The Genesis of Justice By Alan Dershowitz

     In The Genesis of Justice, Alan Dershowitz brings a unique view of the narratives of Genesis, coming from a defense lawyer's perspective. Dershowitz reads Genesis as an educational book trying to show mankind the need for both rules in general and specific ordinances. On the surface, Genesis seems to be a very unfair book. Dershowitz tackles each seemingly unjust story in each chapter. Cain kills his brother but walks, G-d seemingly overreacts and floods the world, Avraham then tries to defend Sodom but loses, Avraham tries to kill his son but is praised, Dina is raped and an entire city gets killed, Tamar becomes a prostitue and ends up being the forebearer of the messiah, and then Joseph's brothers sell him and end up being chosen as well. Taken from this simple perspective, every story in Genesis seems to be immoral. Dershowitz breaks down each story and rather than showing how the story is actually a moral one, he explains that Genesis is teaching us why the world cannot function the way it did in biblical times. The ten commandments and other laws are necessary to the functioning of a society. In this way the Bible is showing that Natural law cannot reign supreme and there must be some positivist structure where laws are kept because they are laws. The G-d of Genesis is one that is learning, or at least showing how we should learn, to create a just society through laws. 

        While I found this interpretation interesting, I had a couple issues with it. Firstly, I am not sure we can truly say that Halakha is a positivist structure. I am currently taking Contemporary Legal Theory and Halakha in Revel with Professor Rynhold (great class and professor), and it is far from clear that this is true. While many theorists do take this stance and view Halakha as purely positivistic such as Menachem Elon, others, including the Chief Steif Lord Sacks view Halakha as natural law theory. Perhaps Dershowitz simply holds as Elon does, but this stance is far from certain. Secondly, from a literature perspective I can understand Dershowitz's points about a G-d which is learning to make a moral justice system. This can be a very good educational technique to portray G-d as a relatable character, and allows Genesis to be a engaging tool relevant to everyone, rather than a doctrine that one needs to adhere to. However, at least in the case of the flood, can we really say that G-d had all of those people killed to teach us something now, even though they may not have deserved it? Now, if one wishes to take the flood story allegorically this problem goes by the wayside and Dershowitz's explanation can be a very fulfilling one. But if we assume that G-d did bring the flood, I don't see how we can say that He did so even though it was immoral, and learned a lesson from it. 

      Even with these problems, I found The Genesis of Justice to be extremely enlightening. Dershowitz takes an interesting new view of the old Genesis stories and sheds light on them. I particularly liked how he raised many issues on each story that he didn't fully explain leaving the reader with a lot to think about. He writes the book much like he thinks Genesis was written, leaving the reader with the power to try and figure out the lessons therein to try and make the most just society he can. 

The Will to Whatevs by Eugene Mirman

The Will to Whatevs is by far the most ridiculous book I have ever seen. It is Eugene Mirman' s brainchild, a guide to life that "it would be great if 100 million copies sold!". He goes through from a person's early school years to death and the afterlife, using his immense experience as someone who people listen to to give advice to the modern person.  Like 7 Habits of Highly Effective People, Mirman gives practical advice that you can live by. You probably shouldn't, but thats a different question.  Mirman finds the absurdity in the everyday facets of life. When he talks about businessmen he says: "Some people seem to be born with the business gene. They look at an old table on the side of the road and do not see an old table (not because their vision is bad; that'll be covered in the chapter, "Why Some People Can't See Old Tables"); they instead see opportunity.". Aside from being somewhat true, Mirman finds ridiculousness in the regular things in life. Although at times he got inappropriate (overall, he is not that bad compared to other comedians), I appreciated how he looks at the world. It is the ability to find the absurd in the normal and the ludicrous in the everyday that can allow us to live life happily while also getting things done. Before reading this book, I would check out some of his stand-up (a lot can be found on Youtube). While the humor doesn't completely translate to the written page, his style allows it to come pretty close. Multiple times I was sitting somewhere and getting stared out because I laughed out loud. 

