Pivotal Point: Agriculture

In his masterpiece, Guns, Germs and Steel, Jared Diamond seeks to answer a question many ask: why did Europe go on to dominate the planet? Why didn’t the native Americans or Africans or Aborigines invade and dominate the world? And however much we dislike the possibility, is race the answer to such questions?

Agriculture is supposed to be a turning point in human history. But they never explain how much and why. Diamond explains that and in doing so, also hits upon the answer to all of the questions in the first paragraph.

First, agriculture could only start in places with certain characteristics, all of which are geographical, not racial:

-         (Edible) plants in the region must grow easily and fast: If the plants took too much effort and/or time to bear fruit, our ancestors wouldn’t have bothered switching to agriculture.

-         Animals that are relatively easy to domesticate as farm animals: Animal power for agriculture far outreached what humans could achieve.

So agriculture started in the Fertile Crescent and parts of Asia. It soon spread to Europe.

Once people could grow their food, they tended to settle down in those regions. Next thing you know, they had more kids because more kids meant more hands in the fields. And so the population of agricultural societies increased far more than the rest.

With an increased population came specialization: some would farm, others could guard the farms. Another set made tools for farmers. You see where this is headed: a society with multiple professions. Critically, such dedicated specialists were better at what they did than the all-purpose members of other groups.

One of the specialized groups, soldiers, could be used to conquer other groups and their lands, and bring in slaves. Administration of the group and the expanding territory became the job of a new group. This well-oiled setup of large, specialized groups led to new tools, technologies… and more invasions.

Technologies like ships helped move far from the homeland; guns outmatched swords and bows. And then there were the germs the invaders brought with them. As agricultural groups became large, diseases increased too due to the proximity of people. Sure, lots often died but immunity increased too. When these large groups invaded smaller, isolated groups (like the native Americans or Aborigines or Africans), the (unintentional) diseases they brought with them often decimated the natives.

The obvious question at this point is why then didn’t China and India dominate the world instead? They had all the factors mentioned above going for them: agriculture based societies and large populations, didn’t they?

Diamond doesn’t have a very good answer about India (the closest he comes is when he points out the religious taboos on overseas travel, and thus overseas expansion). With China, he does have an answer: too much centralized power in one king. If the king made one bad policy decision (like the ruler who banned the construction of ships), that was it. The Chinese couldn’t turn to another ruler with a different policy. Unlike the Europeans, who with their fragmented kingdoms, could always turn to other rulers with favorable policies to pursue new options (Remember, Columbus got the support for his famous expedition from the Spanish, not his native Italy. And he was rejected by at least 4 other rulers).

As with so many things throughout history, it’s often one decision at an early point that matters the most. Because it opens other options down the road which aren’t available to those who didn’t (couldn’t?) make that first decision.