The Dangerous Populist Science of Yuval Noah Harari(currentaffairs.org)
currentaffairs.org
The Dangerous Populist Science of Yuval Noah Harari
https://www.currentaffairs.org/2022/07/the-dangerous-populist-science-of-yuval-noah-harari
54 comments
Pop science books seem to fall into "feel good" category of products. Most people buy them not because they are providing easily accessible scientific knowledge, but because these books make people feel smart.
Actual science is often a total opposite from that: it is not an easy reading, and it sometimes makes you feel stupid and stuck, at least until you climb that particular knowledge hill. You will rarely find something like this in airport kiosks.
Actual science is often a total opposite from that: it is not an easy reading, and it sometimes makes you feel stupid and stuck, at least until you climb that particular knowledge hill. You will rarely find something like this in airport kiosks.
I skimmed Homo Sapiens and Homo Deus, found them pretty lame. Everything in them is either a truism or obviously misconstrues facts. There's a lot of good pop science out there, and a great deal more of it is poorly written. Sturgeon's law comes to mind.
What are some good popsci books?
I really like The Tangled Tree by Quammen, The Song of The Cell by Mukherjee, and Utopia or Oblivion by Fuller. Just some books that are staring at me from my work desk.
Edit: oh and in big history, Earth Transformed by Frankopan does a great job of being grounded, balanced and accessible.
Edit: oh and in big history, Earth Transformed by Frankopan does a great job of being grounded, balanced and accessible.
> Pop science books seem to fall into "feel good" category of products. Most people buy them not because they are providing easily accessible scientific knowledge, but because these books make people feel smart
Orrrr maybe people just find them interesting? I thought Sapiens is a terrific book. I don't really care if every detail in there is down with the latest scientific research, I don't think that's what the book is trying to do anyway. Sure 100% accuracy would have been nice but I prefer the author to focus on his main message and effort to tell the history (and present/future) of humans even if it means sacrificing 100% accuracy.
Orrrr maybe people just find them interesting? I thought Sapiens is a terrific book. I don't really care if every detail in there is down with the latest scientific research, I don't think that's what the book is trying to do anyway. Sure 100% accuracy would have been nice but I prefer the author to focus on his main message and effort to tell the history (and present/future) of humans even if it means sacrificing 100% accuracy.
Honestly don't read to much into this guys criticism. In sapiens at least, Harari provides a great overall overview of our species, society and history.
The criticisms basically boils down to one case of mentioning the wrong animal. the point about 'language' purely comes from the author choosing to use a specific definition of language that's different from Harari's definition.
The criticisms basically boils down to one case of mentioning the wrong animal. the point about 'language' purely comes from the author choosing to use a specific definition of language that's different from Harari's definition.
> The criticisms basically boils down to one case of mentioning the wrong animal.
As in he confused two different tapirs, or as in he demonstrated a fundamental misunderstanding of basic biology?
As in he confused two different tapirs, or as in he demonstrated a fundamental misunderstanding of basic biology?
I agree. The author of this article lists some minor quibbles and then just says, "I'm sure there are more serious errors if someone looked properly."
> A hundred years from now it is quite likely that humans will disappear, and the earth will be populated by very different beings like cyborgs and A.I., Harari said to Paikin.
I would bet that not only will humanity still be around 100 years from now, the changes won’t be as profoundly altering as the difference between 1900 and 2000 (aircraft, electricity, antibiotics, computers, birth control, moon landing, satellites, etc).
I would bet that not only will humanity still be around 100 years from now, the changes won’t be as profoundly altering as the difference between 1900 and 2000 (aircraft, electricity, antibiotics, computers, birth control, moon landing, satellites, etc).
even though I agree with your prediction, I do realise that we cannot foresee the future. Whatever you or I think is going to happen; it's going to be different than that.
I think the difference between 2000 and 2020 is already greater than the difference between 1900 and 2000.
Smartphones, video conferencing, remote work, social media, are pervasive and consume the majority of most peoples waking lives.
