Guns, Germs & Steel: The Fates of Human Societies https://www.amazon.com/dp/0393973867
And the documentary based on the book:
There are also a ton of good critiques on /r/history, /r/askhistorians, and /r/anthropology. I can't remember which I've read. Ones like this are typical:
Pretty sure if you wrote an IQ test where your standard population was a group of people living in a harsh jungle environment, urbanite Westerners would come off thick as pigshit.
Or an aptitude test for "How good are you at tracking cassowaries without being disembowelled by them".
I've read good dissections of what's wrong with Diamond's work, that link is not one of them.
I don't think Neil Diamond is wrong but it's kind of baby's first reading on the differences between groups in the world.
I think CGP Grey does a great job at communicating the actual meat of Guns, Germs, and Steel here https://youtu.be/JEYh5WACqEk
Anthropologists don't think much of him either.
Of course any historical theory of everything based on one factor is going to look silly if you read another. Most modern people haven't read Spengler or Brooks Adams or whatever the popular socialist books were in the 30s which attempt to explain everything.
History, of course, is path dependent, and the correct perception is probably something like "stuff is like this by accident."
Yes, proximity helps with cross pollination - but there are hundreds of distinct ethnic groups in the Americans and Africa that also traveling, cross-pollinated and shared. History decided to group them together and call these all one big group.
Germs - Ignores the fact that Europeans were devastated by things like Malaria that many Africans have moderate immunity to thanks to the sickle cell trait
Domesticated animals - Ignores that Europeans have actually used Zebras as work animals and had to domesticate cows from Aurrochs and dogs from wolves
The whole thing is basically Diamond starting off with a conclusion and finding a theory to fit in
Given that not only can we not explain our sociability, but that it's emergence seems nearly impossible according to our understanding of genetic natural selection, then opining on the dominant factors that drive modern intelligence, let alone drove our intelligence hundreds of thousands of years ago, is a hopeless endeavor.
Anyone providing answers to such higher-order questions could only be correct by accident. We have no way of assessing the validity!