New Issue: Orbital Catastrophe Ahead? Read Now

Jared Diamond’s New Book Upheaval Looks at Lessons to Be Found from Countries in Crisis  

Fixing a problem first requires recognizing that it exists

Matt Collins

Perhaps the only funny item in Jared Diamond’s new book Upheaval: Turning Points for Nations in Crisis is an anecdote about what was known as the Winter War. When the Soviet Union invaded Finland in late 1939, the Finns resisted against the much larger Soviet forces until the two countries compromised on an uneasy peace.

Various countries sent equipment to help Finland defend itself. One such gift was World War I artillery from Italy. “Each artillery piece requires not only a gunner … but also someone called a spotter stationed some distance in front of the gun, in order to spot where the shell lands and thereby to correct the range setting for the next shot,” Diamond explains. Of course, these large guns have hefty recoils—and they were not designed well for absorbing that jolt. So the Finns wound up using two spotters: the usual one in front to see where the shell landed, “plus another spotter behind the gun to see where the gun landed!”

Other than that story, the book ranges from unemotionally informational to somewhat grim—but necessarily so. Diamond—a professor of geography at the University of California, Los Angeles, National Medal of Science honoree, recipient of a MacArthur “genius grant” and winner of the Pulitzer Prize for nonfiction—focuses on seven countries he knows well, including us, aka the U.S., as the convenient abbreviation would have it.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


We and the world are facing big problems, and Diamond points out that we’re never going to solve those problems without acknowledging their existence. In fact, he sets up his arguments by examining how individuals in personal crises do or do not deal with those situations successfully and then drawing analogies, when possible, to countries.

In such a framework, a decision by a smiling Senator James Inhofe of Oklahoma in 2015 to display a snowball on the Senate floor to somehow refute the reality of climate change could be considered a symptom of a national delusional disorder.

Of course, that disorder has really bloomed in the years since. “Not enough American citizens and politicians take our current major problems seriously,” Diamond writes, regarding the deterioration of political compromise, the increase in incivility, tainted elections (including by voter suppression) and economic inequality. (Climate change is in the section on global threats.)

The U.S. is also hampered by what I think is a misinterpretation of the idea of American Exceptionalism—a term first coined, ironically, by Joseph Stalin, when he wasn’t busy attacking Finland. The notion of exceptionalism dates to Alexis de Tocqueville in the 19th century and originally covered the country’s democracy and personal freedoms. But in more recent times it often seems (especially if you tune for a moment to Fox News) like exceptionalism has come to signify a belief that the U.S. is simply special—and shame on you if you question that specialness.

Nevertheless, Diamond notes, “although per-capita income is somewhat higher in the U.S. than in most European countries, life expectancy and measures of personal satisfaction are consistently higher in Western Europe. That suggests that Western European models may have much to teach us.”

But we seldom even bother to see if there’s anything to learn. “That’s because we are convinced that … the U.S. is such a special case that Western European and Canadian solutions could have nothing relevant to suggest to us. That negative attitude deprives us of the option that so many individuals and countries have found useful in resolving crises: learning from models of how others have already resolved similar crises.”

Perhaps the only hope of curing that particular flight of fancy can be found in this hypothetical exchange that Diamond quotes: “QUESTION: When will the U.S. take its problems seriously? ANSWER: When powerful rich Americans begin to feel physically unsafe.”

Finally, and perhaps of most concern to this audience, Diamond delivers a solar plexus punch: “Skepticism about science is increasingly widespread in the U.S., and that’s a very bad portent, because science is basically just the accurate description and understanding of the real world.” But as the muckraking writer Upton Sinclair put it in 1934, “It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.” Especially if that man is a U.S. senator.

Steve Mirsky was the winner of a Twist contest in 1962, for which he received three crayons and three pieces of construction paper. It remains his most prestigious award.

More by Steve Mirsky
Scientific American Magazine Vol 321 Issue 1This article was published with the title “What, Us Worry?” in Scientific American Magazine Vol. 321 No. 1 (), p. 88
doi:10.1038/scientificamerican0719-88

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe