Review of “Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind”
Parts 6-8, Re-engaging the sciences; On the telling of the history of humankind and not humans; On the challenges of the future; The idolatry of the futurist; Conclusion
by Daniel H Chew
Book: Yuval Noah Harari, Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind (London, UK: Penguin Random House, 2011)
Outline:
Specific critiques: History of primeval human development: preliminary concerns
Specific critiques: The problem of induction; Christianity and the Nature of Religion
Re-engaging the sciences: The Neanderthals and Denisovans again
As we re-engage the sciences, we must recall the difference between the facts and speculation. When it comes to Neanderthals and Denisovans, Harari made them out to be almost animals (p. 19), making it seem as it breeding with them is like breeding with cows and horses! But as science would have it, we actually have proof that Neanderthals are very similar to us, and in fact we should not call them a different species than us at all.
In a study, scientists have found that, of 14,000 protein-altering locations, Neanderthal DNA matches with humans in 91.5% of them. (14) Neanderthals have been found to be genetically similar to humans, and even a reconstruction of how a Neanderthal might look like (reproduced also by Harari in page 18) looks human enough. Since Neanderthal DNA are indeed present in the modern human population, there is simply no reason why they (as well as the Denisovans) cannot be considered a branch of modern humans: Homo sapiens neanderthalensis instead of Homo neanderthalensis.
Since that is the case, Harari’s narrative of Homo sapiens supplanting other human species is wrong. It is not in line with the current scientific evidence, and its only purpose seems to be making humans less lonely in the evolutionary tree.
As for human evolution in general, besides Neanderthal and Denisovans (and some might argue for H. erectus), the skulls of supposed earlier homonids are either apes or humans. The evidence for human evolution is sorely lacking (15) , and in some cases tainted with fraud, as in the case of Piltdown Man. (16)
Re-engaging history and the sciences: Primeval human society
If point A is rejected, then much of the supposed history concerning primeval humans goes as well. The “curtain of silence” (p. 68) is silent because it simply does not exist.
In the biblical narrative, primeval human society began as a society complete with language, religion, and the knowledge of farming and herding animals (Gen. 4:1-4). Primeval humans also have the brilliance to innovate housing, architecture, music and metallurgy (Gen. 4:17-22). There never was a time when humans could not do all that was required of them prior to the non-existent Agricultural Revolution. Example of foraging and tribal societies are just variations of what Primeval Man could have opted to do, with no evolution of society necessary from the supposed simple forager to the agriculturalist and city-dweller. Some primeval humans chose to live in cities, while others (like Abraham) live in tents, all at the same time.
Harari’s approach is in error because he compares modern tribes and foragers as if they were like primeval human society (pp. 59-60), an error I had pointed out earlier. If one goes strictly by what is factual, the case for there being any primeval foraging bands that would one day evolve into agriculturalists is unsupported by any evidence whatsoever.
The only thing that might have evolved was writing, and that because it was not necessary in a society that emphasizes oral tradition. Even then, we cannot be sure, since it is possible for ancient writing to be done on perishable material and thus lost to time.
The development of primeval human society therefore is indeed from simpler societies to complex societies, but only in magnitude not in kind. There were cities in the time of Cain, which were probably small and the size of small castles, and there were cities like the cities of Nineveh, Babylon, and Rome in the ancient world. Complexity comes with increasing number of people and development of ideas over time, not because of a change in the kind of humans.
General critique
On the telling of history of humankind and not humans
As was said earlier, there is indeed something disturbing when a history of humans does not require any human in particular, but rather presents itself as a history of humankind as opposed to human history. A history of humankind is ultimately a history of ideas, because it is ideas and changes in society that are its major markers.
Now, the problem with a history of ideas is that people are peripheral to the discussion. We have already seen how that becomes a problem when what people actually think and believe are ignored, leading us to a false history of the Scientific Revolution. This comes up again when the adherents of any and all religions are ignored and not taken into account when Harari promotes the liberal modernist view of the history and philosophy of religion. Thus, this focus on ideas and not people does more than miss the trees for the forest, but rather it distorts history for the purpose of creating a false modernist narrative.
Harari’s narration is good and helpful when he writes about issues and ideas that have a modern beginning (i.e. from the modern period) and are relatively value-neutral. But, as we have seen, Harari is wrong when he discusses anything not from the modern period and not partaking of the modernist worldview. Premodern and primeval life and society is not really understood and narrated correctly by Harari according to their times, but interpreted only in light of modernist ideas.
The result of such uncritical modernism is that Harari’s history becomes one part history and two parts propaganda. Real history is distorted when the focus is a history of “humankind” and not a history of real humans.
On the challenges to the future
The last part of the book concerns something that should not be present in a history book: ideas about the future. The problem with Harari’s viewpoint is that his history is a history of ideas, and thus his future is also a future of ideas. But real history needs to take into account real humans, and thus his predictions of the future projects a stew of unrealistic dystopian possibilities.
The first major issue is that of bio-engineering (pp. 448-453). The idea of bringing back the Neanderthals (pp. 451-2) through genetic engineering, apart from ethical considerations, is a non-issue since Neanderthals are fully human. Perhaps more disturbing is the specter of eugenics (p. 452) and designing the Übermensch, even though Harari did not use that particular term. The ethical problems with designing human beings are so many and so grave that, even if such were to become technologically feasible in the future, we hope that it might be prohibited and would never happen.