Yes, I just reviewed a comedy book. 

The Hero with a Thousand Faces by Joseph Campbell

         In The Hero with a Thousand Faces, Joseph Campbell looks into myths from different countries and centuries, and creates the monomyth, a general theory of heros and myths. Specifically, he spends half the book showing how the hero's path can be stereotyped. He also shows how this monomyth is remarkably similar to what psychoanalysis later discovered. Through this Campbell is able to show that the monomyth really is the human psyche and the hero is really every single one of us. 

      Because Campbell quotes it a couple times,  I kept of thinking how the Bible fits into this monomyth. Whenever I have dealt with stories that are very similar to stories in the Bible, e.g. the creation of the world and the flood, the question is not only how they are similar to the Biblical account, but also how they are different. It is in these differences that the message lies. If we know how the story should have gone in general we can see what G-d decided to change, and try and figure out for ourselves why it was changed. 

       In one section, Campbell  looks at Moses as a hero. I would like to try to go through the hero part of the monomyth and see how it fits, and doesn't fit, with the story of Moses as the leader of Israel. First, there is a call to action. Moses certainly has this at the burning bush when G-d comes to him. This fits well with the monomyth as the hero is usually called by a mythical herald, normally a leprechaun or some other creature. Here it is a burning bush. As expected Moses has a refusal of the call. However, the outcome of this refusal is extremely different. Rather than being thrown to the abyss as many heros are, Moses is convinced to do his job. Usually heros deny their destiny for selfish reasons. They then need to go through trials and tribulations to see their true purpose. Moses does not have this same motive (at least based on the Midrashic literature), his refusal to go is a humble argument of feeling inadequate. As he begins his quest the hero is given supernatural aid, usually in both the form of creatures and mythical objects. Moses is given signs but his aid is not a creature but Aharon his brother. As he leaves the hero crosses the first threshold. Here the hero is threatened by a mythical creature whom he defeats by adhering to his tradition, which is his first test on the long road. I found it incredible how this fits in with the Moses story. On the way, seemingly inexplicably, G-d tries to kill Moses. This fits the monomyth well, but instead of Moses beating the challenge, it is his wife Zippora  that circumcises their son to adhere to tradition. This difference from myth could be a vital one. Rather than having supernatural aids on his journey, Moses' brother and wife are the ones to help him. This is perhaps the first lesson we can take from the differences in the Bible of the importance of family and the family unit. Rather than being alone to pass the trials Moses has his family as backing because that is how we are supposed to live our lives. 

           After this the story gets even more weirdly related to the monomyth. The pattern follows but mostly with the entire Jewish people and not just with Moses. The people go through a road of trials rather than it being Moses alone. With all the miracles and eventually at Mount Sinai, the entire people have a "meeting with the godess". In this meeting usually the hero dies and comes back to life. In the text this seems to only happen to Moses (he is up there for 40 days without food or water), but the Midrash adds that each person died when they heard G-d's voice. When the hero meets the godess, he is also supposed to face a temptress who usually takes him off the path. Again, this not only happens with the Jewish people, but it doesn't even happen with Moses at all. Afterwards, the "father" atones the hero. This happens for the entire people and we commemorate this every year on Yom Kippur. Interestingly, the way the hero gets atonement is by explicitly believing in the father's mercy. Perhaps this is part of the "secret" of the 13 attributes of G-d's mercy. By believing and actively saying G-d is merciful, we subjugate ourselves admitting we need his mercy as the hero needs to do.  After this is apotheosis, where the hero is transformed. This happens most with Moses with his newly glowing face but it also happens with the entire nation which is transformed into G-d's nation with the new covenant. 

       There is a lot more to the hero's journey but I think at this point it is clear. The Moses story continues to follow the paradigm but not as a singular hero but as a hero nation that succeeds as a people. Maybe this is because our focus should not be on the singular character of Moses. Rather it is all about the Jewish people. It is the nation that is vital, and Moses needed to take arole but it is not his story that it is important but the nation's story and the family story. When we discuss this story every year, Moses is absent, and maybe this is why. We follow the general mythology but dont agree that it is the hero that we should be keeping with. Additionally, the grave of the hero in mythology is usually prayed at and idolized. Here we don't know where Moses was buried because it is not him that is the focus it is the nation he served. 

