In his Pulitzer Prize-winning book Guns, Germs, and Steel, Jared Diamond seeks to explain the ultimate causes of modern societiesâ clear disparities in wealth and power. âIt is perfectly obvious to everyone,â Diamond points out, âthat different peoples have fared differently in history.â But why? One popular explanation for âall those glaring, persistent differences in peoplesâ status,â he suggests, âinvolves implicitly or explicitly assuming biological differences among peoples.â Yet such assumptions, he argues, are not merely wrong but racist.
Diamond accepts that for many people it could still âseem logical to suppose that historyâs pattern reflects innate differences among the people themselvesâ:
Weâre told that [inter-group inequality] is to be attributed not to any biological shortcomings but to social disadvantages and limited opportunities. Nevertheless, we have to wonder. ⊠Weâre assured that the seemingly transparent biological explanation for the worldâs inequalities ⊠is wrong, but weâre not told what the correct explanation is.
Unless there is âsome convincing, detailed, agreed-upon explanation for the broad pattern of history,â Diamond suggests, âmost people will continue to suspect the racist biological explanation is correct after all.â His guns, germs, and steel thesis is an attempt to provide just such a detailed and convincing counterargument to these widespread yet supposedly racist beliefs about the causes of present-day global disparities.
In the quarter century since Guns, Germs and Steel was published, Diamondâs deservedly lauded âscience of human historyâ theories have become increasingly influential, inspiring anthropologist Joseph Henrich, author of The WEIRDest People in the World and public intellectual Yuval Noah Harari, among others. And while Diamondâs thesis has also received its share of criticism, one central tenet of the bookâthe dismissal of biological explanations of social inequalities as racistâhas become more entrenched than ever.
Yet the past 25 years have also witnessed an explosion in our understanding of human genetics and genomics. Recent insights into our own speciesâ evolved biology fatally undermine this key aspect of Diamondâs argument: his rejection of the possibility of meaningful âbiological differences among peoples.â Despite growing genetic evidence, however, the very idea of significant genetic variation between human populations is still routinely rejected. This attitude is, however, only likely to perpetuate the âglaring, persistent differencesâ that concerned Diamond and trouble so many other well-meaning egalitarians.
To grasp why, we can start by examining an unintended inconsistency in Diamondâs own reasoning.