Cybernetics is the second major issue (pp. 453-7). Perhaps the most disturbing part of this section is the idea that human brains can one day interface with computers and even with each other to form an “Inter-brain-net” (p. 456). That ties in with Harari’s previous narration of the development of writing—as leading into the creation of the new language of numbers which leads into the age of computers (p. 146). But there is nothing historical here. First of all, it is disputed that the new language of numbers is in fact prescriptive of reality instead of descriptive of reality. Harari holds to the former as he states that in the future, “humans might still be around, but they could no longer make sense of the world” (p. 148), as computers have taken over the world. All of this is further based on the idea that brains are just sophisticated biological computers (radical materialism in the philosophy of the mind), a position that Harari presupposes but nowhere does he contend for. But just because the mind can think mathematically does not make numbers a different language, and it does not imply that the human mind is just thoughts that expressed itself in language.
The radical materialism of Harari in the philosophy of mind give rise to the nonsense that is the “Inter-brain-net.” It is granted that brains can direct objects through electrical impulses in the brain. It is granted also that it is possible to give sensations to the brain through electrical impulses. But that is different than saying that one can actually connect minds to the computer, or to anything for that matter. Sensations are not thoughts, and minds are not computers. There is no evidence whatsoever that minds are just a bag of thoughts or even a bag of sensations, and Harari has no foundation for assuming radical materialism in the philosophy of mind as being the truth of the matter.
Therefore, the idea that uploading and downloading the mind of a person to and from a computer is nonsensical, regardless of how often the trope is used in science fiction literature and movies. Alongside this, we can reject the idea that AI will become sentient one day. It is not doubted that AI can become intelligent and might start the Terminator Armageddon, but it would only do so based on its programming. Since we reject radical materialism in the philosophy of mind, it is impossible for any AI to operate outside its programming and achieve true sentience. Harari and other futurists have adopted a materialist view of the philosophy of mind, for only in such a view does sentient AI make any sense.
The idolatry of the futurist
Harari’s focus on the future, while out of place in a true history book, makes perfect sense when you see this as the outworking of liberal modernism in its 21st century incarnation of “futurism.” History for the futurists only makes sense as it leads towards the coming future, the coming utopia. But for those not committed to the futurist program, the future they describe is a dystopian nightmare. If the futurists have their way, humanity will become extinct, (17) and that is considered by them to be a good thing. The omission of particular humans for humankind in the entire book is a prefigurement of their ultimate misanthropy, as they look forward to the end of humanity as creatures, and to transcending humanity to become gods! (18) One hears in this the hiss of the Devil, saying “You will be like God!” (Gen. 3:5)
The progressive slant extends throughout the book, even to the anti-science denial of there being any real differences between men and women, as Harari asserts that it is possible to change biological sex “through surgical and hormonal treatments” (p. 448) (19), again without proof. The misanthropy is astonishing, and one sees in this the ultimate end of human rebellion against God, hating even the image of God in man.
Conclusion
In conclusion, Harari has come up with a well-written book on human history that aims to synthesize natural and human history. However, when we look into it more deeply, it can be seen that Harari’s book is in error on the history of science, is in error in its misinterpretation and misrepresentation of Christianity, and engages in much speculation concerning primeval human history. When one looks at primeval history from a worldview perspective, the speculation Harari engages in is seen to be based on assumptions that are totally unsupported. When interpreted through an alternate biblical framework, the same evidences that Harari utilizes (absent the speculation) can be fitted into the biblical framework to tell an alternate history of primeval humanity.
Liberal Modernism in its 21st century incarnation of futurism claims to be about progress and improvement, ultimately with a goal towards ushering in utopia. Yet, the future it envisions is a dystopian nightmare ending with the extinction of humanity. What it describes is analogous to the supposed good ending of season 7 of the TV series The 100, where all humanity has joined some form of cosmic collective and have ceased to exist as humans. Where this is seen as a good ending, it is in actual fact a dystopian one, as humans have ceased to exist as humans in a universe without God.
Back in the Garden of Eden, Satan whispered to Eve, “You will be like God.” In the same manner, today’s progressives say to each other, “We shall become God.” Human sin and rebellion remain a present reality today, despite promises of “progress,” and nowhere is this rebellion more explicit that in the futurist movement embraced by the global elites, and as narrated by the author of this book Yuval Noah Harari.
14. H.A. Burbano et al., “Targeted investigation of the Neandertal genome by array-based sequence capture,” Science 328 (2010): 723–725, cited in Robert W. Carter, “Neanderthal genome like ours,” Creation Ministries International, June 1 2010. Accessed March 30, 2021, https://creation.com/neandertal-genome-like-ours
15. See Marvin L. Lubenow, Bones of Contention: A Creationist Assessment of Human Fossils (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1992). Lucy, once thought of as a transitional fossil in human evolution, has been retired from that role [Daniel Anderson, “No more love for Lucy,” Creation Ministries International, May 4 2007. Accessed March 30, 2021, https://creation.com/no-more-love-for-lucy]
16. A.J. Monty White, “The Piltdown Man Fraud,” Creation Ministries International, Feb 6, 2006. Accessed March 30, 2021, https://creation.com/the-piltdown-man-fraud
17. The title of chapter 20 where Harari talks about the future is “The End of Homo Sapiens”
18. “Today it stands on the verge of becoming a god, poised to acquire not only eternal youth, but also the divine abilities of creation and destruction.” (Harari, 465)
19. Contra this, see from a secular perspective Debra Soh, The End of Gender: Debunking the Myths about Sex and Identity in our Society (Threshold Edition; New York, NY: Simon and Schuster, 2020)