Sapiens, by Yuval Harari, raises the question of why humans conquered planet earth. This is an important and timely question. We will have trouble planning for future success unless we know why we succeeded in the past. Although I very much enjoyed the book and many of Harari’s colorful arguments, as well as his sweeping picture of human history, I do not think his main hypothesis is correct. Harari’s main hypothesis is that Homos sapien’s key innovation is the ability to believe fictions and fairy tales, and place faith in gurus and prophets. Because of this faith, humans transmit information about things that do not really exist, like tribal spirits, nations, limited liability companies, human rights, capitalism, and money. Homo sapien’s key innovation then is not wisdom, imagination, knowledge (despite the name “sapiens”), or the ability to question dogma and tradition, but self-deception, departure from reality, and blind belief in fiction.
It is an interesting thesis, but obviously not correct when stated simply. Human history can be understood as a series of events in which sapiens destroyed myths, coldly and soberly slapped himself in the face, and trudged forward despite truths that are sometimes difficult to accept (my world is not the center of the universe, what I experience as flat is actually round, the apparent time I experience is not absolute, species were not all independently created by God for my enjoyment, and natural selection is not the only deterministic force of evolution). Indeed, the most remarkable thing about sapiens is the species’ ability to overcome constraints of blind belief and tradition. Humanity repeatedly stepped outside the box to create novel technologies and theories, and used them to both understand reality and conquer the world. The bronze age, the iron age, the industrial revolution, the rise of capitalism and science, the technological revolution. Harari touches on some of these events but does not provide a clear explanatory framework. The glaring omission is how humans destroyed myths and why this is unique and important.
Harari has no coherent explanation for the success of science or capitalism. According to Harari, science originated because Man realized his own ignorance (“modern science has no dogma,” he says on p. 254). No dogma in science? You don’t need an extended education in the history of science to know this is false. In almost every episode of the popular TV show Cosmos, for example, we meet some scientist who questioned the dogma of his peers and was literally or figuratively burned at the stake (e.g., Giordano Bruno, Charles Darwin, Michael Faraday, etc.). The real question is why science advances despite the widespread dogmatism and reliance on tradition that promotes everyday scientific progress and efficiency (e.g., Kuhn 1962). Harari also describes the success of capitalism in generating collective wealth as resulting from individuals pursuing their self-interests and the tendency to invest profits into further production (rather than hoarding them). But a feudal lord might pursue his self-interests by defending his territory, and he might invest in weaponry and mercenaries. Why, then, does the standard of living increases in capitalistic economies but not under feudalistic economies, command economies (e.g., the former Soviet Union), or hypothetical unrestricted free market economies (which have never actually existed), even though in all such systems it can be reasonably assumed that individuals pursue their self-interests?
From Harari’s perspective, we blindly believe in capitalism and we have an unwarranted trust in the future. We are consumerists hooked on growth with blind folders on, hurtling toward the edge of a cliff. Capitalism is just one more of those “fictions” that we believe. It is not surprising, then, that Harari suggests we are hooked on consumerism, and this is the cause of unhappiness. Once again, however, materialism is not restricted to capitalism. A feudal lord might be obsessed with gaining silver and jewels; a command-economy bureaucrat might be obsessed with fancy vodkas and Cuban cigars. What Harari ignores here is that more collective wealth under capitalism gives people the freedom to choose consumerism/materialism versus self-knowledge and creativity. More wealth means more leisure time: in addition to consumerism, one might indulge in tinkering and inventing new things. One might also indulge in being a critic of new technologies, like the editors of Wired or Consumer Reports; or in the extreme form, the Amish.
A main problem with Harari’s approach is that he does not stay on task supporting his central hypothesis of why believing in fictions was so great for us in the first place—or paying sufficient tribute to the alternative that this is not really what makes sapiens unique. To be truly convinced that humans succeeded for blindly believing in fictions, rather than for destroying myths, I would want a lot more evidence that humans do not really understand things like money, science, and capitalism. Regarding capitalism, for example, this would require an up-to-date analysis. It is now becoming clearer that people follow incentives in all economic systems, but under capitalism this improves material well being because it leads to greater technological innovation. Why is this true? Harari does not answer this question. Instead, he paints capitalism as if it is addicted to growth, which is like saying that the nation’s top heart surgeon is addicted to money, while a quack is not. Economic growth is the single most important economic feature that has contributed to material well-being, and material well being leads to smarter humans (e.g., well-fed children are able to learn in school because they are not distracted by hunger). Collective wealth also allows nations to cope with disasters.
If Harari did so little to support his central thesis, then why did his book sell so well (10 M + sales)? I think there are two reasons. First, Harari employs the “narrative” style that book publishers push for nonfiction. By employing this style, Harari distracts us on every page with interesting detours. The drawback is an unsupported just-so story for a central thesis. Indeed, one of the main criticisms of Harari is that he “tells it as it is,” without supporting his arguments (which in a book of such length, is not excusable). Second, throughout his narrative, Harari gives two conflicting messages: (1) humans had a cognitive revolution and conquered the world because they blindly believed in fictions; and (2) humans are fools and may go extinct because they blindly believe in fictions. By juggling these messages during various stories, Harari does not remain critical of his central thesis, and creates a situation where it is difficult to question it.
Harari ultimately does little to illuminate the point in human history when myth-destruction took a quantum leap. The particular point was the industrial revolution, spurred by the near-simultaneous origin of capitalism and science. Another author who focused on this point was Jared Diamond in Guns, Germs, and Steel. Diamond’s goal was to explain the success of Northwestern Europeans, while Harari’s was to explain the success of humans in general. Harari’s Sapiens would thus a natural sequel to Diamond’s book. However, Diamond’s book explained the preconditions for the industrial revolution. A proper sequel to Diamond’s book would not be an analysis of why humans believe in myths, but why capitalism originated in Northwestern Europe rather than East Asia, why capitalism succeeded relative to other economic systems, and how capitalism and science have reinforced each other’s success. I would argue that an account to explain the success of humans, and one that would give us insights into the future success, must explain why capitalism and science originated and succeeded in the first place, and how they interact.
Harari’s ignoring of myth-busting is also relevant to his secondary thesis. Harari’s secondary thesis is that believing in fictions is what allowed humans to cooperate flexibly in large numbers. An alternative argument is that flexible cooperation in large numbers in is what allowed humans to bust myths in both capitalism and science, and this is what was most important for humans conquering the world (smaller-scale cooperation also allows humans to bust myths, for example between Adam and Jamie on Mythbusters). I would suggest that understanding the dynamics of myth-busting cooperation is what is most important for understanding our past and future. In other words, it is important to understand not only why people cooperate, but in particular how they cooperate in order to overcome the constraints of tradition, invent new things, and make great advancements in technology and science.
In conclusion, we have conquered the planet, and there is a lot of apprehension about where we are going. The general public still doesn’t know why capitalism or science succeeded, what the relationship between these institutions really is, or what makes mankind unique. The only currently-accepted unified theory of evolution tells us there is nothing special about Man: He is just a naked ape, a third chimpanzee. So we rejoice when somebody asks the question of what makes us unique, even if the answer is a glum, “we blindly believe in fictions.”
Diamond, Jared M. Guns, Germs and Steel. Random House, 1998.
Harari, Yuval Noah. Sapiens. Random House, 2014.
Kuhn, Thomas. 1962. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Smith, A. 1776. The Wealth of Nations. Strahan and Cadell. London.