are humans more dumb than we think?

[wellington1869]

here's an abstract question -

So if humanoids as a species appeared on earth 2.5 to 3 million years ago (as the anthropologists tell us), did it really take us that long to develop civilization? Because after all written histories (and even the oldest archeological remains of organized society) only go back a few thousand years.

My question is, what happened during those 3 million years? Which is an awful long time.  It took us 3 million years to develop language and organize societies and division of labor and technology and written language?
3 million?

I mean as a species in terms of the abilities to do those things, supposedly we had all that in our species by 3 million years ago.

just seems like an awful long time to be doing nothing. The world wasnt any wilder then than it was, say, 3,000 years ago. There werent any dinosaurs to contend with, for instance.

I mean even if you figure it took the iron age to get things rolling, I'd still argue 3 million years is an awful long time to eventually discover iron. Pretty stupid for humans anyway.

[update: ok, wikipedia tells me that homo sapiens only appeared 200,000 years ago, altho the previous species were pretty close to it. Even so, even if you figure the preceding humanoid species were kind of dumb, I still say 200,000 years is an awful long time to eventually stumble upon written language and bronze and iron and organized society.]

[ozar]

I've often wondered if it's possible that in the very distant past, we could have been as advanced as we are now in certain ways, but it was such a long time ago that all traces of such periods have vanished.

[wellington1869]

I've often wondered if it's possible that in the very distant past, we could have been as advanced as we are now in certain ways, but it was such a long time ago that all traces of such periods have vanished.

i've wondered that too. I suppose the Atlantis myth is one such scenario.  I mean 200k years is an awful long time "without history". For all we know we may have had a number of historical cycles before the current one.  But I suppose we have to assume that either traces of those would be available - OR - they're under the bottom of the sea somewhere.

[wellington1869]

incidentally, 200,000 years, assuming 50 year lifespan (which is generous for prehistory), thats 4,000 generations of grandmothers and grandfathers.

Thats 1,250 sets of grandparents and grandchildren.

Thats it; thats the extent of human existence on earth?

Within written history (assuming 5,000 years of it, which is generous, going to 3,000 b.c.), thats only 100 generations (or only 30 sets of grandparents and grandchildren) who knew how to read and write and could transmit culture and identity from generation to generation.  Thats it; thats the extent of human civilization.
[i find that fascinating because it means even if you were able to draw your 'complete' family tree from the beginning of organized society, you only need to allocate about 100 slots in it ]

In comparison, the earth is 4.5 billion years old

So our entire civilization in the universe is barely 100 grandparents old, and stuck in a thin and fragile 10-mile-high habitable layer of breathable atmosphere. In a universe that is 100 billion light years across.

yea, we're pretty stupid.

[wellington1869]

Ehhhm..you do know there are things such as geological and biological historical dating. Like, ehm, science and stuff.

ya but what I mean is that written history (the "historical era" of humanity) only goes back to about 5k years (about 3000 bc), even if species history goes back 200k years. Its that discrepancy that i'm wondering about -- why didnt we get written history, say, 150k years ago instead of 5k years ago?

Can you imagine if we had 150k years of written history? Wow. I just wonder why we dont. I have to conclude its because we're kind of dumb and eventually stumbled upon bronze and iron and the wheel and so forth which allowed organized society to finally develop after a very, very, very long time (and thus finally produce written records and monuments and etc which are the artifacts of organized complex society).

[bigpook]

The human race is capable of some great things, after all we put a man on the moon, tamed electricity and cured some diseases; to name a few.

The problem is, the people that achieved these notable deeds are a very small percentage of the population. On a side note, the very same people that have pushed us forward were probably laughed at, ostracized and ridiculed as they tried to convince "the rest of us" to move forward with them.

I would venture to say that 99.9% of living humanity are ignorant, stupid and just one step above common wild animals.

The veneer of civilization is very thin.

[wellington1869]

pook, agreed.  And what that implies too is that the survival of the species probably depends on what that 1% can achieve (while being ostracized and laughed at by the 99%).   That may sound elitist to some, but I think its factually true, no matter how it sounds, those are the odds.  
Its a constant struggle between the 1% and the 99%, and if the 99% win, we're basically screwed.