Smartphones, video conferencing, remote work, social media, are pervasive and consume the majority of most peoples waking lives.
> I think the difference between 2000 and 2020 is already greater than the difference between 1900 and 2000.
I vehemently disagree. The invention of air conditioning/refrigeration alone is more impactful than anything released between 2000-2020. Add in aviation, automobiles, telephones, and television and it’s not even close.
I vehemently disagree. The invention of air conditioning/refrigeration alone is more impactful than anything released between 2000-2020. Add in aviation, automobiles, telephones, and television and it’s not even close.
I think if a person in 2000 woke up one day and 20 years had past, the world would still be pretty recognizable to them, even if some of the objects in it were novel. I'm not sure the same thing could be said about 1900 and 100 years.
In 1900, almost one out of four kids died before the age of 5 in the U.S. By 2000, it was 9 out of 1,000. In 2020, it was 7 out of 1,000. It was a society where virtually everyone experienced death from a young age. Today, most people don't experience the death of a close family member until well into adulthood.
That you equate video conferencing and social media with transformative technologies such as applications of electricity, transportation, air travel, computers etc indicate you are caught up in that common fallacy of believing that the times YOU live in must be the most important ever
You do realize we didn't even have airplanes, antibiotics, or the measles vaccine in 1900, right?
Dinosaurs were around for 100 million years. Then they weren't. Predicting the future is difficult. Even more so when you seed your own seeds of success and destruction.
So if you predicted they would go extinct in 100 years, you would have been wrong about a million times and wrong once.
It is kind of like “Economist predicted 10 of the last 2 recessions.
It is kind of like “Economist predicted 10 of the last 2 recessions.
In a world of endless moronic grifters, Yuval is one of the least of my concerns. You’d do better than 99% by adopting the ideals of a Professor of History who is a reasonable centrist and understands the value of spreading the topic of Sapiens and Homo Deus into a wider understanding, as opposed to yet another textbook.
After reading both his big books and seeing a few interviews, I am left with the sense that he is just a new spin on the old ceremony.
Example: He has a positive view on the gender gains of the last 100 years and a broad definition of gender in the future[1], but still believes in gender essentialist stuff [2]. If forced, I'd rather people adopt his views over those of others, so you are right there. But the bones of his arguments are the same ones we've heard for ages repackaged with an affect of intelligence that is agreeable to modern sensibilities.
As an aside, regardless of whether you believe in gender essentialism or not, having someone talking out of both sides of an argument doesn't instill a ton of confidence that the individual has considered the interplay of their arguments.
[1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KqiXae9eLPY
[2]: https://youtu.be/TYAKHLrr51w?t=128
Example: He has a positive view on the gender gains of the last 100 years and a broad definition of gender in the future[1], but still believes in gender essentialist stuff [2]. If forced, I'd rather people adopt his views over those of others, so you are right there. But the bones of his arguments are the same ones we've heard for ages repackaged with an affect of intelligence that is agreeable to modern sensibilities.
As an aside, regardless of whether you believe in gender essentialism or not, having someone talking out of both sides of an argument doesn't instill a ton of confidence that the individual has considered the interplay of their arguments.
[1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KqiXae9eLPY
[2]: https://youtu.be/TYAKHLrr51w?t=128
How can you expect him to answer a question about a major historical difference between men and women across all known societies… without out talking about the essential differences between men and women?
Curious how you would have answered.
Curious how you would have answered.
Bio-esentialism and gender essentialism is not about "essential differences" as in "distinct and considerable", but about the idea of your biological gender being solely responsible for determining a persons psychological and social attributes.
It's a simplistic point of view that does not consider the sociological aspects of gender contributing to gendered outcomes.
It's a simplistic point of view that does not consider the sociological aspects of gender contributing to gendered outcomes.
The very point of the question was to address a gender difference that's independent of any specific society.
The phrasing was: "spatially across the world, and temporally throughout history."
He then talks about innate differences in animals which leads to matriarchal societies (he claims in elephants and bonobos.) Then speculates that there may be a similar distinction in humans. How do you find this simplistic? How is this "gender essentialism"?
