What does Jared Diamond say about the future of human history as a science?

I read the book Gun,germs, and steel i just don't understand what Diamond is saying about the future of human history as a science.|||Diamond argues that history should be considered a science, sharing methods with the other historical sciences, although he does not go into very great detail about some of the issues this raises, since different "sciences" utilize widely varied, and occasionally contradictory, definitions and methods. Still, he sees history as process where environmental circumstances affect societal achievements, which then have a "snowball effect." By identifying the specific environmental and technological causes and consequences of historical events, we are better able to understand history as a whole





The book's epilogue proposes extending the concept of "positive feedback loops" to smaller geographies and shorter time periods. He suggests that geographical fragmentation is an explanation for why Europe, rather than China, eventually lead in technological advancements. He hints that cultural factors and idiosyncratic individuals also played significant roles in the divergence of these societies, and that the greater nationalistic unity in Asia sometimes served as a detriment to innovation. His notion is that the multiplicity of individual powers in Europe (it's disunity), caused in part by it's varied geography, allowed for greater opportunities as well as greater technological competition.





You might consider reading "Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed" to get an idea of where he's going with some of his ideas.