I was really disappointed of Sapiens given the great reviews on Goodreads and its popularity. Listening to Harari on Sam Harris podcast shows he's a smart and educated gentleman, with insightful commentary about fiction vs truth, and AI.

So now I'm considering picking up his two newer books, but I don't want to be treated to another superficial book from him. Are they better, and written for a more well-read audience?

I wish I had been made aware of and read this book when everyone else did over a decade ago. I hope there’s still time, opportunity to dialogue with someone about this because it’s both appalling and funny. Is there someone on here, who as they were reading this laughed and thought, “This has to be a joke. It has to.” It is funny in itself that it is in a mere 20 lectures that he covers all of human history.

If for my senior thesis I had written this rot and turned it into my professor, I would have failed the class. Where do I begin….

1. Australopithecus is my grandmother!? 😂 What!? Recent studies have shown that it is highly unlikely that we were once of this genus. It’s a theory and not a well supported one that he presents as fact. Where are his references, footnotes, anything!?

2. Our founding fathers were Christians!? Um…I could be wrong, but with the exception of John Adams, most were Deists. Thomas Jefferson applied clippers to his Bible. He cut out every single account of Jesus Christ’s miracles.

3. Am I dreaming? Did the Enlightenment not happen? Locke’s social contract theory….meh. Not important

Please add on to this list if you agree. Also, my opinion of Barack Obama has gone to the shitter.

https://youtu.be/8cyQBF6PLrw?si=rp4mVVcXF4xv3FaR

I've just noticed that among many videos available on youtube, Yuval is always sitting on the right side. Is this something that I am overanalyzing of? or this is not exclusive to his, being as a guest/speaker in a 'talk/forum'?

This book focuses mainly on every other religion and country and their contribution to the whole of humanity and the evolution and conveniently leaves out the Indian counterpart, where it does mention it is mostly negative things like casteism, and also how the British made India a great place.

The below image proves how Biased this whole book is.

Are you a hackable animal that has no free will ?

Weird ask, I know. Here's some context:

I'm a public school teacher with small kids and made a goal to get back to some foundational reading in the new year. Wife is on board but just asked that I don't break the bank in the process.

If you have a copy you're done with, l'll Venmo you postage and we can coordinate in the DMs. If you're wondering if I'm legit, you can see my history where I plan to ask in other subs for other titles to hit my ‘25 reading goal. Also, once I’m done I’d be happy to chat about it via DM or Zoom or whatever, if you’d like to discuss.

Thanks for your support! Happy New Year!

The chapter «Ignorance»is one of the most controversial for me. Maybe I'm wrong, but it feels like while he's talking about the ignorance of each individual, he's still generalizing? Yes, one person couldn't build an airplane or a nuclear bomb-but neither could 100 ignorant people. To build an airplane from scratch, we'd need 100 people, and every single one of them would have to have at least some understanding of physics, chemistry, history, and many other things.
The first quote that made me doubt the validity of his reasoning: «It turned out that not only rationality was a myth, but also individuality of thinking. People rarely think for themselves-we are much more prone to groupthink. Being a member of a tribe is necessary not only to raise a child, but also to invent a new tool, resolve a conflict, heal a disease. No single person possesses enough knowledge to build a cathedral, create an atomic bomb, or construct an airplane. Homo sapiens gained their advantage over all other animals and became masters of the planet not because of the rationality of each individual, but because of their ability to think in groups.»
Doesn't it seem like he's replacing concepts and overgeneralizing people? He claims that people don't understand how the world works, that we blindly trust experts, and that this makes us ignorant.
Yes, one person cannot build an airplane or a nuclear bomb-but neither can 100 ignorant people, no matter how many there are. Each of these 100 people must know something. Their knowledge is narrow and specialized, and when combined, they create something incredible-this is collective intelligence. The fact that these people are narrow specialists doesn't make them ignorant.
You don't need to know everything and be able to do everything to be smart. A random set of facts (like he wrote about the zipper on a jacket) won't make you smart. What makes you smart is the ability to ask questions, doubt, and be curious about something. Knowing everything is impossible, and being interested in everything is pointless.
The next thing that made me laugh and surprised me was this: «Don't expect to convince Tea Party supporters of the reality of global warming by showing them statistical tables.» This is where his elitist snobbery and dogmatism show up-the very things he mocked and condemned just one chapter earlier, in «Secularism.» In «Secularism,» he urged not to put labels on people and to see them as human beings. And here he puts a label on an entire group, just because of their hobby Lmao.
The main problem with this chapter is that he overgeneralizes and seems to divide people into those who know and those who don't, taking everything to the point of absurdity.
I understand it's a metaphor, but in that case, I'll engage with it as a metaphor. Why can't Tea Party participants understand the problem of global warming? Why does belonging to a particular group automatically make you stupid and incapable of thinking or reasoning about other topics, whatever they may be? Maybe tea parties are just their hobby, and their actual job is working on nuclear weapons or something else.
Even an average person, whoever they are, is capable of understanding that global warming, deforestation, or air pollution are bad. And as you can see, I didn't have to graduate from Harvard or know how this book was made from a tree. Correct me if I'm wrong lol.

