4 ms·
I was impressed by Sapiens, this probably am biased. But once I read it, I did not really follow Harari as a person, because there was no reason too. I probably
by YeBanKo 4y ago
I was impressed by Sapiens, this probably am biased. But once I read it, I did not really follow Harari as a person, because there was no reason too. I probably just skimmed through a quoter of a book, where the author was speculating about the future or overall going into off-the-ramp speculations, the rest was thoroughly enjoyable and I am yet to find any pop science book where an author does not engage in some speculations. It was a good attempt at looking at the entirety of human history through a lens of evolution, biology, economy and pure randomness. But it is a pop science, not a research paper. This article, however, read like a pamphlet fueld by jealousy of someone else’ success.
> earning hundreds of thousands of dollars per speaking appearance.
On par with Hillary Clinton, no?
> Harari concludes that, “many historical calamities, from deadly wars to ecological catastrophes, have resulted from this over-hasty jump.” As an evolutionary biologist, I have to say: this passage sets my teeth on edge.
It is a speculation, ok. And right now, we are on the brink of a nuclear war, because of one man’s insecurities. So to suggest that our non-linear evolution afforded us means of mass and self-destruction, but no commensurable means of self-control is not such a wild conjecture. And anyway, even we want to look into science of it, there is really no much science to look at. Because when it comes to history of humanity there is a sample of one and fundamental irreproducibility. As you step away from pure biology towards any field that studies human as a species or human societies, it is ridden with unsustained claims and politicization.
It reminds me of Taleb’s work on black swan and skin in the game. Sure, to some devoted followers now everything is a black swan and trump and putin are the champions. But you don’t need to subscribe to his entire philosophy to agree that he brings up many good points, that might have been hidden otherwise.
- fedeb95 4y agoPlease sustain your claim that there isn't science into the study of human evolution. Some rigor is indeed possible, it's pretty easy to say there isn't looking from the outside. Sure you can't apply fancy statistics or mathematical proof. But just to sustain that by not doing it you don't have nothing to gain from a study more serious that Harari's is a big claim that needs justification. Also your claim about Harari's conjecture being somehow relevant because Putin is a dictator is just meaningless. A note: I find it disturbing that an historian is so much paid and supported by various questionable people. The politicisation might be just there. Why is he the only historian paid that much, while at the same time providing a view of history no other historian agrees to (in serious publications)?
- MrsPeaches 4y agoI found sapiens to be a frustrating read with endless talking-out-of-your-arse speculation that I would expect from an undergrad with delusions of grandeur. I generally recommend this book as a much better survey of the history of humanity: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/408204.Ideas https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/408204.Ideas