5 ms·

The Dawn of Everything, by Graeber and Wengrow. Refutes most of the claims made by Harari in Sapiens, and shows everything you though you knew about prehistory

by bambax 3y ago

The Dawn of Everything, by Graeber and Wengrow. Refutes most of the claims made by Harari in Sapiens, and shows everything you though you knew about prehistory is plain wrong. It's a great book, very well written and well informed. Made me think that humanity's history isn't an arrow pointing in the direction of progress; we make experiments. Our current way of life is not the "best so far", it's but one arrangement among many other possible configurations. The alternative between this and going back to living in caves is a false choice.

v-erne 3y ago
>> Refutes most of the claims made by Harari in Sapiens Can You elaborate on this? - I quite liked Harraris book, especially his ideas about stories driving human cooperation and expansion. Does this false claims invalidates the main message of Sapiens?
- bambax 3y ago
  "Most" is an exaggeration; "many" would have been fine; it's been a while since I read Sapiens, sorry about that. I was mainly referring to how he talks about the invention of agriculture. There has never been an agricultural "revolution". Cultivation was practiced for at least 3,000 years (probably much longer) before some human groups decided to make it their main mode of subsistence, while many others, already familiar with the concept, decided not to.
  - richk449 3y ago
    Aside from semantics, that doesn’t seem to contradict Sapiens: In areas such as the Great Plains of North America, where not a single wheat stalk grew 10,000 years ago, you can today walk for hundreds upon hundreds of kilometers without encountering any other plant. Worldwide, wheat covers about 2.25 million square kilometers of the globe’s surface, almost ten times the size of Britain. How did this grass turn from insignificant to ubiquitous? Wheat did it by manipulating Homo sapiens to its advantage. This ape had been living a fairly comfortable life hunting and gathering until about 10,000 years ago, but then began to invest more and more effort in cultivating wheat. Within a couple of millennia, humans in many parts of the world were doing little from dawn to dusk other than taking care of wheat plants. It wasn’t easy.*
- Shorel 3y ago
  The easiest way to perceive the superficiality of Sapiens is to read: Dragons of Eden by Carl Sagan, immediately after the former. Then you have the master to judge the (accidental) student.
kingstoned 3y ago
There is a good review of the book you might like: https://www.theintrinsicperspective.com/p/the-gossip-trap https://www.theintrinsicperspective.com/p/the-gossip-trap
deostroll 3y ago
Harari doesn't pose the question to the reader! Europe's obsessions with exploration and conquests were driven by the scientific revolution. He does say that China could have very well done they part in it, but the Chinese rulers had no such global ambitions. With all this, it is a little premature to conclude that we are what we are because of our history. Although that is apparent if you look at it with that kind of objectiveness. But it could have been very well the Chinese if fate wanted it to be.
cpursley 3y ago
I like this suggestion and it made me think that maybe books should be read in pairs: both on the same topic but with opposing/contradictory views.
- Cthulhu_ 3y ago
  That's usually a good approach, especially scientific. When it comes to morals though, take heed. I'm not going to recommend anyone read Mein Kampf if they find the person behind it morally reprehensible.
- foolinaround 3y ago
  > maybe books should be read in pairs Great idea! Now we need a seperate thread or spreadsheet of books by eminent authors that present contradictory viewpoints!
  - cpursley 3y ago
    Such a cool idea! Possibly even an app idea (with money made on referrals).
- danschuller 3y ago
  A good pairing is Atlas Shrugged and The Illuminatus! Trilogy. I just happened to read at the same time but would recommend it.
- mkidd 3y ago
  An interesting pair is Saloons of the Old West (Richard Erdoes) and Jacob Hamblin Peacemaker (Pearson H. Corbett), not for contrasting views but rather contrasting visions of the U.S. West. Saloons details the all purpose role of the saloon, as social center, post office, traveling preacher's pulpit, etc, in support of a rapacious gold rush mentality to extract each resource as quickly as possible and move on. Hamblin, by contrast is an early Mormon pioneer repeatedly sent by Brigham Young to establish new towns in West as the Mormons made a bid for their own Zion. The early Mormons really were different from the rest of the folks heading West, very much intending permanent settlements and a farm based economy. The book title comes from Hamblin's command of Native American languages and ability to regularly make peace with the Native Americans. Peacemaker has references to the laying on of hands and other religious hoo-haw, but just ignore that and read it for the interesting historical document that it is.
isaacfrond 3y ago
I'd like to add Guns, Germs, and Steel by Jared Diamond. Borrowed from wikipedia: The book attempts to explain why Eurasian and North African civilizations have survived and conquered others, while arguing against the idea that Eurasian hegemony is due to any form of Eurasian intellectual, moral, or inherent genetic superiority. Diamond argues that the gaps in power and technology between human societies originate primarily in environmental differences, which are amplified by various positive feedback loops.
- SoftTalker 3y ago
  Thomas Sowell makes similar arguments on why most of Africa has stayed poor, it's mainly due to geography and environment that is not conducive to economic activity.
- vanderZwan 3y ago
  It's an engaging book. It's also really, really rejected by historians from just about every possible angle. The AskHistorians subreddit has an entire "frequently asked questions" section dedicated to it: https://old.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/wiki/historians_views/#wiki_historians.27_views_of_jared_diamond.27s_.22guns.2C_germs.2C_and_steel.22 https://old.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/wiki/historians_views... And don't let the reddit part fool you, AskHistorians is arguably one of the most high quality history forums out there, as the mods mercilessly enforce really, really strict rules that demands giving in-depth answers with sources. That page has lots of other in-depth answers on other popular "big history" books too, quite a sobering read honestly.
  - alexilliamson 3y ago
    AskHistorians is one of the finest things the Internet has to offer IMO
- Shorel 3y ago
  This book also inspired Harari to write Sapiens.
fsloth 3y ago
It's excellent. The quality of DoE demolishes by example the flimsy narrative in Harari's books. I like Sapiens from the point of view of being a lens about specific things in human condition - our capability to take imaginary things as hard truths for example - but Sapiens is closer an autofictional narrative of human condition, than any proper study of what history actually tells us.
paulusthe 3y ago
For what it's worth, sapiens was generally hated by academic anthropologists but Dawn of everything is generally hated by everyone else. Graeber was always expressly advocating for one specific (anarchist) viewpoint in his work, and that book suffers mightily for it. Don't take anything in that book as true, because I've read lots of academics losing their minds over how much he glossed over or just ignored contrary evidence.
- shanusmagnus 3y ago
  I'm not the author, but obligatory "not sure why this is being down-voted." I've been wondering about Graeber for a while, since his work seems suspiciously close to "messages certain people desperately want to hear" and I have strong priors against those accounts, regardless of which "side" they come from. Would love to hear perspective on this. The book would be a serious investment.
  - marojejian 3y ago
    below is a review I wrote of the book. despite my criticism, I'm glad I read it. But for a lot of people the ROI won't be good. " I rated this one star, but understand the context, that I am very sympathetic to both the mission and perspective of the authors. I wanted to love this, and want them to be right. In general their key points are interesting ones to consider. The modern state is not inevitable. Past people were as smart and creative as we are, and likely experimented with a vastly greater range of societies than we are familiar with. We could learn a lot from them, and should consider trying more experiments ourselves. As they assert, few others are attempting to broadly reconsider recent evidence in the way they do. But despite that, there is so much wrong with their execution. They started with their conclusion, and fit everything to that. Despite being massively long, the book is very short on actual evidence. It is very long on speculation, horrible logic, and frustrating repetition. My suggestion is to gain exposure to the ideas, by reading few solid reviews of it. Then just keep those ideas in mind, and follow other more specific evidence cases, by more responsible scholars. this episode of Tides of History podcast has some good coverage: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/what-is-the-state/id1257202425?i=1000553559282 https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/what-is-the-state/id12... "
bsenftner 3y ago
Dawn of Everything does a fantastic job of demonstrating how what is currently considered enlightened thinking derives largely from American Indians and their debates with Jesuit priests as the Indians pushed back against the Jesuits demanding conversion to Christianity by the Native Americans. If you like philosophy debate, the book is a treasure.

by bambax 3y ago

v-erne 3y ago

>> Refutes most of the claims made by Harari in Sapiens Can You elaborate on this? - I quite liked Harraris book, especially his ideas about stories driving human cooperation and expansion. Does this false claims invalidates the main message of Sapiens?

bambax 3y ago
"Most" is an exaggeration; "many" would have been fine; it's been a while since I read Sapiens, sorry about that. I was mainly referring to how he talks about the invention of agriculture. There has never been an agricultural "revolution". Cultivation was practiced for at least 3,000 years (probably much longer) before some human groups decided to make it their main mode of subsistence, while many others, already familiar with the concept, decided not to.
- richk449 3y ago
  Aside from semantics, that doesn’t seem to contradict Sapiens: In areas such as the Great Plains of North America, where not a single wheat stalk grew 10,000 years ago, you can today walk for hundreds upon hundreds of kilometers without encountering any other plant. Worldwide, wheat covers about 2.25 million square kilometers of the globe’s surface, almost ten times the size of Britain. How did this grass turn from insignificant to ubiquitous? Wheat did it by manipulating Homo sapiens to its advantage. This ape had been living a fairly comfortable life hunting and gathering until about 10,000 years ago, but then began to invest more and more effort in cultivating wheat. Within a couple of millennia, humans in many parts of the world were doing little from dawn to dusk other than taking care of wheat plants. It wasn’t easy.*
Shorel 3y ago
The easiest way to perceive the superficiality of Sapiens is to read: Dragons of Eden by Carl Sagan, immediately after the former. Then you have the master to judge the (accidental) student.

kingstoned 3y ago

There is a good review of the book you might like: https://www.theintrinsicperspective.com/p/the-gossip-trap https://www.theintrinsicperspective.com/p/the-gossip-trap

deostroll 3y ago

Harari doesn't pose the question to the reader! Europe's obsessions with exploration and conquests were driven by the scientific revolution. He does say that China could have very well done they part in it, but the Chinese rulers had no such global ambitions. With all this, it is a little premature to conclude that we are what we are because of our history. Although that is apparent if you look at it with that kind of objectiveness. But it could have been very well the Chinese if fate wanted it to be.

cpursley 3y ago

I like this suggestion and it made me think that maybe books should be read in pairs: both on the same topic but with opposing/contradictory views.

Cthulhu_ 3y ago
That's usually a good approach, especially scientific. When it comes to morals though, take heed. I'm not going to recommend anyone read Mein Kampf if they find the person behind it morally reprehensible.
foolinaround 3y ago
> maybe books should be read in pairs Great idea! Now we need a seperate thread or spreadsheet of books by eminent authors that present contradictory viewpoints!
- cpursley 3y ago
  Such a cool idea! Possibly even an app idea (with money made on referrals).
danschuller 3y ago
A good pairing is Atlas Shrugged and The Illuminatus! Trilogy. I just happened to read at the same time but would recommend it.
mkidd 3y ago
An interesting pair is Saloons of the Old West (Richard Erdoes) and Jacob Hamblin Peacemaker (Pearson H. Corbett), not for contrasting views but rather contrasting visions of the U.S. West. Saloons details the all purpose role of the saloon, as social center, post office, traveling preacher's pulpit, etc, in support of a rapacious gold rush mentality to extract each resource as quickly as possible and move on. Hamblin, by contrast is an early Mormon pioneer repeatedly sent by Brigham Young to establish new towns in West as the Mormons made a bid for their own Zion. The early Mormons really were different from the rest of the folks heading West, very much intending permanent settlements and a farm based economy. The book title comes from Hamblin's command of Native American languages and ability to regularly make peace with the Native Americans. Peacemaker has references to the laying on of hands and other religious hoo-haw, but just ignore that and read it for the interesting historical document that it is.