I used to believe in the potential of 'every person' to fully develop, and while I still think as an ideal that is the approach we should have, I think in actual practice there are just so many unknown and random variables (social, cultural, genetic, etc etc) that in actual practice our future keeps winding up being in the hands of a very small minority  of folks who survive all that (and the ridicule) to achieve great things.

I also agree that 'civilization' is basically what that 1% achieved (and the 99% used).

[IBI]

[update: ok, wikipedia tells me that homo sapiens only appeared 200,000 years ago, altho the previous species were pretty close to it. Even so, even if you figure the preceding humanoid species were kind of dumb, I still say 200,000 years is an awful long time to eventually stumble upon written language and bronze and iron and organized society.]

Bear in mind that we might have had the Toba catastrophy around 75,000 years ago that could have wiped out a large amount of humanity and we were only supposed to have left Africa by 60,000 years ago, then there was the recent ice age that only finished ten or fifteeen thousand years ago.

Civilisation is organisation with fields and cities, things like language, theatre, culture generally as well as houses, knives and other tools are much, much older.

[wellington1869]

Bear in mind that we might have had the Toba catastrophy around 75,000 years ago that could have wiped out a large amount of humanity and we were only supposed to have left Africa by 60,000 years ago, then there was the recent ice age that only finished ten or fifteeen thousand years ago.

.

ok, granted these are excellent points. I suppose natural catastrophes could have catastrophically interrupted any civilizational advances. (I wonder then how our current civilization will survive the next ice age (or more likely, melt age) or the next asteroid hit; if our written records will survive to provide a continuity of civilizational memory. )

But even with these natural disasters intervening though - I still wonder - we did have 100k years before the toba catastrophe to develop something. Maybe our population numbers werent large enough to attain some minimum critical mass that the proliferation of city and town life needed? But then after all we did pretty well in the last 15k years, post-ice-age, with pretty small numbers.

[Rajagra]

just seems like an awful long time to be doing nothing.

Yes, all they did was sleep when they felt like it, eat when they felt like it, explore when they felt like it, have sex when they felt like it.

What a tragic waste of their lives, those poor dumb schmucks.  :laugh:

[wellington1869]

Yes, all they did was sleep when they felt like it, eat when they felt like it, explore when they felt like it, have sex when they felt like it.

sounds like grad school :laugh:

What a tragic waste of their lives, those poor dumb schmucks.  :laugh:

yup, definitely grad school. :madgrin:

[ozar]

In comparison, the earth is 4.5 billion years old

I'm betting that a huge amount of things have happened here on earth in that length of time that we haven't an inkling about today, and likely never will.  One thing for sure, science never sits still and it is changing all the time as new evidence is uncovered, but can we ever gather all the evidence that ever existed?  Even if we could, I seriously doubt that we are intelligent enough to put it all together with unfailing accuracy.

[wellington1869]

The good thing about the development spiral is that we're at the end of it. Surely with the tech singularity, we'll finally get those Jetson's flying cars!

I think civilization 'peaked' with the manufacture of the 1401.  Its all downhill from here.

[majestouch]

"are humans [strike]more dumb[/strike] dumber than we think?"

Quite possibly so!

(couldn't resist :nerd:)

[Hak Foo]

Driving this topic further into off-topic land, does anyone else find it frustrating when they use words they thought were well-understood and then people don't get them?  I recall being completely startled when several co-workers needed to have the "loss leader" concept explained to them.

[IBI]

But even with these natural disasters intervening though - I still wonder - we did have 100k years before the toba catastrophe to develop something. Maybe our population numbers werent large enough to attain some minimum critical mass that the proliferation of city and town life needed? But then after all we did pretty well in the last 15k years, post-ice-age, with pretty small numbers.

It may have required the end of a glacial period to kickstart civilisation, and there's only been one, possibly two, others during the time our species has been alive: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ice_Age_Temperature.png

Personally, I think the more interesting question is Fermi's paradox: If Aliens exist, why aren't they here? We can easily imagine colonising our galaxy within the next million years, a long time for us, but the universe is 13,000 million years old. So where is everybody? Why haven't the aliens who's planet didn't get quite so many meteors and let them get spaceflight 2 million years ago come to earth and left orbiting satellites or bases on the moon?

