It might be a good read but at best its pop science at worst complete bunk (close to the latter). There was a book about this topic written by an actual historian much earlier: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecological_Imperialism_(book) and where Diamond tried to answer very broad questions and his broad answers break down in detail, Crosby makes similar points but approaches as a historian, limits his arguments and actually practices proper scholarship.
Out of curiosity, can you explain, or point to some writing about why you think the theories in the book are close to "complete bunk"?
https://westhunt.wordpress.com/2017/09/04/guns-germs-and-ste...
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:
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/8nr7xd/thoug...
That first link entirely ignores that IQ tests have been shown to be culturally dependent. Likewise for the aptitude tests he conflates them with.
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 remember being struck by his anecdotes of Papua New Guineans seeming just as smart as anyone else as supposed evidence of... What exactly?
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
If you know a little bit about history involving dates and such, Diamond makes some hilarious boners. Like, getting the actual dates when plague hit the Indians wrong in a way that makes his theory kind of fall to shreds.
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."