In the book written by Jared Diamond, Guns, Germs and Steel, he explains why some societies are more successful than others. He attributes success to geography, the ability to become immune to germs, food production, the domestication of animals, and use of steel. William H. McNeill challenged what Diamond wrote and criticized him. I will discuss whether McNeill made a persuading argument to the points Diamond wrote about.
The main argument Diamond discusses is that geography and physical environment have, to a large degree, placed constraints upon how societies can develop. That may be true but William H. McNeill’s argument is that Diamond overlooked the importance of human cultural autonomy in determining human development vs Diamond’s focus on the environmental factors. Even though McNeill disagrees with a fair amount of the book, one thing he did agree on was that, “no one can doubt the general accuracy of Diamond’s account of the environmental differences that he makes so much of”. Diamond had talked about how “that New Guineans are on the average smarter than Eurasians, one cannot deny that New Guinea has a much smaller area and far fewer big animal species than Eurasia”. Geographically speaking, yes, New Guinea is smaller than what was Eurasia. Eurasia was a huge mass of land, while New Guinea was an isolated island. So I would agree that environmental differences played a part on how societies became larger. Eurasia had more animals to sustain their populations and were able to catch more and had more land mass to expand, whereas New Guinea did not have the land mass to expand and did not have the right amount of animals to be able to grow their society. So Diamond was right in saying that the New Guinean society was technological deprived than that of the societies in Eurasia. Size wise, New Guinea only has 178,704 square miles. Because the societies on the island only had less than two hundred thousand of square milage to work with, it makes sense that they would be smaller, less advance compared to the societies of Eurasia, who had a whooping 21.14 million square miles of area to work with. When your home is 100 times smaller than someone else’s, of course you will have less supplies. The island of New Guinea does not have room for large herds of large animals and cannot sustain large patches of forests. New Guinea has an average temperature of around 83 degrees Fahrenheit when the average temperature of Eurasia varies from snow and ice to tropical zones. Eurasia is extremely large that it can support multiple climates with various temperatures. You have the tundras of Northern Russia, the humid climate of India, the arid weather of the Middle East to the maritime climate of the United Kingdom. Eurasia was able to host and continuously support different animal species and resources without feeling too compact. New Guinea did not have the room nor the resources to provide a home for various large species without those species fighting over territory. Eursian societies were able to expand and grow since they had much more room and resources to keep themselves going while the societies of New Guinea were isolated on an island about the same size as present day California. Certainly the people of New Guinea were to be smaller than the people in Eurasia. They did not have the same lives. Being isolated on an island, where people did not have vast resources, will definitely have effects on the quality of life they lived.
But where Diamond is wrong is about how New Guinea is not isolated from large animals and supplies. Less than 1,500 miles, there is a huge resource rich place where New Guinea could have gone for food and supplies. Just a short boat ride away, is the huge continent of Australia. The societies could have gone over there for supplies to help grow their small society and brought back better food options. Yes, they may not have known about Australia back then, but you can argue that they did know about it. You could argue about how the societies of New Guinea would send out their own explorers and how they reached Australia. The societies of New Guinea had the resources to build boats and explore the area around their home. They were not isolated, to an extent. Yes, they were over 1,000 miles from the nearest large habitable place. Diamond assumes just because a place is bigger, it has more advanced societies. The people who lived on New Guinea had the necessary tools to explore their surroundings. Just because one society does not have the same materials as another, does not mean they cannot be just as advanced. Because New Guinea is smaller than Eurasia, they had to figure out a way to conserve their resources since they did not have a huge area to use if they ran out. They had to be smart about how much of their resources they could use. Eurasia did not need to save resources since they had a vast land mass to just expand to and use other supplies. The people of New Guinea had to come up with a way to store food and how to use the right amount of resources as to not waste what little supplies they had. They had to be smart as to not run out of the vital resources they needed the most. Things like food and water. If they ran out of food, they would not be able to keep surviving. The people in Eurasia never had to worry about running out of food. They had millions of square miles to find new food. They might have been more advanced in what tools they had and how big their societies were but the people of New Guinea were the better advanced society when it came to real life, practical everyday ideas and norms.
William H. McNeill’s arguments makes complete sense. Diamond only saw one half of the story, while the whole other side is just has compelling as his side. William H. McNeill was right to call out Jared Diamond and to critique and criticize Diamond’s work. Just because someone only rights about one side of a story, does not mean it is the only side that is correct. Diamond should have been a better author and given both sides of his argument. Not just the side he likes. I commend McNeill for calling him out and providing valid and realistic points about the opposite of what Diamond wrote.