After my recent cataract surgery, I made up for lost time by reading many books. One that I found particularly outstanding was Sapiens, A Brief History of Humankind, by the Israeli historian, Yuval Noah Harari.
Sapiens, A Brief History of Humankind
by Yuval Noah Harari
HarperCollins, NY, 2015
416 pages
Harari, a professor at the University of Jerusalem, is quite erudite and has broad knowledge of history, past and present. His style is clear and non-academic. The book provides just the right amount of diagrams, photos, and illustrations, which the author uses to stress key points.
What was especially satisfying about the book for this reader, and perhaps for many readers as well, is that there was always something to learn; always something one already knew said in a new way, and frequently something to disagree with as well. His erudition, presented in clear prose, made what could have been heavy reading seem almost effortless. It has become a best seller, deservedly so, and has been translated into many languages.
Yuval maintains that humankind hasn't changed physically for about 100,000 years, but that about 30,000 years after that a "cognitive revolution" occurred, which enabled humans to think, imagine, speak, and manipulate the environment to a previously unprecedented degree. (Since that time, human beings haven't changed much.)
"An ivory figurine of a 'lion-man' )or 'lioness woman') from the Stadel Cave in Germany (c. 32,000 years ago). The body is human, but the head is leonine. This is one of the first indisputable examples of art, and probably of religion, and of the ability of the human mind to imagine things that do not really exist." Sapiens, page 23
After reading the book, one has no doubt that Homo Sapiens has been, and still is, the most destructive species that has ever evolved. I learned that there were originally, in addition to Sapiens and Neanderthals, two additional species of humans. Neanderthals, less clever and thus less destructive, were hunter gatherers that roamed in bands of about 50 individuals, while Sapiens, with more sophisticated weapons, hunted and foraged in groups of 150. During the second migration from Africa, about 40,000 years ago, competition between the two species turned deadly. The elimination of Neanderthals--the last representatives of which died out 30,000 years ago--was perhaps the first great genocide of the human race.
One can only imagine the discrimination that Neanderthals would be enduring today if some had escaped extinction. We can't get along with members of our own race, the differences among which are inconsequential! The perpetrators of the Neanderthal genocide had, most likely, dark skin; those most associated with racism today have light skin. Whether the motive for destruction was survival or greed, the book implies, correctly I think, that the skin color of victors as well as the skin color of the enslaved were simply a matter of chance. (This is perhaps the reason why Yuval mentions that there had been blond slaves during the course of history as well. If so, it is an example of how the author strives to be above the fray by not taking explicit positions. The book contains implicit biases, however, some of which will be discussed). The book corroborates that despite the recent horrors of colonialization, slavery and racism, whites are no better or worse than anybody else--that is, that all humans belong to the most destructive species that has ever existed--this is hardly a consolation. One can't console oneself with the belief that we're all programmed to be destructive, and therefore innocent; we, at least now, have a choice. What are we doing with that choice?
Is there a beautiful, constructive side to humanity as well? Of course there is: Mozart, Martin Luther King, you.
Harari theorizes, reasonably, that the Cognitive Revolution allowed humans to develop sophisticated language. Our species began to tell stories and create myths. Although the myths were subjective, they had, according to Harari, distinct evolutionary advantages. Myths and storytelling gave groups cohesive identities, providing entertainment, passion--and, perhaps, for the first time in history, incipient fanaticisms. Harari asserts, however, that we know very little of the culture of hunter gatherers.
With the Agricultural Revolution, which began about 12,000 years ago, the world changed forever. One of Harari's central assertions is that history and progress don't (always--am I adding that word?) go together. He cites the Agricultural Revolution as a prime example. Research has shown that the quality of food suffered when humans settled in agricultural communities. Diseases proliferated--one can imagine the Covid-19 virus decimating settlements while largely sparing hunter gatherers. Pharaohs, emblems of absolute rule, arose; the problem of poverty, which still plagues civilization today, began during this era. Exploitation, thy name is cereal. But I wish Harari had balanced his view with some of the positives: a great increase in culture, art, tools and an increased ability to manipulate the environment.
