Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind

by Yuval Noah Harari

Problem with this is that there is very little evidence that brain size is related to intelligence in mammals. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4685590/#:~:text=There%20is%20no%20clear%20correlation,definitely%20is%20not%20the%20case.

And, indeed, compared to other animals, humans are born prematurely, when many of their vital systems are still under-developed.

I think Harari really could have used some inline citations or footnotes here. This is one of the criticisms that I see a lot in reviews of this book, and I’m starting — even this early on — to see why. The “Obstetrical Dilemma” that he’s talking about here (even though he doesn’t use that term) is a fascinating bit of evolutionary science and history (though the question is not quite as settled as he makes it seem). Without an inline reference, he makes the reader do too much work.

One of the most common uses of early stone tools was to crack open bones in order to get to the marrow.

https://phys.org/news/2021-01-early-humans-tools-animal-bones.amp

Many historical calamities, from deadly wars to ecological catastrophes, have resulted from this over-hasty jump.

This is a pretty significant claim to be making with zero citations provided.

Sapiens.1

This is the only footnote/citation for this chapter. There is no annotation or link, or quote.

they gained control of an obedient and potentially limitless force.

Is fire really “obedient” and “limitless”? I understand what he’s saying—that by learning to creat and to an extent, control, fire, we were exerting a far greater amount of control over our environment and ecosystem than we ever could, and this control is what allows us to change our environment to suit our lifestyle, rather than the other way around. But I wouldn’t say fire is an “obedient” force so much as we made it tame-able.

The opposing view, called the ‘Replacement Theory’ tells a very different story – one of incompatibility, revulsion, and perhaps even genocide.

This REALLY needs more context and an annotated citation. There is a question of *why* Homo sapiens survived while Neanderthals did not, but there are sufficient answers to the question without the implication of widespread inter-species violence — environmental factors and natural disasters in addition to interbreeding. Sapiens were more adaptable to their environment but also learning to adapt their environment itself (as Harari has already touched upon in this chapter). What evidence is there of widespread inter-species violence that could have led to Neanderthal’s extinction? Given their physical advantages, purely violent conflicts likely would have favored neanderthals, not sapiens.

A lot hinges on this debate.

Harari is treating it like there’s a great debate between two competing theories. From what I can gather, there are several theories, which mostly complement rather than compete with each other. There were almost certainly multiple factors in the Neanderthal extinction.

If the Replacement Theory is correct, all living humans have roughly the same genetic baggage, and racial distinctions among them are negligible. But if the Interbreeding Theory is right, there might well be genetic differences between Africans, Europeans and Asians that go back hundreds of thousands of years. This is political dynamite, which could provide material for explosive racial theories.

I don’t understand this argument, since we can study genetics and human biology today. We know the differences between races and ethnicities are superficial at best. There are far more significant differences between us and prehistoric humans than there are between different ethnicities and races in today’s humans.

On the other hand, they were not just different populations of the same species, like bulldogs and spaniels.

There is no perfect definition of a “species”. There is a taxonomical model that groups Homo sapiens into different *subspecies* — so modern humans are Homo sapiens *sapiens*, Neanderthals were Homo sapiens neanderthalensis. It’s not a question of which taxonomical definition is correct — that is subjective. It would not be necessarily wrong to class sapiens and Neanderthals as the same species, just as it is not necessarily wrong to group them as separate species.

Tolerance is not a Sapiens trademark. In modern times, a small difference in skin colour, dialect or religion has been enough to prompt one group of Sapiens to set about exterminating another group.

I don’t think we can make assumptions about pre-historic sapiens based on the behavior and culture of humans in the present day — or even from the past few thousand years. Of course, all predator species have a violent side to their nature in order to survive. That’s a far cry from political violence arising from the advent of civilization, though.

This poor record of achievement has led scholars to speculate that the internal structure of the brains of these Sapiens was probably different from ours. They looked like us, but their cognitive abilities – learning, remembering, communicating – were far more limited. Teaching such ancient Sapiens to speak English, persuading them of the truth of Christian dogma, or getting them to understand the theory of evolution would probably have been hopeless undertakings. Conversely, we would have had a very hard time learning their communication system and way of thinking.