            In this way we can all become heros. If we are able to do what is needed for our nation, not because of our own glory but to serve, each and everyone of us can be heros in our own right. Especially now the thousand faces of the Israeli soldiers in war now are all mythological heros by fighting for their family and for their nation. 

When They Come for Us We'll be Gone: The Epic Struggle to Save Soviet Jewry by Gal Beckerman

          The story of saving Soviet Jewry is a long and tedious one. It extends from the 1960's to the fall of the Soviet Union, when there was a mass exodus from Russia to the US, Israel, and various European countries. Gal Beckerman in When They Come for Us We'll be Gone: The Epic Struggle to Save Soviet Jewry goes through this long history in amazing detail. The story goes back and forth from the US and Russia, showing the story through specific characters that had major impact in the effort. On the Russian side the effort was mostly Zionistic in nature. The Jews wanted the right to emigrate to Israel, so thousands upon thousands of requests where sent, despite many losing their jobs and their positions in society because of it. There was also an unbelievable push to teach hebrew and zionistic literature in the cities despite it being illegal to disseminate the copies of material to teach. When we hear of saving Soviet Jewry in the US it is very US focused. What did American Jewry do to save them? is usually the question being answered. More amazing, however, is the tremendous fight Jewry within the Soviet Union was able to have despite the oppressive culture that did not want them but would not let them leave. Of course Jewry in America got together in a way that hasn't ever happened over this issue. Beckerman explains this as guilt for not doing enough during the Holocaust, and during this spiritual decimation Jews stepped up in an immense way. Quite impressively, the effort went across lines within the Jewish community. 

       Beckerman talks extensively about the emigration numbers for every year. In general he uses this to try and determine if there is better treatment for Jews, the higher the number the more their interests are being looked into. As expected, it was very hard to leave Russia at the time, as the leaders wanted to have their utopia which no one would want to leave. A correlate of this was how much good American Jewry was doing for their soviet counterparts. If they were able to raise the emigration numbers they were doing a good job. I found this to be too simplified, and it also makes the effort American Jewry had for naught. The reality is that when the soviet union and communism fell, so did their stranglehold on the Jews in their country. Once a more lax attitude to the other was taken in general, this attitude went for Jews as well. This had little to do with American Jewry, it had to do with the fall of the Soviet Union. In that respect, there really was nothing that we could do here in America except make the war end faster. What American Jewry could do, and did, is do as much for the Soviet Jews as possible as they waited out the regime. A close friend of my parents who is mentioned twice in the book, Glen Richter, delivered a tremendous amount of Judaic materials for specific Jews. It is in the particular that Americans were able to succeed not in the general. Beckerman makes the most important thing the general, which usually is a noble and important goal. But each person can always do the small thing to save one person which is just as important. Those small things add up and have allowed prosperous Russian Jewish communities in both Israel and the US.  

       Overall, this was a fantastic book for those interested in the history of Soviet Jewry. It is extremely in depth without reading like a textbook. 

Where's my Miracle: Exploring Jewish Traditions in Dealing with Tragedy by Morey Schwartz

   "Why do bad things happen to good people?" is probably the most complex and difficult theological question asked both in Jewish and non-Jewish circles. With all the pain and persecution that has happened in Jewish history, it is a question that has been painfully pondered for centuries from Job to the loss of the Beit Hamikdash to modern times and the Holocaust. It is a focus of the Kinnot, which have been echoed for millennia. In Where's My Miracle, Rabbi Schwartz tries to parse through the tremendous amount of material that exists in Jewish tradition on the topic. Rabbi Schwartz comes to the question not fully as an academic but one who was also a pulpit rabbi who was asked the question many times, and as someone who had to live with an immense tragedy himself, the untimely death of his mother. In this way the way Rabbi Schwartz not only is able to ask the question, but also he asks it from a place that is ultimately relatable to every reader.  

