“Sapiens: a Brief History of Humankind” - Yuval Noah Harari

“This stupid book. You should read it.” - Amit Mathur

With these words, Amit encouraged me to pick up this history of human evolution. To clarify, he wasn’t implying that the book itself was stupid. Far from it, he thought it was fairly thought-provoking. However, it isn’t a fast read, so he was alluding to that rather than the content of the book itself.

How to describe this book? It’s hard to say, but to me, it read like one big thought experiment in the sense that while fact-based, Harari employs a great deal of philosophical analysis, occasionally makes broad generalizations, and presents us with his hypotheses about our human history and future. Professor Harari is a scholar and historian, so we are safe in the knowledge that his hypotheses are highly plausible, and based on his obvious expertise.

Each chapter provides the reader with fresh food for thought as Harari muses on different aspects of human history and culture. For example, what will future archaeologists make of our present civilization? What sorts of artifacts will they recover? There likely won’t be hard copies of books or letters for historians of the future to analyze. What if all digital materials are lost? What will they conclude about us?

While the subject can be dry in places, I think what keeps the discourse flowing is that Harari picks diverse examples to illustrate his points. He hops around from corporate boardrooms, to ancient India, to colonial America, to Huxley’s “Brave New World”, and this keeps the reader engaged.

I never paused to consider what is obviously a truth: sapiens walked this Earth along other species of humans. It’s convenient to think that humans evolved seamlessly, with one species dying out and making room for the next, but as Harari points out, this is a fallacy. When I read this, I knew this book was going to be “mind-bendy” in the best possible way!

Harari’s simple words are powerful - evoking the amazing communication sapiens have developed which is startlingly all-encompassing; what can’t you describe with words?! I had to ponder this for a bit. What a remarkable achievement for a species to come up with a language that can describe anything!We’ve come up with means of describing the invisible, the myths, the unreal! It’s quite incredible. Harari gives much attention to this leap: the ability to describe and create fictions wholly unconnected to the physical world (religion, witchcraft, law, corporations are a few of his examples). 

The book discusses three revolutions: Cognitive (70,000 years ago), Agricultural (10,000 years ago), Scientific (500 years ago). Per Harari, the Cognitive revolution was marked by humans developing the ability to communicate fictions. At this moment, history stepped away from biology-exclusively and the development of sapiens could now occur independent of genetics and evolution by way of culture and myth. He explains actions undertaken by sapens of this time period that would not have been motivated by a biological need or an evolutionary instinct. 

Laws regulating large group behavior, were nothing more than fictions invented and described by sapiens. Here, he compares the social illusions constructed by the likes of Hammurabi’s Code and the Declaration of Independence. Were enslaved persons (whether in Babylon or in revolutionary America) factually any different from those above them in the social hierachy? Of course not. Social hieracy was a means for controlling group behavior. Amongs Hindus in India, that social hierachy was based on the notion of caste, whereas in America, it is based on race. In both scenarios, a fiction has been created by persons in power to be used to control their respective groups.

Another example of fictions created by sapiens to regulate group behavior, is war to enforce submission to the rules. The concept of war arose from the idea of personal property, which  is itself, a fiction invented by sapiens.

Harari’s discussion of the Agricultural Revolution was particularly interesting. He lauds the evolutionary prowess of wheat, remarking that it was even more successful than sapiens themselves. In his vision, it was wheat that manipulated sapiens to exact its maximum evolutionary advantage, not vice-versa as we would normally conclude. His argument here is logical, though I am not totally persuaded.

When he talks about cultural inheritance, he uses native Indians vs British Raj as an example. The history of humanity is a history of empire. Prior to the British Raj, Indian history was marked by the Mughal conquest. Further back, it was filtered through the Gupta and Maurya empires, and so it goes on.

I did have one point of contention. Harari makes an argument classifying Hinduism as polytheistic, citing the Atman principle in his explanation. I do not agree with this conclusion, though his initial explanation of Atman was correct. I was disconcerted by his assertion that HInduism is polytheistic, but I did think his explanation of Atman and the objective of sadhus, was well researched and articulated. I can see his point of view, however he goes on to equate Atman with the Fates of Greek mythology, and fails to mention the concept of Brahman. I should note that I agree with the overall point that he was making in this chapter, however, I disagree with his analysis as it pertains to Hinduism (I agree with his take on polytheism largely).  I suppose it is a matter of theological debate. To me, the concept of syncretism allows Catholicism a multitutde of saints for cities, nations, occupations, ailments, etc. Syncretism permits Hindus to believe in the non-duality of God (Brahman; God is One), but also worship countless deities as manifestations of the ultimate, unknowable reality. 

If you are in the mood for a thought-provoking read, “Sapiens” will definitely put you in a thoughtful mood. It may just be a book that you don’t read at a brisk clip. The latter chapters look to the future, and seem to wander more, with lots of hypothetical scenarios. On the question of human happiness, Harari refers to Huxley’s “Brave New World” and its manipulation of biochemistry so all citizens are equally happy. I may have to reread BNW soon.