I read the book last April/May...
He also uses/succumbs to using the Judaeo-Christian lens/narrative when looking at history no less.
One aspect of viewing from this lens is that just because something has happened, it ought to have happened anyway/ it was the right thing to have happened.
You cannot use this lens to look at pre-history (before written records go) and this most definitely is not the evolutionary perspective or the only perspective.
Another aspect is, for example, one that finds mention in the book, the British hindered the industrialization of India beyond textile production and tea plantations, but hey they built a train station to facilitate this exploitation, so it must be a good thing.
Sapiens -- A Brief History of Human Kind
Re: Sapiens -- A Brief History of Human Kind
Harari's new book, Homo Deus: A Brief History of Tomorrow
http://www.economist.com/news/books-and ... ture-shock
“SAPIENS”, Yuval Noah Harari’s previous book which came out in 2011, looked to the past. Zipping through 70,000 years of human history, it showed that there is nothing special about our species: no divine right, no unique human spark. Only the blind hand of evolution lies behind the ascent of man. That work ended with the thought that the story of Homo sapiens may be coming to an end. In his new book, “Homo Deus”, the Israeli historian heads off into the future.
http://www.economist.com/news/books-and ... ture-shock
“SAPIENS”, Yuval Noah Harari’s previous book which came out in 2011, looked to the past. Zipping through 70,000 years of human history, it showed that there is nothing special about our species: no divine right, no unique human spark. Only the blind hand of evolution lies behind the ascent of man. That work ended with the thought that the story of Homo sapiens may be coming to an end. In his new book, “Homo Deus”, the Israeli historian heads off into the future.
Re: Sapiens -- A Brief History of Human Kind
I am very much looking forward to Homo Deus. I cannot think of any book that has excited me more than Sapiens so my expectations are top high, but I have a feeling that they will be fulfilled.
Intelligence squared has an enlightening episode on Harari and his new book which makes me want to read it even more.
http://www.intelligencesquared.com/even ... homo-deus/
Intelligence squared has an enlightening episode on Harari and his new book which makes me want to read it even more.
http://www.intelligencesquared.com/even ... homo-deus/
Re: Sapiens -- A Brief History of Human Kind
Interesting video. Especially liked the statistics about death at minutes 5-7, but that's just me trying to determine what I should really be worried about.
I will read the book, but this was by far the weakest part of Sapiens -- Harari is great on history, but is no futurist. His inability to understand the fundamental and technical differences between machine intelligence and human intelligence he appears to acknowledge as a weakness, but then tries to sweep it under the rug and pretend it doesn't matter for the purpose of making sweeping predictions about the future.
And he mistakenly tries to push all of the past into the past as over and done, when the human tendency is to look back and bring things forward. You can easily imagine a 22nd century cult devoted to "primitive" nuclear technology intent on blowing up a major city and succeeding.
It was interesting that he softened the word "myth" from Sapiens to just "fiction". Still waiting for "narrative", which is what I think he really means.
His observation that rapidly changing technology will make many people essentially useless as employees is already occurring in my view and seems to be a reflection of many parts of society today. These are the relatively uneducated and unskilled people overdosing and committing the suicides noted in minutes 5-7.
I will read the book, but this was by far the weakest part of Sapiens -- Harari is great on history, but is no futurist. His inability to understand the fundamental and technical differences between machine intelligence and human intelligence he appears to acknowledge as a weakness, but then tries to sweep it under the rug and pretend it doesn't matter for the purpose of making sweeping predictions about the future.
And he mistakenly tries to push all of the past into the past as over and done, when the human tendency is to look back and bring things forward. You can easily imagine a 22nd century cult devoted to "primitive" nuclear technology intent on blowing up a major city and succeeding.
It was interesting that he softened the word "myth" from Sapiens to just "fiction". Still waiting for "narrative", which is what I think he really means.
His observation that rapidly changing technology will make many people essentially useless as employees is already occurring in my view and seems to be a reflection of many parts of society today. These are the relatively uneducated and unskilled people overdosing and committing the suicides noted in minutes 5-7.
Re: Sapiens -- A Brief History of Human Kind
Harari's got a new book coming soon, 21 Lessons for the 21st Century.
“If Sapiens was about the past, and Homo Deus was about the future and distant future of humankind, the new book is about the present, and what we need to do to prepare ourselves for the coming revolution of the 21st century.”
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2017/ ... ationalism
“If Sapiens was about the past, and Homo Deus was about the future and distant future of humankind, the new book is about the present, and what we need to do to prepare ourselves for the coming revolution of the 21st century.”
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2017/ ... ationalism
Re: Sapiens -- A Brief History of Human Kind
"Modernity is a deal. The entire contract can be summarised in a single phrase: humans agree to give up meaning in exchange for power.” – Yuval Noah Harari
Re: Sapiens -- A Brief History of Human Kind
Just finished a few days ago. Very enjoyable read. I thought his division of reality into objective, subjective, and inter-subjective was quite illuminating. It seems to me that he threw more than enough "-isms" into the inter-subjective category to offer challenge to most any human's bag of assumptions. I didn't even take notice of his usage of the term "myth", but I felt a bit of the sting of "Gotcha" when he made it clear to me that I am a participant in the cult of "liberal humanism." However, I don't quite buy his take that the liberal humanist inter-subjective belief/concept of "all humans equal" is entirely dependent on Christian belief that all humans have a soul.
As others mentioned, I agree that his science is a bit skimpier than his history. I'm surprised that Jacob didn't take umbrage with his quick-handed dismissal of energy resource depletion issues. I am nothing resembling an expert myself, but it seems kind of like he skipped right over the last 30-40 years of research, but then projected forward from that earlier perspective. Also, his take on scientific ethics seems very Green-Tech-Capitalist-Progressive, although I would give him credit for likely being the first who would nod agreement, "guilty as anyone/everyone" if his own bias was pointed out.
As others mentioned, I agree that his science is a bit skimpier than his history. I'm surprised that Jacob didn't take umbrage with his quick-handed dismissal of energy resource depletion issues. I am nothing resembling an expert myself, but it seems kind of like he skipped right over the last 30-40 years of research, but then projected forward from that earlier perspective. Also, his take on scientific ethics seems very Green-Tech-Capitalist-Progressive, although I would give him credit for likely being the first who would nod agreement, "guilty as anyone/everyone" if his own bias was pointed out.
-
jennypenny
- Posts: 6856
- Joined: Sun Jul 03, 2011 2:20 pm
Re: Sapiens -- A Brief History of Human Kind
-
jennypenny
- Posts: 6856
- Joined: Sun Jul 03, 2011 2:20 pm
Re: Sapiens -- A Brief History of Human Kind
I finished it but I'll hold off on a summary for others who are reading it.
It's worth borrowing from the library. Harari is a good writer so it's an enjoyable read, even if you don't agree with his conclusions.
It's worth borrowing from the library. Harari is a good writer so it's an enjoyable read, even if you don't agree with his conclusions.
-
Riggerjack
- Posts: 3191
- Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2011 3:09 am
Re: Sapiens -- A Brief History of Human Kind
I haven't read sapiens, I have it on hold.
But I did just read through the thread again, since it has come up again. And I have to agree with GTOO.
So if PNW natives don't count, what does? Every tribe of every race had a first contact with European culture in the last 5 centuries or so. Every one of them had protocols for dealing with enemies and strangers. Each was unique to that culture. The Crow approach to an enemy was completely different from an Apache or an Australian Aborigine. They didn't develope these differences on the fly, they had dealt with enemies before.
It's almost like humans behave like humans, even without a eurocentric judeochristian patrarchy to inspire them to be all warlike.
But I did just read through the thread again, since it has come up again. And I have to agree with GTOO.
This ideal of Hunter gatherers as idealized ERE societies, is all fantasy. About as accurate as thinking Fabio is the proto pirate. Fine for fantasy and fiction, but no basis in reality.George-The PNW natives, like the natives up the coast in SE Alaska, weren't really hunter-gatherers in the traditional sense. Because of the plentiful salmon runs and varied ocean life it made much more sense to settle by the rivers and ocean for extended periods of time, instead of being constantly on the move.
So if PNW natives don't count, what does? Every tribe of every race had a first contact with European culture in the last 5 centuries or so. Every one of them had protocols for dealing with enemies and strangers. Each was unique to that culture. The Crow approach to an enemy was completely different from an Apache or an Australian Aborigine. They didn't develope these differences on the fly, they had dealt with enemies before.
It's almost like humans behave like humans, even without a eurocentric judeochristian patrarchy to inspire them to be all warlike.
Re: Sapiens -- A Brief History of Human Kind
Parallels can be drawn to the Nishada (niṣāda)George-The PNW natives, like the natives up the coast in SE Alaska, weren't really hunter-gatherers in the traditional sense. Because of the plentiful salmon runs and varied ocean life it made much more sense to settle by the rivers and ocean for extended periods of time, instead of being constantly on the move.
Niṣādas are tribes that have the hills and the forests for their abode and their chief occupation is fishing as written in the Manu Smriti.
The celebrated Niṣāda king Nala, who loved and married Damayanti the princess of Vidarbha (in central India, has same name till date)Riggerjack wrote: ↑Wed Sep 05, 2018 12:42 pmIt's almost like humans behave like humans, even without a eurocentric judeochristian patrarchy to inspire them to be all warlike.
In Ramayana, the king of the Niṣādas, named Guha, was a very close friend of Rama. He helps Rama and Sita to cross the Gaṅgā river.
So, no.
-
jennypenny
- Posts: 6856
- Joined: Sun Jul 03, 2011 2:20 pm
Re: Sapiens -- A Brief History of Human Kind
I wasn't sure whether to give 21 Lessons it's own thread or not. I decided this thread works as the Harari thread as we've done with the Peterson thread. It's apt since I found 21 Lessons to be the progressive answer to Peterson's 12 Rules. In some ways, the books are similar. Both authors are ensconced in the humanities. They give credence to the power of narratives, bristle against the current focus on technology, and have an idealistic idea of who humans can be when they apply themselves. They also both have a fascination with pop culture and know more about Disney movies than an adult male should IMO. 
That said, they diverge on the usefulness of narratives. Peterson's book is almost an ode to the inherent truths in popular narratives and a warning that abandoning those narratives will cause us to lose our way, personally and as a society. Harari's Lessons are more a warning about the power of narratives and how they are used to control us, again both personally and as a society. Both authors show their perspectives in the best possible light and only give lip service to others ... Harari talks about secularism in the most positive terms while outlining all the dangers of other isms while Peterson makes traditional narratives sound like the only path to contentment. Of course, there are horrible secularists just as there are horrible traditionalists, both of whom can use their belief system to justify anything with only minimal effort.
I think there is as much 'truth' in Harari's book as there is in Peterson's. Peterson eschews progressive ideals as trampling over innate truths about humans, and in some cases that might be correct. Harari warns against clinging to narratives just because we've invested so much time and energy into them; he believes humans are best served by constantly reinventing themselves. Both, of course, are right. And wrong. There is no need to cling completely to established western truths to maintain a civil society as Peterson suggests. OTOH, Harari's idea of a constantly evolving set of human truths sounds, well, inhuman, so is probably an impossible task for most people.
I enjoy Harari's writing and the success of Sapiens means he's given license to expound on ideas where other authors might get told to edit down. That said, he indulges in his pet peeves in every book and it's getting a little tiresome. One of those is his opposition to religion.* While I totally respect that viewpoint and can understand why a gay man growing up in judeo-christian society might have strong feelings about the subject, his understanding of religion, particularly of faith, is off the mark. When he mentions (several times) why people are religious, particularly why people have faith, he views it from his own perspective. He only talks about how he would have faith -- what would need to be true for him to have a faith in something -- which is very different from how many people come to faith or remain faithful. His version of faith is very different from mine and many other people based on my experience in the church. He misjudges its benefits and failures to some extent because of this.
Is it worth reading? I'd say yes, if nothing else as a counterpoint to Peterson. 21 Lessons is a much more exhaustive book and Harari is a better writer and thinker. He is also very good at identifying what the key issues are going forward even if IMO his remedies are naively optimistic at times. Serious discussion of how humans should act and how the world should function is useful, even if it is mostly academic in the end.
*Full disclosure ... a pet peeve of mine is when people criticize religion (particularly the Catholic Church) by invoking the wrongs done centuries ago. I have my own version of Godwin's law, where as soon as someone mentions Galileo in an argument against the Church I dismiss their argument. Harari commits this sin in 21 Lessons.
That said, they diverge on the usefulness of narratives. Peterson's book is almost an ode to the inherent truths in popular narratives and a warning that abandoning those narratives will cause us to lose our way, personally and as a society. Harari's Lessons are more a warning about the power of narratives and how they are used to control us, again both personally and as a society. Both authors show their perspectives in the best possible light and only give lip service to others ... Harari talks about secularism in the most positive terms while outlining all the dangers of other isms while Peterson makes traditional narratives sound like the only path to contentment. Of course, there are horrible secularists just as there are horrible traditionalists, both of whom can use their belief system to justify anything with only minimal effort.