Perhaps the darkest blot on modern history is the legacy of racism. Sometimes I think Harari glosses over this calamity. He states that greed and lust for profit were the primary motivations for slavery, not racism. I think it makes little sense to separate the two. True, as he states, some invested in slavery merely to make money. Is that in any way an excuse? Does it explain the brutalities of the Jim Crow South?
Herari asserts that all cultural beliefs and creations, such as religions, political systems, currency, etc. are fictions; they exist only in the mind. He compares the Hammurabi Code, from ancient Babylon, the content of which strikes us today as being grossly unjust, with the Declaration of Independence.
The latter is a fiction as well:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they re endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness
becomes,in the light of analysis:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men evolved differently, that they are born with certain mutable characteristics, and that among them is life and the pursuit of pleasure.
Is he serious? I find Martin Luther King's statement, namely that the arc of history may be long, but always leads to more justice, to be much more convincing. Nothing is either good or bad? If the thirst for decency, and justice; if the assertion that relationships, love, and kindness are most important--if these are illusions, they are certainly categorically different from the illusions of greed, hate, cruelty.
Contrary to widespread belief, morality is not dependent on a supernatural fiat. I agree with Harari that there is no Creator God; one must not forget, however, that the founding fathers were mostly Deists. In the eighteenth century, one couldn't conceive of the facts of evolution; one needed to posit a God to get everything rolling. The founding fathers were approaching atheism, however, since Deists believed that once God set everything in motion, He completely abandoned His creation. Only in the twentieth century did science evolve enough to assert that creation was "the greatest free lunch ever" that is, no God is necessary to light the fuse of the Big Bang. We evolved in cultures in which relationships were primary; morality, which oversees relationships, is a natural phenomenon of human development.
Harari stresses the importance of science and the scientific method.which began around 1500 in Europe, along with colonialism and capitalism--he sees a connection. Strangely, he also asserts that Europe didn't produce very much of significance prior to this time. The contributions of Ancient Greece aren't even mentioned.
Sometimes I think that Harari's absolute relativism is a pose. Maybe he desires to please everyone by not taking a stand. There might be another reasons, however. Herari once went through a very orthodox phase of Judaism; he admired Netanyahu; he was, perhaps, a zealot. Now he hates the Trumpian leader of Israel and opposes settlements on the West Bank. I conclude from this that Harari is a seeker, but, now at least, is determined not to flout reason in order to accept a dubious consolation.
Herari gives little indication of his personal passions. There is a hint of his homosexuality, however; a long section about the cruelty with which animals are treated by the modern meat industry led me to the conclusion, without explicit conformation, that he is a vegan. Later, I discovered that he is indeed a vegan. Good for him.
Just what does he believe in; which mythologies for him are still somewhat holy? I get the impression that Harari wants to be all things to all people---I think he enjoys being a historian rock star. If he allowed himself to be pinned down, he would certainly disappoint some people. (He believes, however, that fundamentalism, is no longer viable, a position with which I agree.)
I think, however, deep down there he is a liberal.
His relativism demands that he reject both liberalism and collectivism, however. I'm not convinced he is right.
Harari practices Vipassana meditation with a passion. This so-called "Insight" meditation is a Buddhist branch of meditation that concentrates on the three characteristics of existence, namely, dukkha (the insufficiency of phenomenal existence to ultimately satisfy; anicca (nothing is permanent); and anatta--there is no abiding self in anything. This view certainly informs his Weltanschauung.
I agree with this system, but have a major objection. The emphasis is on personal liberation and not on the transformation of society, a goal to strive for until it becomes, as it were, the pot of gold at the end of the arc of justice.
Relativism often leads to irresponsible individualism; collectivism in its various forms usually leads to brutal, repressive dictatorships. Why not strive for a balance between them that avoids the excesses of both? Both are essential. Regulated capitalism may well be the best political option we have.
Harari believes that the end of Homo Sapiens might be in the near future. Not necessarily due to war: the development of cyborgs, AI and the ability to manipulate genes might soon end humankind as we know it. If climate change doesn't destroy us; if epidemics don't destroy us, some form of technology might. Who knows?
