Original sentence: " But Mokyr criticized Diamond's analysis of agriculture and technology." They note that Diamond clearly stated that the answer to why some societies came to be dominant must be multi-causal and then provided the then "set to work on one complex of factors, namely ecological ones.Drezner listed the book on his top ten list of must-read books about international economic history.He immediately came in for heavy criticism from specialists working in the disparate fields on which he drew.If you teach economic history, any kind of economic history, go read this book.International Relations scholars Iver B.It is the synthesis as such that is the contribution.It is when such detailed criticism is taken as a platform from which to condemn Diamond’s undertaking in its entirety that things go wrong.Neumann (of the London School of Economics and Political Science) and Einar Wigen (of University of Oslo) write that any work of macro-historical study is bound to be criticized.Northwestern economic historian Joel Mokyr praised the book as "one of the more important contributions to long-term economic history and is simply mandatory to anyone who purports to engage BigQuestions in the area of long-term global history," and said "it is brimming with wisdom and knowledge, and it is the kind of knowledge economic historians have always loved and admired.That is as it should be; the groundwork of any synthesis should be as correct as possible.They write that "while empirical details should, of course, be correct, the primary yardstick for this kind of work cannot be attention to detail.Tufts University International Relations (IR) scholar Daniel W.Until somebody can come up with a better way of interpreting and adding to Diamond’s material with a view to understanding the same overarching problematique, his is the best treatment available of the ecological preconditions for why one part of the world, and not another, came to dominate