Driving this topic further into off-topic land, does anyone else find it frustrating when they use words they thought were well-understood and then people don't get them?  I recall being completely startled when several co-workers needed to have the "loss leader" concept explained to them.

If it's a term any co-workers in your business should know than I can understand being frustrated. Generally though? Not really.

[o2dazone]

It may have required the end of a glacial period to kickstart civilisation, and there's only been one, possibly two, others during the time our species has been alive: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ice_Age_Temperature.png

Personally, I think the more interesting question is Fermi's paradox: If Aliens exist, why aren't they here? We can easily imagine colonising our galaxy within the next million years, a long time for us, but the universe is 13,000 million years old. So where is everybody? Why haven't the aliens who's planet didn't get quite so many meteors and let them get spaceflight 2 million years ago come to earth and left orbiting satellites or bases on the moon?



If it's a term any co-workers in your business should know than I can understand being frustrated. Generally though? Not really.

You should either play or read Mass Effect lol

[Rajagra]

Personally, I think the more interesting question is Fermi's paradox: If Aliens exist, why aren't they here? We can easily imagine colonising our galaxy within the next million years, a long time for us, but the universe is 13,000 million years old. So where is everybody?

One argument is that any civilisation that has developed space travel also has the ability to destroy itself, so you can assume (if you are inclined to make assumptions) that such civilisations have a finite average lifetime...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_equation

[wellington1869]

One argument is that any civilisation that has developed space travel also has the ability to destroy itself, so you can assume (if you are inclined to make assumptions) that such civilisations have a finite average lifetime...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_equation

maybe this much is actually constant for all sentient life:  freedom to choose necessarily means freedom to destroy oneself: that basic existential risk is "unavoidable" for all sentient life, all sentient life will have to find cultural and other ways of controlling their own power to destroy themselves while retaining their power to make and remake their world.

If thats a kind of logical law for all sentient life in the universe, then its entirely possible that all other sentient life in the universe also eventually destroyed their own worlds by their own hands (much as I think we're going to do, lol).  Or at least, they will have been their own worst enemy as much as we have been our own. Or at least, they will have lived in civilizations which were just as fragile and precarious in its advancements as ours has been.

After all by the time we destroy ourselves (in the next 100 years? ecological catastrophe? nuclear jihadi war? random asteroid? plague?) we would only have been around for 200,000 years, which is like a split second blip as far as the universe is concerned.  (And anyway the earth is just going to fall into the sun sooner or later as its orbit erodes (and as the sun expands and dies), so either we'll all be living super-uncomfortable lives in cramped spaceships (wandering the solar system like nomads, and hell, if we couldnt get along on earth, fat chance we'll get along on a cramped spaceship), so anyway there is a finite upper limit on what we can do on earth - tho i'm quite sure we'll destroy ourselves and our planet long before then, lol).

And in galaxies far away, other lifeforms will gaze at the sky and wonder why we didnt come visit.

[itlnstln]

Personally I believe more in the theory we're all moving away from each other, at enormous speeds. We're all alone, and each day brings us more lifetimes apart. Hope that cheered you up.

One day, I might actually get some peace and quiet.

[wellington1869]

One day, I might actually get some peace and quiet.

rofl!  that was my thought too

[o2dazone]

old farts itt
get off my lawn! *shakes cane*

[bhtooefr]

http://vhemt.org/

Discuss.

I don't necessarily agree, and don't think it's feasible, but I do think the world is extremely overpopulated with humans.

[bigpook]

http://vhemt.org/

Discuss.

I don't necessarily agree, and don't think it's feasible, but I do think the world is extremely overpopulated with humans.

no worries, nature will thin us out when the time comes. nothing we do will ever stop that from happening.

[wellington1869]

http://vhemt.org/

Discuss.

I don't necessarily agree, and don't think it's feasible, but I do think the world is extremely overpopulated with humans.

well, I dont know that i'd call it an 'extinction movement', which sounds dramatic; its just birth control basically, a lot of nations have birth control programs instituted at the national level (with a "2 children" ideal). (Or in the case of china, a "1 child" requirement, lol).

[IBI]

You should either play or read Mass Effect lol

Yeah, the killer robots is an old idea and Mass Effect shows you the problem with it.