The phrasing was: "spatially across the world, and temporally throughout history."
He then talks about innate differences in animals which leads to matriarchal societies (he claims in elephants and bonobos.) Then speculates that there may be a similar distinction in humans. How do you find this simplistic? How is this "gender essentialism"?
It's gender essentialism because he makes a foregone conclusion that "there will be static gender differences across cultures" and then he implies that they are unavoidable and due to innate gender factors.
He looks at an outcome, and then draws a conclusion about the mechanism behind the outcome which supports his position.
He does this without proposing an experiment to verify his hypothesis about the mechanisms. Just finding a correlation with gender says nothing about any "innate mechanism".
He looks at an outcome, and then draws a conclusion about the mechanism behind the outcome which supports his position.
He does this without proposing an experiment to verify his hypothesis about the mechanisms. Just finding a correlation with gender says nothing about any "innate mechanism".
It's his opinion based on his reading of the science, lol. And a reasonable one with which I mostly agree. If you think you have a better theory that explains gender differences, by all means, tell the world! But don't vilify people who have different outlooks over the data.
There is no question that biology plays a role in gender outcomes, but the view that gendered outcomes in society are 100% explainable by biology and unavoidable is the bio-essentialist view, which is naive and simplistic. Why would Harari's -- a historian's -- hot take be preferable to the consemsus ofof gender researchers and sociologists who actually study gender in experiments and statistical studies?
I don't think I'm vilifying anyone by saying this. But if that's where we're heading, yes, I think he's a grifter, same as Michio Kaku. He goes far beyond his area of expertise to make big statements that give him publicity.
I don't think I'm vilifying anyone by saying this. But if that's where we're heading, yes, I think he's a grifter, same as Michio Kaku. He goes far beyond his area of expertise to make big statements that give him publicity.
> Why would Harari's -- a historian's -- hot take be preferable to the consemsus ofof gender researchers and sociologists who actually study gender in experiments and statistical studies?
Everyone can decide for themselves. Speaking for myself, sociologists are notorious for downplaying the importance of genes to individual/group outcomes (something that, IMO, should be consensus) and I imagine they will try to push a blank slate agenda whenever they can. So I adjust my trust in them accordingly.
Everyone can decide for themselves. Speaking for myself, sociologists are notorious for downplaying the importance of genes to individual/group outcomes (something that, IMO, should be consensus) and I imagine they will try to push a blank slate agenda whenever they can. So I adjust my trust in them accordingly.
Everyone can be wrong for themselves, sure. I'll stick to the biologists, geneticists, and endocrinologists over a historian trying to sell books. That's adjusting my trust accordingly
> I'll stick to the biologists, geneticists, and endocrinologists over a historian trying to sell books.
You make it look like there's a consensus between them.
It's unfortunate that Harari gets this bad press. I've read his books and listen to a bunch of his podcasts and he looks very open-minded and scientific based. I see myself disagreeing with him a lot of times, but I don't get mad at him because he tries to speak the language of science, which is good enough for me.
You make it look like there's a consensus between them.
It's unfortunate that Harari gets this bad press. I've read his books and listen to a bunch of his podcasts and he looks very open-minded and scientific based. I see myself disagreeing with him a lot of times, but I don't get mad at him because he tries to speak the language of science, which is good enough for me.
I know sociologists, and I call bullshit on them downplaying the "importance of genes". Sociology looks at statistical evidence and argues about the mechanisms of societal outcomes based on that.
Even if we accept your comment that sociologists don't know what their talking about, Harari is not the right alternative to turn to. Harari is not a biologist, he is a historian. If you ask evolutionary biologists, they tend to agree with the sociologists.
Even if we accept your comment that sociologists don't know what their talking about, Harari is not the right alternative to turn to. Harari is not a biologist, he is a historian. If you ask evolutionary biologists, they tend to agree with the sociologists.
I mean the main point against would be that he’s not a biologist and doesn’t seem to have done much reading in the area.
