Scan barcode
rifmelody's review against another edition
Het is geen slecht boek, maar ik pak 'm gewoon telkens niet opnieuw op. Wil het op zich nog wel, maar voorlopig DNF ik hem.
olya_hakob's review against another edition
While the book certainly had interesting passages, such as the discussions about the quality of life in hunter-gatherer societies, the collective belief in imaginary values, etc., the references to credible scientific and historical records were rather scarce. For example, where does the information about Aztecs using incense burners because of badly smelling Spaniards come from? A quick search in Google didn't reveal any sources other than Harari's book.
Another example is he discussion about the establishment of gender hierarchy among humans, which is very superficial. The author discuses how the sheer physical strength and aggression are not enough for male dominance because a social species appreciates cooperation and social competence. He then compares us to elephants and bonobos, the groups of which have hierarchies different from us. However, the discussion is incomplete because he completely ignores the evidence from chimps, which seem to share a lot of affinity in hierarchy structure with human societies. Frans de Waal has very interesting research on this.
Furthermore, claims such as the hunter-gatherers didn't care to plan for the next month or even for the next week seem far-fetched, unless these are backed by scientific evidence which the author does not cite.
Another problem is that although dubbed as a short history of humankind, the book is clearly written from European/Western perspective. True, the author does recognize some of the accomplishments of other civilizations but all of this seems to happen in the background.
Overall, the book was witty and interesting especially in the beginning but most of it is intellectually unsatisfying due to the lack of references and clear boundaries between author's stance and established theories/facts.
Another example is he discussion about the establishment of gender hierarchy among humans, which is very superficial. The author discuses how the sheer physical strength and aggression are not enough for male dominance because a social species appreciates cooperation and social competence. He then compares us to elephants and bonobos, the groups of which have hierarchies different from us. However, the discussion is incomplete because he completely ignores the evidence from chimps, which seem to share a lot of affinity in hierarchy structure with human societies. Frans de Waal has very interesting research on this.
Furthermore, claims such as the hunter-gatherers didn't care to plan for the next month or even for the next week seem far-fetched, unless these are backed by scientific evidence which the author does not cite.
Another problem is that although dubbed as a short history of humankind, the book is clearly written from European/Western perspective. True, the author does recognize some of the accomplishments of other civilizations but all of this seems to happen in the background.
Overall, the book was witty and interesting especially in the beginning but most of it is intellectually unsatisfying due to the lack of references and clear boundaries between author's stance and established theories/facts.
dreiac's review against another edition
4.0
Hmm, reading Sapiens makes me like humans a little bit less
kwanzamos713's review against another edition
3.0
Giving this 3.5 stars. I think it started off very strong and interesting. I enjoyed learning about the early evolution of humans, coexistence with other species and the process of civilization. He put forth interesting theories about what separates humans from other animals and why were able to develop in the way we have. The second half of the book kind of lost me. I didn't think it was very well organized-- he was jumping between different topics and time periods and was difficult to follow his points. By the end of the book he was talking about cyborgs and I was just completely gone
mcc's review
I've tried a couple of times with this book and it just does not grab my interest. I think because I tried to listen to his podcast and I associate his voice with trying to sound like he's saying something profound, but not actually saying a lot? I'll probably try again and see if I can get into it.