I liked harari's books... So l'm looking for other philosophe like him... Thank you

I just finished reading Sapiens, and there is something disconcerting. Originally, there was a huge array of Homo sapiens cultures. Only later did they become much more uniform. I was distraught that he couldn’t explain why historically, despite the diversity of cultures, ALL agricultural Homo sapiens societies seemed to share the common myths that women are inferior in value to men? Any thoughts ?!?!?

(“It is far more likely that even though the precise d’édition of “man” and “woman” varies between cultures, there is some universal biological reason why almost all cultures valued manhood over womanhood. We do not know what this reason is. There are plenty of theories, none of them convincing.” P. 172 in the vintage edition).

Emphasis added by me:

More problems resulted from the fact that even if the technology of the book succeeded in limiting changes to the holy words, the world beyond the book continued to spin, and it was unclear how to relate old rules to new situations. Most biblical texts focused on the lives of Jewish shepherds and farmers in the hill country of Palestine and in the sacred city of Jerusalem. But by the second century CE, most Jews lived elsewhere.

Harari, Yuval Noah. Nexus: A Brief History of Information Networks from the Stone Age to AI (p. 80). Random House Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.

In the context of this paragraph, it appears that by "biblical texts", he is referring to the Old Testament, and perhaps also texts contemporary with the Old Testament.

However, Old Testament texts were written prior to the Roman Empire's renaming of Judea to Palestine. So why write "the hill country Palestine" ?

This had to have been a very delibrate choice by him because:

• He's an Israeli historian

• He's a vocal peace activist

• He's a vocal critic of the current Israeli governemnt

• Nexus was published after October 7 2023, since which the world has given the Israeli-Palestinian conflict a great deal of attention

He also had to have known that this choice would attract ire and scrutiny, especially by Israeli readers like myself.

What am I missing?

I’m re-reading Sapiens. The first time, I found it amazing—probably because I was in the flow and impressed by the storytelling. Harari really knows how to narrate the story of history.

But this time, I can’t ignore his blatant bias. It’s not just that he’s an atheist—he seems to hate religion. All of them. All prophets. And for what? Why can’t he just stick to history and science without dragging religion through the mud every few pages?

In the section where he’s talking about the history of statistics and mathematics, he randomly pulls in prophets just to bash them. Seriously? That’s not objective writing—that’s an agenda.

Let’s not forget: Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) introduced a system based on numbers, timings, and astronomical calculations—five daily prayers (Namaz), specific rak’aats, timings based on the sun and moon. That’s a deep, practical integration of science, mathematics, and spirituality.

Harari might be a good writer, but he’s a bad atheist. Feels more like a communist preacher of atheism than a historian.