Well, is != ought. So the recognition of gender essences a la Simon Baron-Cohen is not incompatible with striving to minimize those changes. We may stumble along the way, and it may prove to be a fool's errand, but in principle this is not impossible to achieve.
Yuval would trick you into dramatically under appreciating the capacity of machine analysis, genetics, statistics, and much more.
We have far more power to do effective and good things than Yuval gives us credit for.
We have far more power to do effective and good things than Yuval gives us credit for.
My first reading of Sapiens was like reading a story. I got pulled into the story telling. On a more detailed reading, I felt Harari is a western apologist. He credits the western civilization and the colonization for all the "good things" as if they never existed in places colonized by the european powers.
Here are a few choice quotes - "European imperialism was entirely unlike all other imperial projects in history. Previous seekers of empire tended to assume that they already understood the world. Conquest merely utilised and spread their view of the world. The Arabs, to name one example, did not conquer Egypt, Spain or India in order to discover something they did not know. The Romans, Mongols and Aztecs voraciously conquered new lands in search of power and wealth - not of knowledge. In contrast, European imperialists set out to distant shores in the hope of obtaining new knowledge along with new territories."
Really??? Conquest for knowledge and everyone else just did it for money?
"During the twentieth century, local groups that had adopted Western values claimed equality with their European conquerors in the name of these very values. Many anti-colonial struggles were waged under the banners of self-determination, socialism and human rights, all of which are Western legacies. Just as Egyptians, Iranians and Turks adopted and adapted the imperial culture that they inherited from the original Arab conquerors, so today's Indians, Africans and Chinese have accepted much of the imperial culture of their former Western overlords, while seeking to mould it in accordance with their needs and traditions."
self-determination, socialism and human rights, all of which are Western legacies - Really?? The rest of world was just hunter-gatherers before western civilizations?
There are many, many more - but this idea that western civilization is manifest destiny bothers me a lot.
Here are a few choice quotes - "European imperialism was entirely unlike all other imperial projects in history. Previous seekers of empire tended to assume that they already understood the world. Conquest merely utilised and spread their view of the world. The Arabs, to name one example, did not conquer Egypt, Spain or India in order to discover something they did not know. The Romans, Mongols and Aztecs voraciously conquered new lands in search of power and wealth - not of knowledge. In contrast, European imperialists set out to distant shores in the hope of obtaining new knowledge along with new territories."
Really??? Conquest for knowledge and everyone else just did it for money?
"During the twentieth century, local groups that had adopted Western values claimed equality with their European conquerors in the name of these very values. Many anti-colonial struggles were waged under the banners of self-determination, socialism and human rights, all of which are Western legacies. Just as Egyptians, Iranians and Turks adopted and adapted the imperial culture that they inherited from the original Arab conquerors, so today's Indians, Africans and Chinese have accepted much of the imperial culture of their former Western overlords, while seeking to mould it in accordance with their needs and traditions."
self-determination, socialism and human rights, all of which are Western legacies - Really?? The rest of world was just hunter-gatherers before western civilizations?
There are many, many more - but this idea that western civilization is manifest destiny bothers me a lot.
> The Romans, Mongols and Aztecs voraciously conquered new lands in search of power and wealth - not of knowledge.
The romans conquered greece and nearly adopted ancient greek knowledge and culture wholesale. The mongols were reknown for invading china, persia, etc and taking their best scholars with them. The mongol empire is responsible for much of the cross-eurasian transfer of knowledge. Along with the preservation of much knowledge and culture as they were multireligious and multiculturalists. It's why people in china still speak chinese and arabs still worship as they do. The mongols didn't wipe out entire cultures like 'european imperialists'.
> In contrast, European imperialists set out to distant shores in the hope of obtaining new knowledge along with new territories."
So wiping out entire continents of people ( their histories, language, culture, knowledge ) was in hopes of obtaining new knowledge. We can't even ascertain the etymology of many of the names of towns, cities, lakes, etc because we killed off entire native language families.