All and all, this is a wonderful book. Harari's breadth of knowledge is obvious. Sapiens makes you think and criticize, a winsome combination.
Sapiens, A Brief History of Humankind
by Yuval Noah Harari
HarperCollins, NY, 2015
416 pages
Harari, a professor at the University of Jerusalem, is quite erudite and has broad knowledge of history, past and present. His style is clear and non-academic. The book provides just the right amount of diagrams, photos, and illustrations, which the author uses to stress key points.
What was especially satisfying about the book for this reader, and perhaps for many readers as well, is that there was always something to learn; always something one already knew said in a new way, and frequently something to disagree with as well. His erudition, presented in clear prose, made what could have been heavy reading seem almost effortless. It has become a best seller, deservedly so, and has been translated into many languages.
Yuval maintains that humankind hasn't changed physically for about 100,000 years, but that about 30,000 years after that a "cognitive revolution" occurred, which enabled humans to think, imagine, speak, and manipulate the environment to a previously unprecedented degree. (Since that time, human beings haven't changed much.)
"An ivory figurine of a 'lion-man' )or 'lioness woman') from the Stadel Cave in Germany (c. 32,000 years ago). The body is human, but the head is leonine. This is one of the first indisputable examples of art, and probably of religion, and of the ability of the human mind to imagine things that do not really exist." Sapiens, page 23
After reading the book, one has no doubt that Homo Sapiens has been, and still is, the most destructive species that has ever evolved. I learned that there were originally, in addition to Sapiens and Neanderthals, two additional species of humans. Neanderthals, less clever and thus less destructive, were hunter gatherers that roamed in bands of about 50 individuals, while Sapiens, with more sophisticated weapons, hunted and foraged in groups of 150. During the second migration from Africa, about 40,000 years ago, competition between the two species turned deadly. The elimination of Neanderthals--the last representatives of which died out 30,000 years ago--was perhaps the first great genocide of the human race.
One can only imagine the discrimination that Neanderthals would be enduring today if some had escaped extinction. We can't get along with members of our own race, the differences among which are inconsequential! The perpetrators of the Neanderthal genocide had, most likely, dark skin; those most associated with racism today have light skin. Whether the motive for destruction was survival or greed, the book implies, correctly I think, that the skin color of victors as well as the skin color of the enslaved were simply a matter of chance. (This is perhaps the reason why Yuval mentions that there had been blond slaves during the course of history as well. If so, it is an example of how the author strives to be above the fray by not taking explicit positions. The book contains implicit biases, however, some of which will be discussed). The book corroborates that despite the recent horrors of colonialization, slavery and racism, whites are no better or worse than anybody else--that is, that all humans belong to the most destructive species that has ever existed--this is hardly a consolation. One can't console oneself with the belief that we're all programmed to be destructive, and therefore innocent; we, at least now, have a choice. What are we doing with that choice?
Is there a beautiful, constructive side to humanity as well? Of course there is: Mozart, Martin Luther King, you.
Harari theorizes, reasonably, that the Cognitive Revolution allowed humans to develop sophisticated language. Our species began to tell stories and create myths. Although the myths were subjective, they had, according to Harari, distinct evolutionary advantages. Myths and storytelling gave groups cohesive identities, providing entertainment, passion--and, perhaps, for the first time in history, incipient fanaticisms. Harari asserts, however, that we know very little of the culture of hunter gatherers.
With the Agricultural Revolution, which began about 12,000 years ago, the world changed forever. One of Harari's central assertions is that history and progress don't (always--am I adding that word?) go together. He cites the Agricultural Revolution as a prime example. Research has shown that the quality of food suffered when humans settled in agricultural communities. Diseases proliferated--one can imagine the Covid-19 virus decimating settlements while largely sparing hunter gatherers. Pharaohs, emblems of absolute rule, arose; the problem of poverty, which still plagues civilization today, began during this era. Exploitation, thy name is cereal. But I wish Harari had balanced his view with some of the positives: a great increase in culture, art, tools and an increased ability to manipulate the environment.
