I recently finished re-reading Guns, Germs and Steel and still find the arguments compelling and logical throughout most of this book. However, I am aware that my knowledge goes little further than majoring in history in undergrad and was curious how he has been regarded. I've heard some rumblings in the comments in this sub about the fallacies of geographic determinism but never seen a cohesive breakdown of why he's wrong or how wrong he is. Having loved historiography during my undergrad, I am very interested in learning how this book is viewed among professional historians and others who study the past.