The romans conquered greece and nearly adopted ancient greek knowledge and culture wholesale. The mongols were reknown for invading china, persia, etc and taking their best scholars with them. The mongol empire is responsible for much of the cross-eurasian transfer of knowledge. Along with the preservation of much knowledge and culture as they were multireligious and multiculturalists. It's why people in china still speak chinese and arabs still worship as they do. The mongols didn't wipe out entire cultures like 'european imperialists'.
> In contrast, European imperialists set out to distant shores in the hope of obtaining new knowledge along with new territories."
So wiping out entire continents of people ( their histories, language, culture, knowledge ) was in hopes of obtaining new knowledge. We can't even ascertain the etymology of many of the names of towns, cities, lakes, etc because we killed off entire native language families.
The Mongols undoubtedly wiped out entire ethnic groups during their conquests. They killed millions of people. In some cases languages would have been wiped out. You just don't hear much about them these days because dithering over the genocide of peoples we know little about back in 13th-14th century is not in the zeitgeist the way modern colonialism is.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destruction_under_the_Mongol_E...
It's not surprising, and in fact quite obvious, that any historical event has "good" impacts as well as "bad" ones. But to speak of the Mongols as "preservers of knowledge and culture" is silly. I suppose they could have done more to wipe such things out, and didn't, but it hardly seems like something they deserve credit for. Certainly you could make the argument the colonization of the Americas really did not in any way resemble Mongol extermination campaigns.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destruction_under_the_Mongol_E...
It's not surprising, and in fact quite obvious, that any historical event has "good" impacts as well as "bad" ones. But to speak of the Mongols as "preservers of knowledge and culture" is silly. I suppose they could have done more to wipe such things out, and didn't, but it hardly seems like something they deserve credit for. Certainly you could make the argument the colonization of the Americas really did not in any way resemble Mongol extermination campaigns.
> The Mongols undoubtedly wiped out entire ethnic groups during their conquests.
They didn't. I checked. The fact that you write 'undoubtedly wiped out' without being able to name a single ethnic group, language, religion, culture that got wiped out says something. No?
> They killed millions of people.
They did kill people and were destructive as all empires are. But they weren't genocidal. And most of the 'brutality' is exaggerated for the benefit of oddly enough the conquering mongols and subjugated peoples.
> But to speak of the Mongols as "preservers of knowledge and culture" is silly.
They preserved it because they merged into local populations. Hence mughal persia, mughal india and the various khanates throughout central asia and china. As I said, they were multicultural and multiracial empire. They didn't force their language, customs, religions, etc on the conquered people. They did the oppposite. They adopted the local language, religions, customs. All the way from eastern europe to china to persia and the middle east. Now juxtapose that with what happened to european imperialism?
> but it hardly seems like something they deserve credit for.
It isn't a coincidence that marco polo went to china during the rule of the mongols. The mongols deserve credit for much of the modern world. Starting with the italian renaissance ( it isn't a coincidence that the italian renaissance, medicis, etc ) occurred during the mongol empire, to the rise of russian empire, the rise of china, the rise of the ottomans, etc.
It's remarkable how the mongols were so bloodthirsty and genocidal but the peoples they conquered are the most numerous in the world?
Now compare the mongols to the european imperialists who wiped out an entire hemisphere and more.
Here is a list of regions the mongols and their descendents conquered - china, india, persia, middle east, eastern europe, russia, central asia, etc. Tell me which of these people were wiped out. I'll wait.
They didn't. I checked. The fact that you write 'undoubtedly wiped out' without being able to name a single ethnic group, language, religion, culture that got wiped out says something. No?
> They killed millions of people.
They did kill people and were destructive as all empires are. But they weren't genocidal. And most of the 'brutality' is exaggerated for the benefit of oddly enough the conquering mongols and subjugated peoples.
> But to speak of the Mongols as "preservers of knowledge and culture" is silly.
They preserved it because they merged into local populations. Hence mughal persia, mughal india and the various khanates throughout central asia and china. As I said, they were multicultural and multiracial empire. They didn't force their language, customs, religions, etc on the conquered people. They did the oppposite. They adopted the local language, religions, customs. All the way from eastern europe to china to persia and the middle east. Now juxtapose that with what happened to european imperialism?
