I first read Guns, Germs, and Steel by Jared Diamond in the fall of 2003 based on a friend's recommendation. Many chapters in the book are truly fascinating, but I received criticism of the book then and I support it even more now. Chief among these is the preponderance of analysis devoted to Papua New Guinea, as opposed to, for example, explaining the very disparate levels of wealth and development among Eurasian nations. I will therefore try to limit this review to the "meat and potatoes" topics of his book: the dramatic Spanish conquest of the Incas; the impact of continental geography on food production; and finally, the origins of the Eurasian development of firearms, germs, and steel. In terms of structure, I will first summarize the book's arguments, then critically evaluate the book's evidentiary basis, and conclude with an analysis of how Guns, Germs, and Steel ultimately helps address the question of wealth. Jared Diamond's fundamental argument in Guns, Germs, and Steel is that Eurasians were able to conquer the Americas, sub-Saharan Africa, and Australia because continental differences placed Eurasia on a different and better trajectory compared to other continents. His argument answers a simple question: why has human development proceeded at such different rates on different continents? According to the author, the most important continental differences are found in domesticatable plants and animals, in germs, in the orientation of continental axes and in ecological barriers. Throughout the book, he refers to the “Collision at Cajamarca,” or the first meeting between the Inca emperor Atahuallpa and the Spanish conquistador Francisco Pizarro, as a “broad window into world history.” The meeting is effective in capturing his argument, nam...... middle of the document ...... cost-effective trade and technological development. In this regard, the epilogue uses sound logic to plausibly answer the question of wealth. On the other hand, Diamond uses the same “national competition” thesis to argue that Asia's large centralized governments were conspicuously inhibitory to growth. This argument would not seem to hold water in light of what we have learned about the role of governments. Professor Wright's slides state that "centralization can limit predation and even enable growth" as "centralized predation = incentives to maximize spoils..." This clearly refutes Diamond's argument that centralized Asian governments and monopolies hinder social progress. Therefore, Guns, Germs and Steel cannot explain why China and the Middle East remain emerging markets while Western and Northern Europe enjoy significantly greater national wealth..