Strongly disagree. The geographic determinism theory of GG&S is frustrating and ignores significant factors in the rise of the West.

This review is something I generally send out to people after they've read GG&S, and strongly recommend Eric Wolf as an author. He puts many of the points I would make significantly more eloquently:

https://www.livinganthropologically.com/eric-wolf-europe-peo...

I would argue that “changing the way you think” doesn’t require the book to be factually accurate. The idea that external factors like geographical starting conditions can have a huge impact and shape things as complex as human culture is a powerful one, regardless of the conclusions drawn in the book.

If anything, the way it has been challenged and shown to be flawed is a lesson on and of itself - that complex systems have emergent properties, and that those starting conditions are not as deterministic as it might appear at first blush.

Good point.

If GG&S changed the way you think, I'd highly recommend following it up with either the book from that review (Eric Wolf's "Europe and the People without History") or Ian Morris's "Why The West Rules, For Now".

Yes, not meant to be accurate. Just changed my perception and continues to linger.

Guns, Germs and Steel is an absolute garbage book. It's pseudoscience, plain and simple. It's teaching unacceptable ways to think about culture, by any anthropologist's standards.

I can second Guns, Germs and Steel. I'm continually evaluating how much things are a result of my own work vs just a byproduct of the environment I'm in.

I've had a copy of this from a book sale sitting on my shelf for over a year. I'll have to get to it.

recent HN thread discussed how flawed guns, Germs and Steel is: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19034468

Diamond is bunk science, however. We discussed this not a week ago. Some https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19045376 here , more on r/askhistorians