I feel like this has less to do with their brains and more due to the fact that they didn’t yet have the tools to pass down their knowledge to future generations — so each generation builds upon the discoveries of the previous one. Without this, every person has to learn from scratch. There’s no a priori knowledge to build upon.

Most researchers believe that these unprecedented accomplishments were the product of a revolution in Sapiens’ cognitive abilities. They maintain that the people who drove the Neanderthals to extinction, settled Australia, and carved the Stadel lion-man were as intelligent, creative and sensitive as we are.

This revolution may have been more social than innate. The ability to share knowledge. The growth of social systems allowing people to specialize — to expand existing knowledge in areas where previous generations hadn’t had the time to.

The appearance of new ways of thinking and communicating, between 70,000 and 30,000 years ago, constitutes the Cognitive Revolution. What caused it? We’re not sure.

I mean, Harari says the answer right there in this paragraph — with the word “communicating”. It’s language.

to communicate using an altogether new type of language.

New type of language? It was language itself. Language evolved to be more complex which gave us a way to communicate even more complex ideas — which enabled people to learn from each other. It’s not that we didn’t evolve genetically, but evolution doesn’t work as fast as the expansion of shared knowledge. Evolution works over millions of years — growth of shared knowledge is exponential.

The gossip theory might sound like a joke, but numerous studies support it. Even today the vast majority of human communication – whether in the form of emails, phone calls or newspaper columns – is gossip.

In its simplest definition, gossip is a way to communicate about what happened at another time/another place — language beyond here and now.

This ability to speak about fictions is the most unique feature of Sapiens language.

Related to the same idea as before — if we can talk about what is not happening in the here and now, the next step would be to be able to communicate things that don’t exist at all. We explain abstract or mythical concepts using concrete language. We use what does exist, what we do experience, to describe something else. Language went from describing what was happening here, now, to describing what happened somewhere else, which required us to form and retain an impression of that thing. Those impressions could then be used to create stories and, yes, fictions.

However, fiction has enabled us not merely to imagine things, but to do so collectively.

The purpose of language is to connect with other people.

That’s why Sapiens rule the world, whereas ants eat our leftovers and chimps are locked up in zoos and research laboratories.

While I agree that our language is why humans are where we are compared to other animals, I wish he’d mention *generational* communication — how it gave us the ability to build upon knowledge and ideas of previous generations, so we grew more and more complex.

The dominant member, who is almost always a male, is termed the ‘alpha male’.

The term “alpha male” shouldn’t be confused with the common connotation of that term. In chimpanzees, alpha males are known to lead with respect, kindness and generosity. It is not all “might makes right”. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/alpha-male-alpha-chimpanzee-primatologist-frans-de-waal-a8421291.html#:~:text=Alpha%20chimpanzees%20are%20impressive%20and,%2C%E2%80%9D%20Mr%20De%20Waal%20said.

The alpha male usually wins his position not because he is physically stronger, but because he leads a large and stable coalition. These coalitions play a central part not only during overt struggles for the alpha position, but in almost all day-to-day activities. Members of a coalition spend more time together, share food, and help one another in times of trouble.

The leader is the one who takes care of the group, not the one who bullies and physically dominates them. Leadership is granted by the group.

Researchers have documented prolonged warfare between groups, and even one case of ‘genocidal’ activity in which one troop systematically slaughtered most members of a neighbouring band.

I am skeptical about the use of the term “warfare” here, which implies some sort of strategical conflict. Almost all animals will fight and kill to protect their precious resources — even members of their own species who threaten their survival. But I am not convinced any other species has the cognitive ability necessary to conduct war and genocide. To me, these terms imply some sort of forethought.

The secret was probably the appearance of fiction. Large numbers of strangers can cooperate successfully by believing in common myths.

