Diamond refutes the charge that Australia is proof that differences in the fates of human societies are a matter of people and not environment. Australia lacks domesticable plants and animal life, leaving the society not able to expand in technologies and agricultural advancements. There were no large animals to domesticate and minimal amounts of plants to cultivate which made it difficult to prosper. Europeans on the other hand succeeded because they that had domesticable plants and animals. Australia was weak compared to Europe because Australia did not have the food production package. Europe points out the common misconception by proving they could produce food in Australia because they had the already cultivated plants and domesticated animals for technologic advances and the food production package. Linguistic evidence used to draw conclusions about the spread of people in China and Africa was by tracing the origins of languages. Diamond compares the words and styles of speech in different parts of Africa and China to uncover their past. Most of the population in both China and Africa spoke out of the main language family, Mandarin (China) and Bantu (Africa). The other people that existed but did not speak the native language was added, killed, or chased away. Leaving us background information of other people existing because of the discourse islands or the remnant words in areas that were far from each other. The significance of the differing outcomes of Austronesian expansion in Indonesia and New Guinea was the farmers or advancement in agriculture. Farmers were more successful at resisting other farmers rather than hunter-gatherers because farming makes a society stronger and more competitive among other societies. New Guinea already advanced in agriculture which lead to keeping the Austronesians out and retaining ownership of their land. On the other hand, Indonesians were still considered as hunter-gatherers and the Austronesians were able to reach and replace the Indonesians. When Europe expanded, their more advanced civilization allowed them to defeat the hunter-gatherers, but they could not defeat the equally advanced New Guineans. Diamond explains China’s striking unities and Europe’s persistent disunity by comparing their geography. Due to the geography, Europe was not unified because Europe’s coastline led to isolation from the islands and communities. The isolated communities formed their own governments, cultures, and value systems. Unlike China, there coastline ran fairly smooth and open, and they also contained two rivers that were fairly easy to trade among with. Consequences could lead to competition for power, rivaling states, and political unity. Leaving China’s unity as one political decision that could stop exploration from the country, as when China banned the use of long distance shipping routes. However, in Europe, if one did not succeed in persuading one country of the benefits of exploration, then others could accept their offer. Diamond explains the fact that it was nevertheless Europe and not Southwest Asia that ended up spreading its cultures to the rest of the world by the autocatalytic process. The fertile crescent started out with more people which lead to food production and more food, lead to a greater population. While the population increased the fertile crescent outgrew the natural resources, which lead to the natural resources being absent and the fertile crescent losing their competitive edge. The fertile crescent no longer had an advantage in resources and a food production package. While the fertile crescent lost by geographic factors, Europeans took domesticated plants and animals to the New World (Americas). On the other hand, Southwest Asia did not spread its cultures to the rest of the world because of geography. They contained dry soil, hot climates, and poor vegetation, which meant they weren’t supplied with the same crops and animals such as Europe or the Middle East.