I think there is as much 'truth' in Harari's book as there is in Peterson's. Peterson eschews progressive ideals as trampling over innate truths about humans, and in some cases that might be correct. Harari warns against clinging to narratives just because we've invested so much time and energy into them; he believes humans are best served by constantly reinventing themselves. Both, of course, are right. And wrong. There is no need to cling completely to established western truths to maintain a civil society as Peterson suggests. OTOH, Harari's idea of a constantly evolving set of human truths sounds, well, inhuman, so is probably an impossible task for most people.
I enjoy Harari's writing and the success of Sapiens means he's given license to expound on ideas where other authors might get told to edit down. That said, he indulges in his pet peeves in every book and it's getting a little tiresome. One of those is his opposition to religion.* While I totally respect that viewpoint and can understand why a gay man growing up in judeo-christian society might have strong feelings about the subject, his understanding of religion, particularly of faith, is off the mark. When he mentions (several times) why people are religious, particularly why people have faith, he views it from his own perspective. He only talks about how he would have faith -- what would need to be true for him to have a faith in something -- which is very different from how many people come to faith or remain faithful. His version of faith is very different from mine and many other people based on my experience in the church. He misjudges its benefits and failures to some extent because of this.
Is it worth reading? I'd say yes, if nothing else as a counterpoint to Peterson. 21 Lessons is a much more exhaustive book and Harari is a better writer and thinker. He is also very good at identifying what the key issues are going forward even if IMO his remedies are naively optimistic at times. Serious discussion of how humans should act and how the world should function is useful, even if it is mostly academic in the end.
*Full disclosure ... a pet peeve of mine is when people criticize religion (particularly the Catholic Church) by invoking the wrongs done centuries ago. I have my own version of Godwin's law, where as soon as someone mentions Galileo in an argument against the Church I dismiss their argument. Harari commits this sin in 21 Lessons.
Last edited by jennypenny on Wed Nov 21, 2018 8:18 am, edited 1 time in total.
-
Riggerjack
- Posts: 3191
- Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2011 3:09 am
Re: Sapiens -- A Brief History of Human Kind
I am completely unfamiliar with this story. So I use the power of Google and Wikipedia to get to:The celebrated Niṣāda king Nala, who loved and married Damayanti the princess of Vidarbha (in central India, has same name till date)
In Ramayana, the king of the Niṣādas, named Guha, was a very close friend of Rama. He helps Rama and Sita to cross the Gaṅgā river.
So, no.
AndNishada (niṣāda) is the name of a kingdom mentioned in the Indian epic Mahabharata.[1] The kingdom belonged to a tribe of the same name. The 'Nishada' are also used to designate aboriginal communities practicing fishing or hunting as their chief occupation and they are thought to designate Austric origin.
And I think if we are throwing out PNW natives as not Hunter gatherer enough, I don't know how natives of a story about an old kingdom make the cut. But it does fit nicely with the narrative I was so critical of, and shows about the same level of narrative to anthropology ratio.The main profession of Nishaadas was fishing and hunting. When a Nishaada had killed one bird from a pair, the other bird was remorseful of its loss and was in pangs of pain, observing this deep pain inspired the sage Valmiki to write the life history of king Rama of Ayodhya and his dutiful wife queen Sita, who lived in separation due to her capture by deceit by the egoistic demon-like king Ravana. This poetic mythology is revered in India as a guide to highest ideals of human-life, is known as the Ramayana, or the record of king Rama's life.[4] In Ramayana, the king of Nishaadas, named Guha, was a very close friend of Rama. He helps Rama and Sita to cross Ganges river.
It seems that my expectations are the ones out of line.
Re: Sapiens -- A Brief History of Human Kind
I agree with jennypenny. Both books are around 80% on track, 20% off on personal tangent cuckoo-bananas.
Re: Sapiens -- A Brief History of Human Kind
@hojo-e:
Could be that, but I've been on a bit of an obsessive "where are things heading?" reading binge, and if/when it comes down to narrative vs. biology and/or ingenuity vs. energy/resources, I am lately tending towards the biology/energy-resources quadrant (or octant?)