Perhaps the darkest blot on modern history is the legacy of racism. Sometimes I think Harari glosses over this calamity. He states that greed and lust for profit were the primary motivations for slavery, not racism. I think it makes little sense to separate the two. True, as he states, some invested in slavery merely to make money. Is that in any way an excuse? Does it explain the brutalities of the Jim Crow South?
Herari asserts that all cultural beliefs and creations, such as religions, political systems, currency, etc. are fictions; they exist only in the mind. He compares the Hammurabi Code, from ancient Babylon, the content of which strikes us today as being grossly unjust, with the Declaration of Independence.
The latter is a fiction as well:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they re endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness
becomes,in the light of analysis:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men evolved differently, that they are born with certain mutable characteristics, and that among them is life and the pursuit of pleasure.
Is he serious? I find Martin Luther King's statement, namely that the arc of history may be long, but always leads to more justice, to be much more convincing. Nothing is either good or bad? If the thirst for decency, and justice; if the assertion that relationships, love, and kindness are most important--if these are illusions, they are certainly categorically different from the illusions of greed, hate, cruelty.
Contrary to widespread belief, morality is not dependent on a supernatural fiat. I agree with Harari that there is no Creator God; one must not forget, however, that the founding fathers were mostly Deists. In the eighteenth century, one couldn't conceive of the facts of evolution; one needed to posit a God to get everything rolling. The founding fathers were approaching atheism, however, since Deists believed that once God set everything in motion, He completely abandoned His creation. Only in the twentieth century did science evolve enough to assert that creation was "the greatest free lunch ever" that is, no God is necessary to light the fuse of the Big Bang. We evolved in cultures in which relationships were primary; morality, which oversees relationships, is a natural phenomenon of human development.
Harari stresses the importance of science and the scientific method.which began around 1500 in Europe, along with colonialism and capitalism--he sees a connection. Strangely, he also asserts that Europe didn't produce very much of significance prior to this time. The contributions of Ancient Greece aren't even mentioned.
Sometimes I think that Harari's absolute relativism is a pose. Maybe he desires to please everyone by not taking a stand. There might be another reasons, however. Herari once went through a very orthodox phase of Judaism; he admired Netanyahu; he was, perhaps, a zealot. Now he hates the Trumpian leader of Israel and opposes settlements on the West Bank. I conclude from this that Harari is a seeker, but, now at least, is determined not to flout reason in order to accept a dubious consolation.
Herari gives little indication of his personal passions. There is a hint of his homosexuality, however; a long section about the cruelty with which animals are treated by the modern meat industry led me to the conclusion, without explicit conformation, that he is a vegan. Later, I discovered that he is indeed a vegan. Good for him.
Just what does he believe in; which mythologies for him are still somewhat holy? I get the impression that Harari wants to be all things to all people---I think he enjoys being a historian rock star. If he allowed himself to be pinned down, he would certainly disappoint some people. (He believes, however, that fundamentalism, is no longer viable, a position with which I agree.)
I think, however, deep down there he is a liberal.
His relativism demands that he reject both liberalism and collectivism, however. I'm not convinced he is right.
Harari practices Vipassana meditation with a passion. This so-called "Insight" meditation is a Buddhist branch of meditation that concentrates on the three characteristics of existence, namely, dukkha (the insufficiency of phenomenal existence to ultimately satisfy; anicca (nothing is permanent); and anatta--there is no abiding self in anything. This view certainly informs his Weltanschauung.
I agree with this system, but have a major objection. The emphasis is on personal liberation and not on the transformation of society, a goal to strive for until it becomes, as it were, the pot of gold at the end of the arc of justice.
Relativism often leads to irresponsible individualism; collectivism in its various forms usually leads to brutal, repressive dictatorships. Why not strive for a balance between them that avoids the excesses of both? Both are essential. Regulated capitalism may well be the best political option we have.
Harari believes that the end of Homo Sapiens might be in the near future. Not necessarily due to war: the development of cyborgs, AI and the ability to manipulate genes might soon end humankind as we know it. If climate change doesn't destroy us; if epidemics don't destroy us, some form of technology might. Who knows?
All and all, this is a wonderful book. Harari's breadth of knowledge is obvious. Sapiens makes you think and criticize, a winsome combination.
No comments:
Post a Comment