One argument is that any civilisation that has developed space travel also has the ability to destroy itself, so you can assume (if you are inclined to make assumptions) that such civilisations have a finite average lifetime...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_equation

It'd have to be pretty soon then, once we'd populated the galaxy we'd have thousands of worlds, many of them lifetimes apart so neither a war of conquest nor a single cultural decision would destroy the human race - unless we assume FTL travel is possible.

It also suffers from the same problem as the killer robots - it only requires one civilisation to be different to make the scenario unlikely.

[Hak Foo]

no worries, nature will thin us out when the time comes. nothing we do will ever stop that from happening.

I believe we could fairly systematically estimate the "carrying capacity" of the earth at a given quality of life.

There is a fair chance that we simply can't give 6 billion people a first-world standard of living.  A big question is if that's an unmitigatable absolute, or how much technology can salvage it.  However, we can probably give some smaller number a high standard of living on a sustainable basis.

I believe the formula is something like "surviving world population of 1391401s / an average need for 6 per person per lifetime = desirable world human population"

[msiegel]

i believe the formula is something like "surviving world population of 1391401s / an average need for 6 per person per lifetime = desirable world human population"

six?!! XD

[IBI]

There is a fair chance that we simply can't give 6 billion people a first-world standard of living.  A big question is if that's an unmitigatable absolute, or how much technology can salvage it.  However, we can probably give some smaller number a high standard of living on a sustainable basis.

Given sufficient energy we can give a first class standard of living to as many people as the world can physically hold. Plants can be grown under artifical light, buildings can be built up into the air and underground, mountains can be flattened and jungles cleared.

It's not a question of whether we can have a world of 6 billion comfortable people, it's a question of whether we want to.

[wellington1869]

Given sufficient energy we can give a first class standard of living to as many people as the world can physically hold. Plants can be grown under artifical light, buildings can be built up into the air and underground, mountains can be flattened and jungles cleared.

It's not a question of whether we can have a world of 6 billion comfortable people, it's a question of whether we want to.

I too think its technically possible - but I wonder if, when everyone's material needs have been taken care of, wont we just have so much time on our hands that we'll fill it with sex and violence? Out of sheer boredom? Next thing you know our population is 12 billion, and earth and the species is once again in danger of being wiped out by our own hand.  Even if the material/technological solutions are put into place, the civilizational challenges remain intact: i.e., how to exercise free will in non-suicidal ways at the species level.

It takes an enormous socio-cultural-institutional apparatus, and many many years of it, to properly "socialize" a human being, from the moment they're born, and shape them into an adult who is willing to discipline their free will in support of (ecological) sustenance and (social) coexistence.  A civilized adult is extremely expensive to create; and very easy to destroy; and the enormous apparatus that is needed to create them, is itself extremely fragile.  Civilization itself, thus, is extremely fragile, easily disrupted, easily derailed, easily destroyed.  That -- on the level of liberal education and socialization for all infants -- is what will remain elusive to us I think, much more elusive than creating technological solutions for purely material requirements (food, shelter, toys). The latter I think is possible; the former, nearly impossible.

Thats why I think, despite technological advancements in food, shelter, medicine, communication, toys, etc, we will perpetually remain in danger of wiping ourselves out. "Material needs" ultimately has very little to do with it I think.

[jayray999]

well, I dont know that i'd call it an 'extinction movement', which sounds dramatic; its just birth control basically, a lot of nations have birth control programs instituted at the national level (with a "2 children" ideal). (Or in the case of china, a "1 child" requirement, lol).

Yes, but from the earth's perspective it is not a country's raw population but the resources it consumes that is important.

Some instructive maps:

The World's Countries by Size (ok I know it is a Mercator projection but still)


The World's Countries adjusted to reflect national population


The World's Countries adjusted to reflect national wealth (which is proportional to resource consumption)


The World's Countries adjusted to reflect CO2 emissions

[jayray999]

Is India's large population a threat to the environment? Is Canada's?

Canada (Population in 2005): 32,268,000 persons (about 32 million)
Canada (Energy consumption per capita per year in 2003) 348.63 Gigajoules per annum

India (Population in 2005): 1,103,371,000 persons (about 1103 million)
India (Energy consumption per capita per year in 2003) 21.52 Gigajoules per annum

So in terms of population size India is equal in size to 32 Canadas but the average Canadian consumes 16 times as much energy as the average Indian so India (despite being 32 times larger) consumes only twice as much energy every year as Canada.