I am always weary of an idea that sounds good, and is presented like something that has been backed up by research and experts, but is really just the author’s opinion and has no sources to support it. Also, I don’t like that he doesn’t differentiate between “fiction” and “myth”. Myth attempts to explain a truth (or supposed truth) using a story that is not supposed to be taken as factual. Fiction is made primarily to entertain, not explain.

There are no gods in the universe,

no nations, no money, no human rights, no laws, and no justice outside the common imagination of human beings.

The author’s agenda is showing itself here. I don’t mind books having an agenda, as long as they are honest about it and it is relevant to the book’s scope and intention. I’m skeptical Harari has met either criteria.

Lawyers call this a ‘legal fiction’.

This isn’t what “legal fiction” means, unless you want to claim the law itself is a legal fiction. Yes, treat corporations as people is called a “legal fiction” but it’s not for the reasons cited here. It’s not an idea about treating intangible ideas as tangible objects. It can be, but that’s not its definition. A corporation is the whole of its assets, many of which absolutely are real, tangible things. The corporation isn’t a fiction — the idea that it is a person is. Also, something being intangible doesn’t mean it’s not real. Social constructs are real. Ideas are real.

The difficulty lies not in telling the story, but in convincing everyone else to believe it.

I get what he’s saying but I don’t like this framing of our social agreements as being imaginary. Systems and instructions exist and hold power because people—as a whole—agree to them. They are real, even if they aren’t tangible.

Yet when it succeeds, it gives Sapiens immense power, because it enables millions of strangers to cooperate and work towards common goals. Just try to imagine how difficult it would have been to create states, or churches, or legal systems if we could speak only about things that really exist, such as rivers, trees and lions.

While I have taken issue with the definition of existent and non-existent used here, this is the heart of it. Our ability to conceptualize intangible things sets us apart from every other species that we know about.

Unlike lying, an imagined reality is something that everyone believes in, and as long as this communal belief persists, the imagined reality exerts force in the world.

I think we need to differentiate the belief in some mythological story versus a societal agreement to give weight to an institution because it provides us needed social structure and security.

In 1789 the French population switched almost overnight from believing in the myth of the divine right of kings to believing in the myth of the sovereignty of the people.

I would say there’s a difference between the idea that is enforced by might and fear and the idea that is enforced by cooperation and mutual benefit. I’m sure the French didn’t suddenly decide that they didn’t want to live under their monarchy anymore. They just decided it was time they could do something about it.

However, our capacity to cooperate with large numbers of strangers has improved dramatically.

I think the ability to mass communicate ideas is only half the picture. It’s important to note the spread of ideas not just across large groups, but generations.

Many scholars vehemently reject this theory, insisting that both monogamy and the forming of nuclear families are core human behaviours.

I don’t understand what “core human behaviors” means. Clearly, humans became socially monogamous at some point in our genetic history or in our evolutionary tree. The question is when. This seems to get into the false “humans are/are not naturally monogamous debate”. Even if our distant ancestors were not monogamous (which he doesn’t provide any evidence for) that doesn’t prove that monogamy goes against our “default settings”. We didn’t stop evolving when we were hunter-gatherers.

these researchers argue,

What researchers?

The heated debates about Homo sapiens’ ‘natural way of life’ miss the main point. Ever since the Cognitive Revolution, there hasn’t been a single natural way of life for Sapiens. There are only cultural choices, from among a bewildering palette of possibilities.

I agree wholeheartedly with this.

Most of us lack expert knowledge of the flaking properties of flint and basalt and the fine motor skills needed to work them precisely.

Lost knowledge — there are things we know our ancestors knew but we no longer do.

on the whole foragers seem to have enjoyed a more comfortable and rewarding lifestyle than most of the peasants, shepherds, labourers and office clerks who followed in their footsteps.

No.

play with the children

The living children that is. Half of them died by puberty. https://ourworldindata.org/child-mortality-in-the-past

Of course the tigers sometimes caught them, or a snake bit them, but on the other hand they didn’t have to deal with automobile accidents and industrial pollution.

