When pressed to explain the progression of human society to its present state and, more broadly, the historical process in general, we has several possible options. However, three of the most compelling views can be attributed to Jared Diamond, William McNeill, and Hans Zinsser. Although each offers a distinct model for how to understand chance and how history explains evolution, they all take radically different approaches. Diamond proposes that everything is explainable by a few simple laws and principles, and even goes so far as to suggest that there is no alternative in history. McNeill argues that while there are vague, regimented principles at work, they do not dictate or explain everything; rather, he suggests that they create broad general patterns, but adds that even if there is a pattern, there is also an element of chance. Zinsser simply suggests that historians have largely ignored disease as an agent of change. Although all seem valid, when examining these three views at a more fundamental level, while focusing specifically on the role that disease has played throughout history, it is evident that the view de Zinsser presents himself as the most reasoned. To understand why, let's first look at Diamond's theory. Diamond, a professor of geography and physiology, offers the most deterministic view. He is of the opinion that history and its consequences can be easily explained by applying a few laws and principles and therefore history has no alternative. And according to Diamond's postulate, it is indeed easy to retrospectively explain historical results with these laws and principles, as Diamond demonstrates in his 1997 explanatory book Guns, Germs and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies. In it, Diamond......middle of the article......t eliminates the need for an explanation of cause. In their attempts to explain the historical process, Diamond and McNeill both take similar approaches in proposing that everything can be explained by applying a few simple laws and principles. McNeill complements this notion with the idea that sometimes, however, things happen by chance and cannot be explained by the general patterns that seem to govern everything else. Zinsser, on the other hand, simply argues that there are enormous alternatives at any point in history, without trying to explain each one. Both Diamond's and McNeill's models fall prey to their own excessive ambition, as neither can fully explain every event they claim to be able to explain. Of the three, Zinsser's model, largely due to its non-deterministic nature, clearly constitutes the most reasonable view of the historical process..