           Rabbi Schwartz goes through different aspects of the question and gives sources showing each side of the issue. I have seen other books on this topic, but Where's My Miracle is unique in that it is not trying to tell you the answer, but show you that there are a multiplicity of explanations given by different authorities both in Chazal and in the Rishonim. To what extent are all bad things punishments? Are things happening naturally, or is G-d making these tragedies happen? And, can’t G-d stop bad things from happening? He shows throughout the book that all of these questions have many answers. Not only does he not support one view, but also whenever he starts to explain one strand of thought he brings a counter-example showing a source that quotes the opposite opinion. Although, he tries to be unbiased, Rabbi Schwartz leans to the view that not all instances have a Divine Hand. Even though he leans one way, he fully expresses the other possibilities. Perhaps they are even all right for different situations. He scatters quotes from newspapers and other victims of tragedies who express views that are quoted in Jewish texts. However, there is no one answer.  Interestingly, the lack of an answer seemed to me as the best answer. We cannot know why everything happens and it would be hubris to think that we can. Perhaps they in themselves did not have meaning at all. This must be differentiated from the standard answer of “how can we question G-d?” Rabbi Schwartz shows that our question is not only a valid one, but one that has been attempted to answer frequently. What he shows is that there is no “Jewish view” of theodicy. Rather, there are many strands of thought throughout the Talmud and other sources, all of which could or could not be applied to different cases.

I would absolutely recommend this book for anyone interested in a Jewish overview of the subject. 

           In the last couple weeks, this question has come a little more to the forefront with the storms that have swept the northeast, specifically, hurricane Sandy. Whatever you believe, and many different and contradictory opinions exist in our tradition, I find that it is hard to say what the reason for any tragedy truly is. Some Rabbis and Pastors recently came out and blamed hurricane Sandy on homosexual marriage. Non withstanding the political problems with this and especially considering the wide variety of views within Jewish tradition, I really don't understand this. Explaining tragedy in such manner, especially in public, demeans those that were hurt or killed as simply hit in the crossfire for G-d's specific message. We should look at these events and think about what G-d is trying to tell us, so we can then always be improving ourselves, but to blame tragedy on others seems simple minded and hurtful. May it come soon that it will be clear how G-d is involved in our lives.

Eating Animals By Jonathan Safran Foer

Eating Animals is more of a documentary from a curious citizen then a journalist. Foer looks into the ethics both in theory and in practice of eating meat, so he can think about what he should be feeding his son. This is an important fact while reading it because Foer comes in with little to no bias, and is not trying to prove a fact, and comes to the conclusion to become a vegetarian (he probably would have rather found out he could eat as much meat as he wanted to). First he goes through the theory of eating meat. It was at this part that I did not really hear his arguments. He tries to extrapolate from the fact that some meat, namely dogs, would seem disgusting to many of us. Is a dog different just because you might own one? Maybe a chicken should be looked upon the same way. I don’t feel that this line of reasoning is fair because if anything it is the opposite that may be true. I am absolutely not going to start eating dog, not only because its not kosher but because it would be nasty to me, but I have no problem if other cultures or peoples do. It isn’t a theoretical disgust but a cultural one that Foer is talking about.

Specifically, Jewish culture, at least American Jewish culture, has no problem eating meat. While there are certainly those that are vegetarian, on the whole it is not surprising to see Sabbath meals with multiple types of meat, whether in chulent or not. This culture is so strong that I have heard of friends who have turned down meals when they found out the meals where going to be vegetarian. It has gone beyond the obligation to eat meat as part of the requirement of happiness on the Sabbath and entered into it’s own. Inherently, I don’t see any problem with this. It seems clear from the Bible and the Halakha that animals can and should be used for human consumption. While certainly commandments against making the animals miserable (Tzar Ba'alei Chaim) and a slaughtering method that is as painless as possible are stated, these are ways to put as little harm in the animals, but it assumes that we have the right to eat the meat in the first place.