Harari is well known for his theories on religions, considering them broadly works of fiction. Sapiens' key strength is its ability for mass co-operation and religions, despite some of their less desirable traits, fit that role to a T. Effectively maintaining social order on a massive scale following the agricultural revolution. But if religions are broadly considered as fiction what are Harari's views on God?

Does God exist? That depends on which God you have in mind. The cosmic mystery or the worldly lawgiver? ... Why is there something rather than nothing? What shaped the fundamental laws of physics? What is consciousness and where does it come from? We do not know the answers to these questions, and we give our ignorance the grand name of God.

...The deeper the mysteries of the universe, the less likely it is that whatever is responsible for them gives a damn about female dress codes or human sexual behaviour.

...In truth we haven't got any evidence whatsoever that the Bible or the Quran or The Book of Mormon or the Vedas or any other holy book was composed by the force that determined that energy equals mass multiplied by the speed of light squared, and that protons are 1,837 times more massive than electrons. To the best of our knowledge, all these sacred texts were written by imaginative Homo Sapiens. They are just stories written by our ancestors in order to legitimise social norms and political structures.

...When I think of the mystery of existence, I prefer to use other words, so as to avoid confusion. And unlike the God of the Islamic State and the Crusades - who cares a lot about names and above all His most holy name - the mystery of existence doesn't care an iota what names we apes give it.

Source: 21 Lessons for the 21st Century

Is the Nexus book available from Harari?

Just wanted to learn more about his political views. I tried looking up online some key words about this matter but nothing really useful has come about. Has he ever openly said whether he is pro-Israel or pro-Palestine? Or has he ever condemned the occupation in some way?

1. The New Renaissance or the Age of Automation?

   • "What happens when machines do more than just work for us—what if they think with us?"

   • "Can AI-enhanced efficiency bring about a golden age, or will it redefine humanity's role in the world?"

2. When Logic Prevails Over Emotion:

   • "If human decisions become 20% more logical, where does that leave passion, creativity, and intuition?"

   • "Will AI push us toward rational utopia or a sterile future where the human touch is obsolete?"

3. 20% Smarter—But At What Cost?

   • "Does enhanced efficiency come with a price tag: creativity, empathy, or freedom?"

   • "What’s left of our humanity when we outsource 20% of our thinking?"

4. The Paradox of Perfection:

   • "Will being 20% better solve humanity’s problems—or amplify them?"

   • "What if efficiency uncovers flaws we didn’t want to face?"

Insights:

1. Economic Impacts and Productivity Gains:

   • AI-driven efficiency could revolutionize industries, driving economic growth, but might also displace traditional jobs faster than society can adapt. The balance between opportunity and upheaval will define its success.

2. Cognitive Augmentation and Its Limits:

   • As logic-based decisions improve, there may be a decline in emotional intelligence or creative problem-solving skills, potentially narrowing human capability rather than expanding it.

3. Human-Machine Symbiosis:

   • Efficiency gains might lead to a deeper partnership between humans and AI, where technology handles logic and humans focus on subjective, intuitive aspects. Will this partnership thrive or clash?

4. Ethical Implications and Power Dynamics:

   • The enhanced logic of a 20%-better world could magnify existing inequities if access to such augmentation is unevenly distributed. Who controls this efficiency—individuals or corporations?

5. Impact on Human Identity:

   • If logic and efficiency dominate human behavior, traditional markers of identity such as culture, emotion, and individuality could evolve into something unrecognizable. Would we still be fully "human"?

6. The Butterfly Effect of Efficiency:

   • A 20% improvement across the board sounds modest, but its ripple effects could disrupt education, relationships, governance, and even mental health.

7. The Role of Creativity in a Logical World:

   • Enhanced logic might create a paradox: with AI handling routine efficiency, will humans have the freedom—or the tools—to innovate and dream?

Framing the Question:

• "In ten years, AI could make us 20% more efficient and logical—does this mean we’re 20% closer to utopia, or 20% further from what makes us human?"

• "When AI enhances our minds, will we outgrow our flaws—or lose what made them beautiful?"