Scientists put Jared Diamond's continental axis hypothesis to the test
Researchers have tested Jared Diamond’s famous claim from *Guns, Germs, and Steel* that Eurasia’s east–west “continental axis” uniquely sped the spread of crops, animals and technology, and found geography matters but doesn’t give Eurasia a special structural advantage. Commenters weigh that result against broader critiques of Diamond’s environmental determinism, contrasting his sweeping, popular narratives with more recent academic views that emphasize complex, contingent political, cultural and economic factors. The exchange also touches on why accessible but oversimplified pop history so often outcompetes messier scholarly accounts in shaping public understanding of how civilizations rise, fall and conquer.
Scope of the original thesis
- Many see Guns, Germs & Steel as offering a large-scale, geographical explanation for why Eurasian societies ended up conquering others.
- Some readers found it complementary to institutional explanations in other works (e.g. “what spreads where” vs. “what institutions nations build afterwards”).
- Others argue the framing is too deterministic and downplays culture, economics, and contingency.
Environmental / geographic determinism
- Several commenters criticize strong environmental determinism as “largely bunk,” especially when generalized to politics and institutions.
- Others defend geography as a powerful but not exclusive factor: climate, arable land, rivers, and connectivity clearly shape where dense, complex societies form.
- The “continental axis” idea is specifically challenged:
- Critics note Africa’s north–south vs east–west dimensions are similar to Eurasia’s; climate and disease patterns, not just map orientation, matter.
- Defenders reply that the relevant question is similarity of biomes along an axis, not raw distances, and that geography still constrains movement of crops, animals, and people.
Domestication of animals and crops
- One recurring debate: were there simply fewer domesticable animals outside Eurasia, or did societies fail to domesticate available candidates?
- Some argue key traits (e.g., breeding in captivity, temperament, social behavior) are rare; others say humans could in principle select for tameness over time.
- Examples:
- Llamas/alpacas vs horses and oxen for transport and plowing.
- North American bison, zebras, and various “tame but not domesticated” species.
- New World domesticates (turkeys, dogs, guinea pigs, potatoes, maize) as evidence the “no domesticable species” story is overstated.
- Several commenters emphasize logistics and surplus: powerful draft animals and suitable crops increase surplus, which can fund armies, specialists, and warfare tech.
Americas, Africa, and European conquest
- Long subthreads argue over whether pre-contact American empires (e.g. Inca, Aztec) were “poor” vs comparably wealthy to contemporaneous European states, citing city size, architecture, and precious metals.
- Others stress “wealth” as military surplus and tech (metallurgy, logistics, firearms) rather than monumental buildings.
- Some say European dominance must be explained (geography, constant intra-European warfare, coal, etc.); others call the question Eurocentric, likening it to older racialized questions.
- There is disagreement on how much colonization outcomes can be attributed to germs, technology, brutality, or sheer contingency.
Pop science vs academic history
- Multiple commenters state that the core theses of Guns, Germs & Steel and later works are not widely accepted in professional history, political science, or anthropology, especially where they use outdated models (“unilineal” progress, environmental determinism).
- Pop-history critiques of these books are themselves criticized as ideological, ad hominem, or misrepresentative.
- Some argue academics have failed to provide equally readable, big-picture alternatives, leaving the field to persuasive but oversimplified narratives.
- Others stress the inherent messiness of historical causation and warn against single-cause or overly neat stories.
Meta-discussion and alternatives
- Several related books are recommended (on cultural evolution, cliodynamics, global inequality, early civilizations, paleogenetics), reflecting ongoing interest in large-scale, cross-domain explanations.
- Underlying methodological tension: big, integrative theories vs. detailed, context-heavy scholarship; appetite for simple narratives vs. acceptance that “it’s complicated” may be the most honest answer.