> but it hardly seems like something they deserve credit for.
It isn't a coincidence that marco polo went to china during the rule of the mongols. The mongols deserve credit for much of the modern world. Starting with the italian renaissance ( it isn't a coincidence that the italian renaissance, medicis, etc ) occurred during the mongol empire, to the rise of russian empire, the rise of china, the rise of the ottomans, etc.
It's remarkable how the mongols were so bloodthirsty and genocidal but the peoples they conquered are the most numerous in the world?
Now compare the mongols to the european imperialists who wiped out an entire hemisphere and more.
Here is a list of regions the mongols and their descendents conquered - china, india, persia, middle east, eastern europe, russia, central asia, etc. Tell me which of these people were wiped out. I'll wait.
I have no idea why you are getting downvoted. Maybe people do not want to know the truth?
You are absolutely right in this. Genghis Khan was not only a conqueror, but also an efficient administrator. The various khanates across central asia were a result of mongol invasion. In most of the ancient world, conquest also meant integration with local population. It is not an superior race ruling over inferiors.
On the other hand, what knowledge did european conqueror save? We have all the lost civilization, primarily because europeans did not care to save anything that is not christian.
You are absolutely right in this. Genghis Khan was not only a conqueror, but also an efficient administrator. The various khanates across central asia were a result of mongol invasion. In most of the ancient world, conquest also meant integration with local population. It is not an superior race ruling over inferiors.
On the other hand, what knowledge did european conqueror save? We have all the lost civilization, primarily because europeans did not care to save anything that is not christian.
I'm trying to follow, but having a hard time. The Mongols were NOT brutal and they WERE great administrators? So why was their reign so short?
That appears to be their argument.
Mine would be that the Mongols were brutal and efficient administrators. Killing 50 million people and being a good administrator are orthogonal concepts.
Reading through the Wikipedia article, you can also find references to the Mongols engaging in deliberate cultural destruction, including the massive wastage of books, and targeted religious persecution. I am not sure where the Mongol revisionism comes from but it is surprising to me.
Mine would be that the Mongols were brutal and efficient administrators. Killing 50 million people and being a good administrator are orthogonal concepts.
Reading through the Wikipedia article, you can also find references to the Mongols engaging in deliberate cultural destruction, including the massive wastage of books, and targeted religious persecution. I am not sure where the Mongol revisionism comes from but it is surprising to me.
Could you explain some more about how they were good administrators? I always had the impression that they were good conquerors but bad administrators. They'd conquer you then leave you alone as long as you paid your taxes.
If you tell me that the Romans or Persians were good administrators, that makes sense. We know they implemented laws, tax systems, roads, construction projects, etc. Do we have evidence that the Mongols did the same and did it as effectively?
If you tell me that the Romans or Persians were good administrators, that makes sense. We know they implemented laws, tax systems, roads, construction projects, etc. Do we have evidence that the Mongols did the same and did it as effectively?
The original point is that europeans were not great at embracing the culture of the people they ruled over, contrary to what Yuval says. He contrasts mongols with european conquests and in my mind, they were the same.
simpletone(1)
It was a family dynasty, the core lasted 160 odd years until the third generation definitively split into smaller family groupings, one of which lasted as a state until 1680 or so .. giving the "family as rulers" a lifespan of some 480 years.
I never said they were not brutal. I specifically Genghis Khan was a great administrator, nothing about him not being brutal. In my mind, they are orthogonal.
This article is pretty frustrating to read. There is so many things wrong with it.
First there is the false assumption that a sciencey book like like Sapiens should be written scientifically like a research paper. This is wrong. A pop sci book aims to have a satisfying narrative that is able to interest the reader through dense information. In a research paper it is important to point out each and every way our current understanding might be lacking or wrong but for popsci books this requirement ofc doesn't exist.
Secondly, the author claimd that Harari’s speculations are consistently based on a poor understanding of science. But he says this after making his own bad speculation based on bad understanding of science by saying "This is why we have not been able to create technological systems that can infer what you or I feel at a given moment (and why we may never be able to build these all-reading all-knowing systems)."
Thirdly, the author assumes that whenever somebody asks Harari for his speculation on the future, that they see him as some sort of oracle, and take it as fact? People aren't that stupid.
Fourthly, he points to Harari writing in 2017 that he thinks a pandemic is unlikely and that he still continues to do interviews, even though he was wrong. Again, predicting the future is impossible, and every prediction will be wrong in some way. Also incorporating new data and adjusting your future speculation, is exactly what you're supposed to do. if you predict no pandemic before corona hits, you apparently need to adjust your models. it's the scientific method, not a character flaw.
fifthly, the author seems to add his own flavor of human exceptionalism in the end. Implying that human genetics and biology is such an intricate process that it forever will be impossible to truly understand and target certain qualities with gene editing. This idea is like going into the ocean, diving 10 meters, realise that you still cannot see the bottom and conclude that the ocean is therefore bottomless.
Again he inserts his ideas of human exceptionalism by saying that the fate of humanity is free for us to decide and he claims that we should see the new capitalist model as some sort of malicious external thing that blemishes humanity's greatness, but guess what? that new capitalist model IS humanity, it's us, we're doing that. Humanity is doing the good things but also the bad things. We cannot claim ownership of one without owning the other.
Also this author berates Harari for fear mongering when he posits a thought experiment about biometric trackers being a privacy nightmare, but in the end accuses him of helping surveillance capitalist do exactly that?
First there is the false assumption that a sciencey book like like Sapiens should be written scientifically like a research paper. This is wrong. A pop sci book aims to have a satisfying narrative that is able to interest the reader through dense information. In a research paper it is important to point out each and every way our current understanding might be lacking or wrong but for popsci books this requirement ofc doesn't exist.
Secondly, the author claimd that Harari’s speculations are consistently based on a poor understanding of science. But he says this after making his own bad speculation based on bad understanding of science by saying "This is why we have not been able to create technological systems that can infer what you or I feel at a given moment (and why we may never be able to build these all-reading all-knowing systems)."
Thirdly, the author assumes that whenever somebody asks Harari for his speculation on the future, that they see him as some sort of oracle, and take it as fact? People aren't that stupid.
Fourthly, he points to Harari writing in 2017 that he thinks a pandemic is unlikely and that he still continues to do interviews, even though he was wrong. Again, predicting the future is impossible, and every prediction will be wrong in some way. Also incorporating new data and adjusting your future speculation, is exactly what you're supposed to do. if you predict no pandemic before corona hits, you apparently need to adjust your models. it's the scientific method, not a character flaw.
fifthly, the author seems to add his own flavor of human exceptionalism in the end. Implying that human genetics and biology is such an intricate process that it forever will be impossible to truly understand and target certain qualities with gene editing. This idea is like going into the ocean, diving 10 meters, realise that you still cannot see the bottom and conclude that the ocean is therefore bottomless.
Again he inserts his ideas of human exceptionalism by saying that the fate of humanity is free for us to decide and he claims that we should see the new capitalist model as some sort of malicious external thing that blemishes humanity's greatness, but guess what? that new capitalist model IS humanity, it's us, we're doing that. Humanity is doing the good things but also the bad things. We cannot claim ownership of one without owning the other.
Also this author berates Harari for fear mongering when he posits a thought experiment about biometric trackers being a privacy nightmare, but in the end accuses him of helping surveillance capitalist do exactly that?
Current affairs is, in general trash.
[deleted]
The article is quite bold in its claim. Had to Stop reading, when after a few paragraphs the article still had not disputed any facts of Yuval’s book, but was bluntly calling them a fraud. Kinda strange way of trying to discredit someone.
The article does take its time, but it gets there. Had you kept reading, it would have gotten into more specific criticisms.
Good warning though, I'll have to research a bit more carefully next time I'm in the bookshop.