Could be that, but I've been on a bit of an obsessive "where are things heading?" reading binge, and if/when it comes down to narrative vs. biology and/or ingenuity vs. energy/resources, I am lately tending towards the biology/energy-resources quadrant (or octant?)Re: Sapiens -- A Brief History of Human Kind
I just finished 21 Lessons. It's extremely good and I highly recommend it. It blew my mind several times, though as often happens I never quite remember why.
I read Sapiens a few years ago, and that book is better. He's a great thinker but a better historian, and 21 Lessons isn't a history book. What I like about 21 Lessons is that he really harps on his previous notion that what defines humans is their ability to collectively create and believe stories. He draws all kinds of conclusions from this, but I think it's a really important lesson, especially for the logical/ nerd types (of which I am one). If we accept that this is true, or even partially true, than all humans (including ourselves) will never really know truth and we are a slave to our narratives/ stories, in a certain sense. This is important to keep in mind as we seek to know and interact with others and know ourselves. It'd never really occurred to me that a nation isn't actually real, except in our minds.
The book does have some flaws. Harari clearly believes the story of liberal secular humanism and therefore favors it. I don't tend to hold religion in high regard, but I agree with JP that for a book of this nature he does a rather poor job of treating religion with an unbiased lens. If anything 21 Lessons helped me to better understand and gain more respect for religion, but I feel like Harari could have done with internalizing some of his own points as it's pretty clear that he biases his own church of liberal secular humanism over traditional religion (unless he's just that meta).
As 7w5 mentioned in previous posts he pays lip service to some ecological problems (mostly global warming) but clearly doesn't believe it will impact the future. He is more of a techno-pessimist than an eco-pessisimist.
Did anyone read Homo Deus? I checked it out at the same time but after rereading this thread I remembered how weak the future predictions part in Sapiens was. Consequently has anyone reread Sapiens? I'm thinking of reading it again, based on the strength of 21 Lessons, though I don't usually reread books.
I read Sapiens a few years ago, and that book is better. He's a great thinker but a better historian, and 21 Lessons isn't a history book. What I like about 21 Lessons is that he really harps on his previous notion that what defines humans is their ability to collectively create and believe stories. He draws all kinds of conclusions from this, but I think it's a really important lesson, especially for the logical/ nerd types (of which I am one). If we accept that this is true, or even partially true, than all humans (including ourselves) will never really know truth and we are a slave to our narratives/ stories, in a certain sense. This is important to keep in mind as we seek to know and interact with others and know ourselves. It'd never really occurred to me that a nation isn't actually real, except in our minds.
The book does have some flaws. Harari clearly believes the story of liberal secular humanism and therefore favors it. I don't tend to hold religion in high regard, but I agree with JP that for a book of this nature he does a rather poor job of treating religion with an unbiased lens. If anything 21 Lessons helped me to better understand and gain more respect for religion, but I feel like Harari could have done with internalizing some of his own points as it's pretty clear that he biases his own church of liberal secular humanism over traditional religion (unless he's just that meta).
As 7w5 mentioned in previous posts he pays lip service to some ecological problems (mostly global warming) but clearly doesn't believe it will impact the future. He is more of a techno-pessimist than an eco-pessisimist.
Did anyone read Homo Deus? I checked it out at the same time but after rereading this thread I remembered how weak the future predictions part in Sapiens was. Consequently has anyone reread Sapiens? I'm thinking of reading it again, based on the strength of 21 Lessons, though I don't usually reread books.
Re: Sapiens -- A Brief History of Human Kind
Not worth your time. Way too techno-optimistic.
viewtopic.php?f=13&t=8187&p=139136&hili ... us#p139136
-
jennypenny
- Posts: 6856
- Joined: Sun Jul 03, 2011 2:20 pm
Re: Sapiens -- A Brief History of Human Kind
Corrected link from daylen's post viewtopic.php?f=13&t=10349
(fixed original thread)
+1 to Homo Deus being my least favorite book of his. If you read 21 Lessons there's no need to read Homo Deus.
(fixed original thread)
+1 to Homo Deus being my least favorite book of his. If you read 21 Lessons there's no need to read Homo Deus.
Re: Sapiens -- A Brief History of Human Kind
Harari at Davos 2020
https://youtu.be/eOsKFOrW5h8?t=600
What he calls the defining equation of life in the 21st century.
B x C x D = AHH
AHH is the ability to hack humans.
https://youtu.be/eOsKFOrW5h8?t=600
What he calls the defining equation of life in the 21st century.
B x C x D = AHH
AHH is the ability to hack humans.