HackerTube.dev

Why Some Diseases Only Traveled One Direction

CGP Grey · 13.9M views · 2015-11-23 · 12:08

Open on YouTube ↗

If playback is restricted in your region, try opening the original video. Use Mark watched to add it to your marked videos.

Overview

CGP Grey explains why European diseases devastated the Americas while few deadly diseases traveled the other way. He ties it to livestock domestication, dense cities, and the ideas of Guns, Germs and Steel.

On Hacker News

HN commenters point to it as a clear, short explanation of one-directional disease spread and the core argument of Guns, Germs, and Steel.

Recommended by 11 HN people across 9 months · HN mentions 2015–2024

Topics

Search by tags

What people said

bigmattystyles · 2022-10 · Strong recommendation

Expanding on this, CGP Grey had this amazing video ( [VIDEO] ) of why European diseases in the Americas were so bad on the people that were already here when the two worlds met but you hardly heard of Europeans getting any super contagious illness from the people living in the Americas. Meaning European genomes had some adaptations (as well as antibodies?) from dense and unsanitary living, as well as animal farming in European prior to contact whereas that type of living setup was rarer in the Americas.

Read the original HN comment ↗
vinceguidry · 2015-11 · Strong recommendation

> So any theory of "geographical stunting" would need to explain what changed in the geography after 1492. What changed was technology. Once you have ships going back and forth across the Atlantic, everything changes. Europeans introduced cows, sheep, pigs, chickens. The New World's only domesticable native animal is the llama, which is the main reason why civilizations sprung up in Central and the northern parts of South America, that's where llamas were. Now, to the Europeans, with vastly superior farming technology, the Caribbean and North America were veritable cornucopias of geopolitical possibility. Islands sheltered plantations. Europe could project real power only very closely to the shore, where the big naval guns could reach. The reason was supply. To maintain a group of soldiers requires not just food but adequate clothing, weapons, ammunition, and horses to carry all of that. It took over a century of growth for a colony to get to the point to where it could maintain and supply an army for deeper treks inland. By that time the colonies would have been deeply entrenched in native political systems. Because the warships protecting your colony could only hang around for so long, colonies were quite vulnerable to native military action, or even just having them hang around outside the settlement and killing whoever goes outside, say, to chop wood. It made sense for settlers to be nice to the locals, at least at first. CGPGrey just put out a fantastic video comparing t

Read the original HN comment ↗
akerl_ · 2023-08 · Recommendation

[VIDEO] is a good watch here, if you're curious why Europeans didn't catch reciprocal plagues when traveling to the Americas. Spoiler: it's what the adjacent comment said, the Americas didn't have the factors for plagues.

Read the original HN comment ↗

Sources

Video by CGP Grey, played through YouTube.

Data and selection notes

HN summaries and labels may contain AI errors. HN dates refer to discussions, not video publication.

HN Library: HackerTube export (2026-10-31) and open-index/hacker-news. Upstream summaries and classifications may contain AI errors.

Views, duration and playback status refresh separately from the published catalog. When an update fails, existing data remains visible.

Selection checks
  • SaaS & AI candidates: Topic keywords do not match
  • Editor-approved picks: Editorial review is required

Rule matches identify candidates. They do not guarantee video quality or financial results.

About the library and its sources