I put a hold on Sapiens: A Brief History of Human Kind about half a year ago, after reading the first few pages of my father-in-law’s copy. Based on that sampling, I’d assumed the book was a work of popular anthropology, and would focus on the rise of Sapiens alongside the other Homo species alive in prehistoric times.
It turns out that is only the first chapter.
Sapiens is, in fact, a much broader and more ambitious book than I’d expected. Its goal is no less than to present an encapluated history of the whole of humanity, describing a few touchstone events, but focusing at its core of the nature of what a human first was ,what it is now, and what it might one day become.
I’ve read that academics have criticized the book as unserious and lightly sourced. There is some truth to this, but Sapiens doesn’t present itself as a detailed accounting of human history—how could it? there’s an awful lot of it for one book—but instead invites the reader to question a lot of basic assumptions about what humans are, and how they have become the dominant species on earth. One part I found particularly interesting was his suggestion of why Europe, and not the economically and numerically superior China, went on to conquer the world through empire (he suggests it was the scientific revolution, which was underpinned by the European midset that huamn knowledge is incomplete, and the shift to capitalist doctrine that celebrated growth).
Perhaps the most enjoyable aspect of the book is that Harari’s writing is in no way strident. He sees humanity neither as a divine being nor pestilential evil. He simply recounts things as the yhappened, and draws no moral conclusions (with the slight exception of animal rights, where he shows his cards a bit).
One critic likened the book to dorm room chatter, and while I can see where he’s coming from, this is chatter form a very bright student indeed. Sapiens is well-written and it made me think. I can’t as kfor much more than that in a non-fiction book.