the book is as controversial as a political debate at Thanksgiving.
The core question Diamond asks is simple: Why did some societies develop "cargo"—his word for technology and material wealth—so much faster than others? He rejects the idea that it had anything to do with some groups being "smarter" or more "advanced" biologically. Instead, he looks at the dirt, the plants, and the animals.
🔗 Read more: How Is The Ukraine War Going: What Most People Get Wrong
The Luck of the Draw: How Geography Shaped Power
Diamond’s main argument in Guns, Germs, and Steel boils down to environmental determinism. Think about the map. Eurasia is wide. It stretches from east to west. This matters because places on the same latitude share similar day lengths and climates. If you develop a type of wheat in the Fertile Crescent, it's pretty easy to move that wheat across to Europe or China. The seeds already like the weather there.
Now, look at the Americas or Africa. These continents are oriented north-to-south. To move a crop from Mexico to Argentina, you have to cross the equator, traverse jungles, and deal with massive shifts in temperature and day length. The plants just die. This "geographic pivot" meant that Eurasia could share ideas, crops, and livestock across thousands of miles, creating a massive, interconnected pressure cooker of innovation.
And then there are the animals.
Humans are picky. Out of all the thousands of large wild mammal species, we’ve really only domesticated about 14. You need an animal that grows fast, breeds in captivity, doesn't panic and bolt, and follows a social hierarchy. Eurasia had the "Big Five": horses, cows, pigs, sheep, and goats. These animals provided muscle for plowing, manure for fertilizer, and leather for gear. South America had the llama. Try pulling a heavy plow with a llama. It's not happening.
The Germ Factor
This brings us to the "germs" part of the title. Because Eurasians lived in close quarters with their livestock for millennia, they inadvertently started a biological war. They caught smallpox, measles, and the flu from their animals. These diseases killed millions, but the survivors developed a brutal kind of immunity. When Europeans arrived in the New World, they didn't just bring muskets. They brought a biological cloud.
Estimates vary, but many historians, including those Diamond cites, suggest that up to 90% of the indigenous population in the Americas died from disease, often before they ever even saw a European soldier. It’s a grim reality. The "guns" and "steel" were the finishing touches, but the microbes did the heavy lifting.
What the Critics Actually Say
You can’t talk about Guns, Germs, and Steel without mentioning the massive pushback from historians and Indigenous scholars. While Diamond’s work was a noble attempt to debunk racist 19th-century theories of "cultural superiority," many experts argue he swung too far the other way.
One of the loudest voices is James Blaut, who called Diamond’s work "environmental determinism." The critique is basically that Diamond ignores human agency. By saying it was all about the shape of the continents and the presence of cows, it makes the brutal history of colonialism seem like an inevitability. It's as if the conquistadors had no choice but to do what they did because the map told them to.
The "Political" Problem
Scholars also point out that Diamond glosses over why certain empires succeeded while others failed within Eurasia. If geography is everything, why did Britain, a tiny island on the edge of the continent, become the world's superpower instead of, say, Turkey or China?
There is also the issue of the "Great Divergence." In the 1400s, China was arguably the most advanced civilization on Earth. They had the ships, the gunpowder, and the bureaucratic systems. Yet, they pulled inward while Europe sailed outward. Diamond tries to explain this by saying Europe’s jagged coastline and mountain ranges kept it fragmented and competitive, whereas China’s smooth geography led to a monolithic state that could be "turned off" by a single bad emperor. Critics find this a bit too convenient. It's a "just-so" story that fits the data after the fact.
👉 See also: Bob McDonnell: What Most People Get Wrong About Virginia's 71st Governor
Beyond the Book: Why This Still Matters in 2026
We are still obsessed with these questions because they help us understand modern inequality. If the wealth of nations is just a result of where people happened to be standing 10,000 years ago, that changes how we think about foreign aid, development, and global justice.
However, modern research in institutional economics—think Daron Acemoglu and James A. Robinson in Why Nations Fail—suggests that geography is just a starting point. They argue that inclusive institutions, like the rule of law and property rights, are what actually drive long-term success. You can have all the wheat and horses in the world, but if your government is a kleptocracy, you’re going to stay poor.
Real-World Examples of the Geography Gap
- The Andean Challenge: Even today, the rugged terrain of the Andes makes building infrastructure incredibly expensive compared to the flat plains of Northern Europe.
- The Tropical Burden: Malaria and other tropical diseases still take a massive toll on GDP in sub-Saharan Africa. This isn't about "culture"; it's about the biology of the environment, exactly as Diamond described.
- The Port Factor: Most of the world’s wealthiest cities are on deep-water ports. If you’re landlocked, your "geographic luck" is basically zero.
Actionable Insights: How to Read History Now
If you’re diving into Guns, Germs, and Steel for the first time or revisiting it, you have to read it with a critical eye. It's a brilliant "big picture" framework, but it's not the whole story.
- Don't ignore the institutions. Look at how laws and governments change the "luck" provided by the land.
- Acknowledge human choice. People aren't just pawns of their climate. Leaders make decisions that can ruin a rich land or revitalize a barren one.
- Cross-reference your sources. If you read Diamond, you should also read The Dawn of Everything by David Graeber and David Wengrow. They offer a completely different take on how early societies organized themselves, arguing that people were much more experimental and less "stuck" in their ways than Diamond suggests.
- Look at the "Germs" today. We just lived through a global pandemic. It showed us that even with all our "steel" (technology), we are still incredibly vulnerable to the biological factors Diamond highlighted.
Geography provides the stage, but the actors still have to perform. Diamond’s work is a fantastic starting point for understanding the physical world’s impact on human history, but it’s just that—a starting point. The real story is much messier, more violent, and far more human than a map can ever show.