Take a photo of a barcode or cover
Overall: This book had some really interesting information about the history of humanity, and I particularly liked the opening part that discussed the operation of hunter-gatherer societies and the methods of migration, as well as the relationship between different homo species.
Beef with the agricultural revolution: The strangest part for me is that this author has a huge beef with the agricultural revolution. It's an argument I've heard before - that we evolved to live in hunter-gatherer societies and were happier when we were just wandering, but I've never really bought into it. I guess I can maybe see that argument about the very outset of the agricultural revolution, but I don't see how someone could possibly argue that people were happier living out in the elements and without certain food sources than in more tightly controlled environments where they could control their own surroundings. He seems to argue that maybe today's society is more comfortable than hunter-gatherer societies, but that that has only been true for the last century or so at most, and while prior times certainly weren't great, I just don't think I believe that hunter-gatherer societies were better. The second section of the book was definitely its low point in my opinion.
Questioning some assertions: The author's absolute certainty about what early agricultural humans thought and experienced also made me question some of his other assertions in the book, as I usually hear these kinds of assertions couched with "we believe x based on y" rather than stated with as much complete certainty as this author seemed to have. There were times where he acknowledged things were guesses or unknowable, but when it fit his narrative (particularly about how terrible the agricultural revolution was), he seemed to drop that type of perspective. Being skeptical of these statements does make me question a bit how much I can trust other assertions in the book. Some of the terminology he applied also seemed designed to irritate people more than to actually be educational. He also did use the term "alpha male" in the context of humans, though I thought that terminology had been mostly dismissed even in the study of wolves, where it originated.
Author's philosophy: The author seemed to redefine the word myth to refer to anything even remotely abstract and the repeated implication that anything abstract like a state or business or human rights is "not real" because you can't touch it. I get the point he was making in distinguishing that some things are tangible and objective, while other things only exist because people as a collective choose to believe in them and treat each other accordingly, but he definitely had the attitude that the latter isn't "real" because of this, which I don't agree with. It's fine that he does feel that way, but it's his own philosophy, and he's presenting it as some sort of fact of life/nature. It seemed to me that he tried to appear objective but then would also slip in his own philosophy throughout. For this type of book that's targeted at casual readers instead of historians, that's kind of to be expected to a degree, but it annoyed me that he didn't seem upfront about that. I didn't mind hearing about his philosophy, and it can be quite interesting to get different perspectives, but I didn't like that he tried to mix it in with historical and scientific facts and present that philosophy as on equal footing and from an equal source.
Discussion of driving forces of history: I liked the discussion of the driving forces of history being empire, religion, and capitalism, and I found the discussion of the interplay between these concepts and the scientific process quite interesting. I think most people recognize the close relationship between science and capitalism, but the relationship between science and empire, especially in the early days of the scientific revolution, were very interesting
Beef with the agricultural revolution: The strangest part for me is that this author has a huge beef with the agricultural revolution. It's an argument I've heard before - that we evolved to live in hunter-gatherer societies and were happier when we were just wandering, but I've never really bought into it. I guess I can maybe see that argument about the very outset of the agricultural revolution, but I don't see how someone could possibly argue that people were happier living out in the elements and without certain food sources than in more tightly controlled environments where they could control their own surroundings. He seems to argue that maybe today's society is more comfortable than hunter-gatherer societies, but that that has only been true for the last century or so at most, and while prior times certainly weren't great, I just don't think I believe that hunter-gatherer societies were better. The second section of the book was definitely its low point in my opinion.
Questioning some assertions: The author's absolute certainty about what early agricultural humans thought and experienced also made me question some of his other assertions in the book, as I usually hear these kinds of assertions couched with "we believe x based on y" rather than stated with as much complete certainty as this author seemed to have. There were times where he acknowledged things were guesses or unknowable, but when it fit his narrative (particularly about how terrible the agricultural revolution was), he seemed to drop that type of perspective. Being skeptical of these statements does make me question a bit how much I can trust other assertions in the book. Some of the terminology he applied also seemed designed to irritate people more than to actually be educational. He also did use the term "alpha male" in the context of humans, though I thought that terminology had been mostly dismissed even in the study of wolves, where it originated.
Author's philosophy: The author seemed to redefine the word myth to refer to anything even remotely abstract and the repeated implication that anything abstract like a state or business or human rights is "not real" because you can't touch it. I get the point he was making in distinguishing that some things are tangible and objective, while other things only exist because people as a collective choose to believe in them and treat each other accordingly, but he definitely had the attitude that the latter isn't "real" because of this, which I don't agree with. It's fine that he does feel that way, but it's his own philosophy, and he's presenting it as some sort of fact of life/nature. It seemed to me that he tried to appear objective but then would also slip in his own philosophy throughout. For this type of book that's targeted at casual readers instead of historians, that's kind of to be expected to a degree, but it annoyed me that he didn't seem upfront about that. I didn't mind hearing about his philosophy, and it can be quite interesting to get different perspectives, but I didn't like that he tried to mix it in with historical and scientific facts and present that philosophy as on equal footing and from an equal source.
Discussion of driving forces of history: I liked the discussion of the driving forces of history being empire, religion, and capitalism, and I found the discussion of the interplay between these concepts and the scientific process quite interesting. I think most people recognize the close relationship between science and capitalism, but the relationship between science and empire, especially in the early days of the scientific revolution, were very interesting