            The second half of Eating Animals is a much more practical discussion of how meat and chicken is processed nowadays. I am not going to go through all the details of what he discovers but it is truly disturbing. After reading what goes on these farms, I have done a lot more research since reading the book and I really cant believe the atrocities that go on. It is understandable to some extent because as a nation we are asking for so much meat that it becomes necessary to be as efficient as possible to serve the country. However, this has come as a complete detriment to all the animals and the environment as a whole. Foer comes to the conclusion that he can not participate in this madness and so vegetarianism is basically the only option in America. He believes that if all these bad things are happening he cannot give money to them, eat their meat, or feed it to his son, on moral grounds. I certainly understand this, but I don’t see it as the only conclusion. Just like I feel that I can use and add to the internet for lots of good things even though so many bad and inappropriate things happen on it, I can eat meat as long as I don’t succumb to the problem.

While I was reading all the bad things that happen at these plants, I wondered to what extent these problems exist in kosher plants. Some of them could not as they would completely invalidate the meat. At the same time much of the problems in how the animals are kept and even some of the others are still there.

            It’s for this reason I decided to limit the amount of meat I consume. At this point I allow myself to eat meat on Shabbat and one other meal during the week. This seems to me something that I can change and do my part while still being sustainable. How could I never have Chickies or Golan ever again? The idea originally came from the idea of being a weekday vegetarian. One does not need to go to extremes. If we all just ate less meat, much of the environmental problems that exist would no longer. We don’t need to become vegetarians or radically change our lifestyles to do this, but we can not make the demand of meat in this country dictate how poorly they are treated.

            At the same time as I have been limiting my meat intake, I recently started taking a course in YU on ritual slaughter which by the end would certify me to slaughter fowl. The main reason I wanted to do really had nothing to do with eating meat. Ritual slaughter is part of the Jewish tradition and I had the opportunity to learn this skill that has been in the tradition for ages. At the same time it also would allow me to make sure the meat that I eat is treated as fairly as possible. Before beginning the course, I visited a Muslim slaughterhouse where a friend of mine goes to slaughter his own chickens. Since it is done on a small scale, it wasn’t depressing as the videos and books show (most of our meat does not come from places like this). While at first it looked disgusting, it wasn’t depressing. What amazed me was how moral my friends slaughtering looked. Even compared to the Muslims, who were very friendly towards us, and have extremely similar customs, it was over quickly and with great meticulousness to make sure the chicken was pained as little as possible. Hopefully, in our days the meat industry will come to the point where it will have to treat its animals with more respect. What you can do is not make them feel like they have to supply you with all of it.

            

Moonwalking with Einstein by Joshua Foer

      Moonwalking with Einstein is the story of how Joshua Foer went from an investigative reporter for a minor news network to U.S. Memory Champion in one year. While reporting on the competition, Foer becomes intrigued. How are people able to memorize seven decks of cards, pages of numbers or poems in mere minutes? This was especially fascinating considering the contestants were regular people, not especially brilliant. Foer found a mentor and decided to try. A year later, by practicing everyday, he wins the competition by a small margin.

     Moonwalking with Einstein is this tale, but it also goes through explanations of the importance of memory and some of the major techniques used in the competitive memory world.

         In our modern world, information is becoming more and more externalized. We can look things up on our laptops, our iPods or our phones. While this availability is certainly helpful and useful, it comes with a cost, the cost of memory. Our ability to externalize information has made us not want to or bother to know information in the same way that people used to because we can always just look it up later. A couple problems evolve because of this attitude. Firstly, we remember less. Common examples prove this. Before I had a cell phone, I remembered a ton of my friend's phone numbers, now who knows anyones unless they had to for some specific reason? These types of "loses of memory" while not normally so bad, can cause issues in everyday life. This can apply to even writing things down. Because we do that we tend to not spend the time to really know what we wrote down. Giving ourselves the security blanket of being able to look at it later can at times hinder our ability to actually gather information. A larger problem that comes with externalizing information is in the form of becoming an expert in what we are trying to learn. In order to push forward and really understand a topic you need to know basic facts so that you can analyze and look farther into a situation. Always being able to look at the facts themselves stops this from ever occurring. Chess grandmasters need to know an immense amount of situations by heart for them to try and see which situation applies in the given game. Being able to look it up in a book does not allow this to happen. This is an extreme case but is still relates to everyday life. 

