>FYI that book is very poorly regarded by mainstream historians and anthropologists for being scientifically inaccurate. That's a bit of a stretch. It isn't w

>FYI that book is very poorly regarded by mainstream historians and anthropologists for being scientifically inaccurate. That's a bit of a stretch. It isn't without (legitimate) criticism --as any work of this scope is-- but Diamond is mainstream, and the book has won several scientific awards and a lot of praise. The over-arching premise, that luck and circumstance played a huge role in the development of civilizations, isn't really disputed. And there are lessons in there for today: not everything you've earned is a product of your abilities.