We are only talking about Canada which has a small population. And we are only talking energy resources.

THINK ABOUT IT.

Source:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_energy_consumption_per_capita

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_population_in_2005

[wellington1869]

Yes, but from the earth's perspective it is not a country's raw population but the resources it consumes that is important.

sure, but I think the idea here is:
a) there is a correlation after all between raw earth population and raw earth consumption
b) the so-called 'third world' is no longer third; its in fact about to become first world in every sense, by every metric, within this century; China will surpass the US as biggest economy in the world within 20 years by most estimates; other areas of the world are well on their way, Brazil, India, Russia, etc.  So raw consumption itself, worldwide, is about to skyrocket. Bringing their huge populations online.

So yes, its both raw population as well as raw consumption - and both those things are increasingly getting correlated around the world.

To answer your question:

Is India's large population a threat to the environment? Is Canada's?

the answer is "yes" to both.

THINK ABOUT IT.

lol, was it necessary to shout that at us?

[Hak Foo]

Given sufficient energy we can give a first class standard of living to as many people as the world can physically hold. Plants can be grown under artifical light, buildings can be built up into the air and underground, mountains can be flattened and jungles cleared.

It's not a question of whether we can have a world of 6 billion comfortable people, it's a question of whether we want to.

That's a HUGE "given".  Particularly if you're expected to maintain in the hundreds and thousands of years frame.

[pmyshkin]

From the vhemt.org website:


This has got to be a joke. How would it ever work? All the proponents of the movement will eventually die, and then the movement is forgotten. It's a self-defeating mechanism.

Natural selection won't let humanity disappear so easily.

[pex]

maybe this much is actually constant for all sentient life:  freedom to choose necessarily means freedom to destroy oneself

Freedom is the mark of sapience, not sentience.

As for why humanity took so long, Moore's law explains it.  Billions of years from goop to humans, and millions less from humans into 'recorded civilization', and then even less from earth to space.

As for 'human extinction', there's an alternate plan offered by the NWO.  I'm sure they'll be happy to extinguish your bloodline.  Unless of course you are one of those people who attended the Bilderberg Group Meeting recently.  Then, MAYBE, you won't be decimated.

[wellington1869]

Freedom is the mark of sapience, not sentience.

good point, tho arguably there's an even better word than either of those, since what I mean is self awareness to such a degree that it can regularly induce (suicidal and culture-based) existential crises, which is what seems to mark human conciousness from other animal forms.
A conciousness that (from time to time) frees us so completely from our instincts (or provides us with the ability to create technology which frees us so completely from our bodies and contexts) that we are left with no 'direction' except what we ourselves give ourselves.

As for why humanity took so long, Moore's law explains it.  

well moore's law I think doesnt really explain so much as state that a particular acceleration of efficiency is produced (by what? how? and worse, why?).  Though you may be right that that acceleration might be shown to apply to realms of human creativity outside of high-tech itself.

from goop to humans

that would make an excellent title for a history textbook

Unless of course you are one of those people who attended the Bilderberg Group Meeting recently.  Then, MAYBE, you won't be decimated.

does my duane reade discount coupon card count?  

[dougy]

We are considering the question of civilization in the abstract, looking backward from an advanced state. Put yourself back to an earlier state, as a hunter-gatherer. You live in either plenty or famine, depending on the latest kill and/or the seed producing capacity of the moment. The dependencies require you to move constantly. You are right at the margin of survival, deciding to carry a single piece of bark with some scribbles might well push you over the edge.

Things get a little better as you develop agriculture. You aren't moving, your diet is steadier, lifespan has probably increased into the 20's. Still you are at the margin, from an evolutionary standpoint you have no reason to develop written language.

Its only much later, after a "society" has evolved with some occupational differential, more leisure and vastly more wealth that we can afford writing.

Still there were advanced agricultural societies (think South America) that didn't develop, maybe we are just stupid...

[wellington1869]

well, I'd even accept agricultural societies as civilized, they did leave tons of artifacts (and also if we dont accept them as civilized, then the human species has only been 'civilized' for about 200 years, lol, since the entire globe was agricultural until the steam engine and industrialization).