             After he makes the argument for working on and the importance of memory, Foer goes on to explain his journey too becoming a memory champion, including a few of the major techniques. The main concept that is used in memory training is called the memory palace. Instead of trying to memorize information which is harder, memory training tries to translate information into pictures and places. The main example that Foer gives for this is the difference between Baker and baker. It is hard to remember the name for Mr. Baker, but it is much easier to remember if you imagine him in a big white bakers hat. This picture is exceedingly more powerful than the word baker. Now if you want to memorize a list or a lot of information, one picture is not good enough. For many pictures, you create a memory palace. You use a place you know really well, and walk through it with the pictures placed in different places in your palace. To then remember the list later, all you have to do is look back in your mind at the place and the images will come back. Since reading the book, I have used this trick many times, making it easy to remember without writing down a list that I can easily lose. But what makes this work? Certainly, the images and places are more exciting than the list that you started with, but that can't be the only reason, i think it's more basic than that.  Many times we see or hear information, but we don't engage it, we don't really pay attention to what we are hearing. The memory palace makes us put effort into the words we are trying to remember. Really thinking about and absorbing the information allows it to not just be forgotten. 

             Because it was the event that Foer broke the world record in, Foer goes on to explain who he learned to memorize a deck of cards. Here you have to memorize a list of 52 things that are very similar to each other in a  a short period of time. I have tried to take on this endeavor and hope to soon be able to be able to see a new deck and be able to recite it a couple minutes later. These type of exercises allow a person to be able to use their memory as a tool in a way that they couldn't before. The story Foer writes is compelling and important for anyone interested in memory, which probably is everyone. It is both a theoretical and a practical book, made for the uninitiated, which is most of us. He explains alot of his experience in the TED talk seen here.

              As the high holidays come up there may not be a better time to think about memory. What exactly happened this past year.  Perhaps if we were able to pay more and more attention in our lives, not only will we remember our lives better, but we will also be able to remember what we should be doing at all times. 

The Wisdom of Crowds by James Surowiecki

In The Wisdom of Crowds, James Surowieki, explains how crowds can be smarter than the best of people, given certain circumstances. Surowieki discusses three types of problems Cognition problems, those with certain answers, cooperation problems and coordination problems. I found how he shows that crowds can be excellent at cognition problems to be the most illuminating. Perhaps this is because it is the type of problem that he is able to give many examples of it working, and show that it works in a wide variety of questions makes his theory work so well. It is also able to be tested, as I did this summer  a couple of times. For cognition problems, Surowieki explains that given three prerequisites crowds will be remarkably smart. If they are discreet, meaning the people being asked do not effect each other, diverse, meaning they will not all have the same opinions, and that you have a way to aggregate the information you get from the crowd. Even if the people being asked have very incomplete information about the problem, as an average  of the disparate people the crowd can be remarkably exact.  A very simple example that Surowieki talks about is tracking guesses at a county fair of the weight of a bull. While no person got all that close to the actual weight of the bull, the aggregate average of all the guesses were within one pound of the bulls actual weight. This theory sounded so interesting so I decided to try it myself. I asked ten people how many spoons were in a bag. I added up their answers, took an average and then counted the spoons in the bag. The average added up to 277 and there were 279 spoons in the bag. No singular person was anwhere near that number and as Surowieki predicted the crowd was smarter than any of the parts of the group. It is as a group when individuals are strong.