isaacfrond 3y ago

I'd like to add Guns, Germs, and Steel by Jared Diamond. Borrowed from wikipedia: The book attempts to explain why Eurasian and North African civilizations have survived and conquered others, while arguing against the idea that Eurasian hegemony is due to any form of Eurasian intellectual, moral, or inherent genetic superiority. Diamond argues that the gaps in power and technology between human societies originate primarily in environmental differences, which are amplified by various positive feedback loops.

SoftTalker 3y ago
Thomas Sowell makes similar arguments on why most of Africa has stayed poor, it's mainly due to geography and environment that is not conducive to economic activity.
vanderZwan 3y ago
It's an engaging book. It's also really, really rejected by historians from just about every possible angle. The AskHistorians subreddit has an entire "frequently asked questions" section dedicated to it: https://old.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/wiki/historians_views/#wiki_historians.27_views_of_jared_diamond.27s_.22guns.2C_germs.2C_and_steel.22 https://old.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/wiki/historians_views... And don't let the reddit part fool you, AskHistorians is arguably one of the most high quality history forums out there, as the mods mercilessly enforce really, really strict rules that demands giving in-depth answers with sources. That page has lots of other in-depth answers on other popular "big history" books too, quite a sobering read honestly.
- alexilliamson 3y ago
  AskHistorians is one of the finest things the Internet has to offer IMO
Shorel 3y ago
This book also inspired Harari to write Sapiens.

fsloth 3y ago

It's excellent. The quality of DoE demolishes by example the flimsy narrative in Harari's books. I like Sapiens from the point of view of being a lens about specific things in human condition - our capability to take imaginary things as hard truths for example - but Sapiens is closer an autofictional narrative of human condition, than any proper study of what history actually tells us.

paulusthe 3y ago

For what it's worth, sapiens was generally hated by academic anthropologists but Dawn of everything is generally hated by everyone else. Graeber was always expressly advocating for one specific (anarchist) viewpoint in his work, and that book suffers mightily for it. Don't take anything in that book as true, because I've read lots of academics losing their minds over how much he glossed over or just ignored contrary evidence.

shanusmagnus 3y ago
I'm not the author, but obligatory "not sure why this is being down-voted." I've been wondering about Graeber for a while, since his work seems suspiciously close to "messages certain people desperately want to hear" and I have strong priors against those accounts, regardless of which "side" they come from. Would love to hear perspective on this. The book would be a serious investment.
- marojejian 3y ago
  below is a review I wrote of the book. despite my criticism, I'm glad I read it. But for a lot of people the ROI won't be good. " I rated this one star, but understand the context, that I am very sympathetic to both the mission and perspective of the authors. I wanted to love this, and want them to be right. In general their key points are interesting ones to consider. The modern state is not inevitable. Past people were as smart and creative as we are, and likely experimented with a vastly greater range of societies than we are familiar with. We could learn a lot from them, and should consider trying more experiments ourselves. As they assert, few others are attempting to broadly reconsider recent evidence in the way they do. But despite that, there is so much wrong with their execution. They started with their conclusion, and fit everything to that. Despite being massively long, the book is very short on actual evidence. It is very long on speculation, horrible logic, and frustrating repetition. My suggestion is to gain exposure to the ideas, by reading few solid reviews of it. Then just keep those ideas in mind, and follow other more specific evidence cases, by more responsible scholars. this episode of Tides of History podcast has some good coverage: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/what-is-the-state/id1257202425?i=1000553559282 https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/what-is-the-state/id12... "

bsenftner 3y ago

Dawn of Everything does a fantastic job of demonstrating how what is currently considered enlightened thinking derives largely from American Indians and their debates with Jesuit priests as the Indians pushed back against the Jesuits demanding conversion to Christianity by the Native Americans. If you like philosophy debate, the book is a treasure.