Even if we accepted agricultural society as civilized, thats still only a few thousand years of history before agriculture itself was developed enough to produce towns and cities and complex social life and its artifacts.
so yea, i think we're pretty stupid too (and that it doesnt bode well for our future, despite all our seeming current advancements).

I mean I'm just surprised how short our 'history' is given that we've had some 200k years of existence as a species.  Even taking into account some of the complications and delays mentioned in this thread, which are all good points, I still think only 5k years of (intermittently) written history is pretty lame for us.

[IBI]

Put yourself back to an earlier state, as a hunter-gatherer. You live in either plenty or famine, depending on the latest kill and/or the seed producing capacity of the moment. The dependencies require you to move constantly. You are right at the margin of survival, deciding to carry a single piece of bark with some scribbles might well push you over the edge.

But that's no answer, since just revises the question to ask why we developed it only after two hundred thousand years and not millions. It still gives no reason why it was now in particular that the race flourished and not at a similar period in the past or a better period in the future.

[wellington1869]

maybe "civilization" is every bit as "accidental" as the evolution of the species itself. A kind of cultural evolution that happens alongside species evolution, i.e., every bit as randomized.  If thats the case, we as a species cant take credit for our civilization any more or less than we can take credit for having evolved into homo sapiens.

I mean, 195,000 years of 'no civilization' just seems ridiculous. If civilization were something that came naturally to us as a species, or if it was a little less random anyway, then I think we should have achieved the hallmarks of it long, long, long ago. We should be looking at atleast 150,000 years of written history.

[dougy]

But that's no answer, since just revises the question to ask why we developed it only after two hundred thousand years and not millions. It still gives no reason why it was now in particular that the race flourished and not at a similar period in the past or a better period in the future.

I think alot has to do with population density, critical mass if you will. After we have the agricultural society, with enough surplus to support occupational differential we can form a "civilization". We don't know when the first developed, its only after written language a history can be seen. 195,000 years to develop written language seems reasonable. For all we know there might have been societies without writing for over half that time. I always think of civilization as requiring a written language.

[vils]

I have only briefly read this thread, but I think Ican assure you that this article is worth reading: Why human evolution accelerated

Another point is that knowledge expands logarithmically. Slowly at first but then faster and faster (check Kurzweil).
An invention as simple as (reading)glasses made it possible for scientists and "engineers" to work and develop their skill for many more years than before. The printing technology made their results easy to spread...

[vils]

Webwits suggestion to read Dawkins The selfish gene is very good, brilliant book. Steven Pinkers The blank slate is also useful.

I just stumbled over How Cooking Made Us Human by R. Wrangham.

Reviewd in NYTimeshere.

[wellington1869]

Another point is that knowledge expands logaritmically(?). Slowly at first but then faster and faster (check Kurzweill).
An invention as simple as (reading)glasses made it possible for scientists and "ingeneers" to work and develop their skill for many more years than before. The printing technology made their results easy to spread...

good point

(tho i still cant get over 195,000 years for it to get going)

[wheel83]

humans are dumb.  dogs and cats are way smarter and can do more awesome things.  we can type though and cause things like world wars...

[vils]

Even though Homo Sapiens emerged 200000 years ago, this is not man as we know her today, evolution has continued and as one of the articles I recommended pointed out; the larger the population gets the speedier evolution works.
The other text suggested that the cooking of food (taming of fire necessary) could have lead to development of bigger brains (most power hungry organ in the body). Cooked food are easier to digest wich frees up energy for other tasks.
When living as hunter gatherer there is not much time to develop science, constant wandering, starvation in periods and a very short life expectancy.
12000 years ago theNeolithic Revolution started with agriculture and people became partly resident(?) and produce a surplus (storageble too) wich could "finance" people who did else than just try to find food for the day.
And here starts the scientific revolution, slowly at the start but considering where we started I think we have come a long way in 12000 years
But I admit our relatives were dumb and lazy bastards the 180000 years before that.

[dougy]

You obviously don't know all my relatives of today.....

[wellington1869]

You obviously don't know all my relatives of today.....

Lol, my relatives would never have even gotten 'fire' going. I'm quite sure of that

[TheSoulhunter]

For everyone interested in this topic...

The books of Jared Diamond are a good read!

They also made a TV docu from "Guns, Germs, and Steel". Easy to find via google etc.