They also didn’t have that pesky modern medicine if they happened to get a snake bite.

By contrast, ancient foragers regularly ate dozens of different foodstuffs.

They were still limited by the seasonal biodiversity (or lack of) of their local ecosystem. They are what was available because otherwise they’d starve. This is a very disingenuous defense.

Agricultural societies are ravaged by famine when drought, fire or earthquake devastates the annual rice or potato crop. Forager societies were hardly immune to natural disasters, and suffered from periods of want and hunger, but they were usually able to deal with such calamities more easily. If they lost some of their staple foodstuffs, they could gather or hunt other species, or move to a less affected area.

What? Is the author saying agriculture made people more susceptible to starvation due to disaster/drought/famine? Being able to mass produce more food and preserve that food for a longer period of time?

Ancient foragers also suffered less from infectious diseases.

Maybe they suffered from fewer infectious diseases; that does not mean they suffered LESS from them.

We should be careful, though, not to judge the Aché too quickly.

It’s not about judging them morally, but understanding how violence and murder of “weak” individuals of a foraging or nomadic tribe may bias our understandings of their overall health and longevity. If foraging tribes culled members less likely to survive, it could lead us to underestimate the health and disease risks they faced.

became the deadliest species ever in the four-billion-year history of life on Earth.

The world’s deadliest animal is probably the mosquito. Although, to be fair, there are thousands of species of mosquitoes.

Firstly, even though Australia’s climate changed some 45,000 years ago, it wasn’t a very remarkable upheaval.

Extinctions could have taken place over tens of thousands of years in Australia, and in that time, the earth moved toward its last glacial maximum, which was the coldest period in human history. So, no, climate change was not insignificant.

But the historical record makes Homo sapiens look like an ecological serial killer.

No doubt humans were an invasive species when they arrived on other continents. That said, I think that without an awareness of the ecological consequences of their migration, we shouldn’t judge them, or deem human action during this time as outside of the natural order. Like all species, humans were motivated by their own survival. That is the basis of macroevolution. Ecosystems are constantly evolving, as well.

the inevitable conclusion is that the first wave of Sapiens colonisation was one of the biggest and swiftest ecological disasters to befall the animal kingdom.

The Permian–Triassic extinction event is the worst disaster in the history of the animal kingdom. That isn’t in question. The current Holocene mass extinction (which the earth is currently undergoing, largely caused by human activities) is on par with the Cretaceous–Paleogene (K-T) extinction event, but it is not proposed that this event is at the same level of intensity as the P-T event. If the author is speaking of shorter-term disasters, the asteroid impact that formed the Chicxulub crater and caused the K-T extinction is, I would say, a greater disaster in terms of how far the impacts reached and how quickly it caused ecological upheaval against an event that occurred literally in one moment in time.

The archaeological record of island after island tells the same sad story.

He keeps harping on this, but in truth we cannot separate humans of this time from the natural cycle of life and death and new life. Species drive other species to extinction. The rulers of the earth die, new rulers take their place. Ecosystems undergo massive transformation as organisms fight for survival. It was only when humans became aware of how their actions were affecting the ecosystem that it can be called unnatural, because then they can knowingly manipulate the environment and “play God” over who lives and who dies. Without that knowledge, their only crime was existing and surviving, and being better at it than their contemporaries.

Don’t believe tree-huggers who claim that our ancestors lived in harmony with nature.

This was nature!

Among all the world’s large creatures, the only survivors of the human flood will be humans themselves, and the farmyard animals that serve as galley slaves in Noah’s Ark.

I mean, maybe? And I do believe we need to safeguard the ecosystem and mitigate our effect on the planet, but no species is immortal. The death of one species can lead to the flourishing of another. It is not just death all around.

Scholars once proclaimed that the agricultural revolution was a great leap forward for humanity.

They still do, in fact. It is arguable whether agriculture improved the lives of the societies that originally implemented it — there were plenty of trade-offs. But in terms of moving humankind forward as a whole, it brought us forward as a species. For better and worse.