         The implications for how we should be making decisions, and running government, is substantial. Singular people or small groups of people cannot approach the genius of the general population. Except for democracy in Greece, where every one could come and vote, we usually assume we should have a couple people making discussions. We can choose those people, but we choose to trust their judgement. Instead, those that are making decisions, rather than making them on their own, they should be aggregating what the public thinks and acting accordingly. 

      Recently, I have be watching a lot of The West Wing. In one episode (Inauguration 2), President Bartlett says: "There's a promise that I ask everyone who works here to make: Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful committed citizens can change the world. Do you know why? To which Will Bailey replies: "Because it's the only thing that ever has.  While this may be true that generally it has been special individuals, the public has a power that the individuals can not have. The book makes a powerful statement about the power of the people, something democracy has helped use, but perhaps not enough. 

           I would definitely suggest this book as great insight into the wisdom of crowds. There is a lot from the book that I was not able to discuss here, so it is well worth it to read through the book. 

Guns, Germs, and Steel by Jared Diamond

           In Guns, Germs, and Steel,  Dr. Diamond sets out to try and answer perhaps one of the most important questions a historian can ask. How did the world end up the way it is now? How is it that some nations are strong and have become civilizations, while others are still functioning the same way they have for thousands of years? I'm going to spoil the theory right now so I will say now that the book was very insightful, although a bit dry at times. I would definitely recommend it. If it is easier, there is a three part documentary (each part an hour) on youtube, part one here, part two here, and three here. The third part is largely repetitive from the other two, so one could easily stop after two hours.

           Diamond essentially tries to answer the question based on geography. The way civilization grows is that things are produced more easily and with less people. This allows some people to work on things beyond what has been done before. This happened most in Western Europe, specifically because  of the types of grains and cattle that inhabited the land. Wheat and barley, the grains that predominated Western Europe are crops that are easily made into edible food, and therefore need less people. This was furthered by having the correct types of cattle that could plow the land, making the bread making process even more efficient. Because of this, many people were able to go on, and do other work, like creating metal tools, which furthered the efficiency of the farming, and of course weapons. This had two important factors. As more and more steel was being produced, more and more people were able to work on other things, making everything more and more effective. Without this initial step of having some people free to find ways of making food and shelter more efficiently made, society as we know it would not exist. Also, weapons enabled (and ennobled) Europeans to conquer much of the world. They could easily go into more undeveloped countries that did not have the resources they had and conquer them easily. Another thing that helped them conquer other nations was germs.  Because of the close proximity to livestock, Europeans had lived through many plagues due to germs. Naturally, the people that survived the plagues were those that were more resistent to the germs. Eventually, Europeans became immune to many of the diseases. When the came to Africa and the New World, the natives were not so immune. Diamond argues that because of their ability to produce steel and guns, combined with the germs they carried, Europeans were able to create civilization well past what others were able to accomplish.

           While this theory can certainly not withstand all criticism, which can be found here, it does give an insightful approach that explains much of human History. I found these ideas illuminating for a couple reasons. Firstly, it puts all people on an equal playing field. Some people happened to be luckier, but none are more creative or better than others. Had different resources been in different parts of the world, civilizations would have existed there instead. Secondly, the thesis seems to have a lot of backing based on the way women have been able to rise in the world in the last 50 or so years. Because of appliances like the washing machine and refrigerator, household duties have become much less laborious as they used to be (although they are still very demanding, and necessitate much work). Therefore, women have been able to do more in the world because making food is easier than before. This is in many ways analogous to our case of being able to more efficiently produce bread. Lastly, in some ways this lends credence to the Jewish people (although, certainly does not prove anything). We have almost always happen to have existed where the most can be done with the land, first in Mesopotamia, then in Europe. While I can't say that it is G-d provoked that that should have been so, it almost seems that way. Jews have been put in the situation where they can be part of civilization and illuminate the Bible's message to the world, not by converting it, but by being in the situation to show it how we can all live.

        Again, Guns, Germs, and Steel was a fantastic read, and really gave me new insight into the history of the entire world.