Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind
Part Four: The Scientific Revolution
Part Four: The Scientific Revolution
Please use this thread for discussing the above mentioned section of Sapiens.
In total there is 1 user online :: 0 registered, 0 hidden and 1 guest (based on users active over the past 60 minutes)
Most users ever online was 871 on Fri Apr 19, 2024 12:00 am
Anyway, Harari does continue to present new ways of seeing things. I guess it comes from being able to see the big picture, a broad overview of human history. Such insights seem very useful from a philosophical perspective. What can we glean from the past and through the filter of human progress as we envision our future?. . . Until the Scientific Revolution most human cultures did not believe in progress. They thought the golden age was in the past, and that the world was stagnant, if not deteriorating. Strict adherence to the wisdom of the ages might perhaps bring back the good old times, and human ingenuity might conceivably improve this or that facet of daily life. However, it was considered impossible for human know-how to overcome the world’s fundamental problems. If even Muhammad, Jesus, Buddha and Confucius – who knew everything there is to know – were unable to abolish famine, disease, poverty and war from the world, how could we expect to do so? . . . When modern culture admitted that there were many important things that it still did not know, and when that admission of ignorance was married to the idea that scientific discoveries could give us new powers, people began suspecting that real progress might be possible after all.
Do your fictional pursuits include writing?geo wrote:I’m not breaking any speed records reading this book. Not to say that it’s boring—it’s actually very good—but I’m frequently distracted by my fictional pursuits. Also, I don't mean to skip over Part 3.
His focus on imagination represents his entry into the "what makes humans unique" sweepstakes. It's a good handle on the question, I think. We need to use an expanded meaning of "imagine" to follow him, as our common use of the word shades toward the fantastical, the fictional, or the unreal. For Sapiens, the imaginary is serious business. It's as though we took the ability almost all animals have, to receive sight images from the outside, and made the reception of the sensory image unnecessary. We can do it in-house, in our amazing brains. To "imagine" all of this activity occurring in every human brain during both waking and non-waking hours is really impressive.As we have already discussed, one of Harari’s startling insights is that Homo sapiens is unique in its ability to create myths or imagined orders—primarily in religion and politics—to provide the basis for social order. We knew already that cultural evolution works at a much faster pace than biological evolution, but the idea that our progress and change is based on imagination has been a one of the key ideas, especially in Parts 1 and 2.
So being an ignoramus was no bad thing! Harari never arrives at an answer of why Europeans created the scientific revolution, and not the other main candidate, the Chinese. He does tell us that the scientific push was aided by Europe's embrace of capitalism and by empire, but of course that only raises another "why Europe" question. I noticed throughout the book that Harari is reluctant to call any Sapiens development "progress" in an overall, universal way, though the reader can sense that his feelings do take him in that direction. That tendency seems to me almost unavoidable. But as you point out, he is aware of the dark side of every seeming advance that humankind makes. In the case of the West, genocide and environmental destruction came with our being progressive. We in fact have a prejudice against societies that don't progress out of their traditional ways. We call them stultified. Harari brings up the 15th Century Chinese emperor Zheng He, whose armada of exploring ships made that of Columbus seem like a pod of rowboats. Zheng He explored as far as the horn of Africa, then turned back. The subsequent emperors dismantled both his fleet and the ambition to see the rest of the world. What was out there that the advanced Chinese needed? Nothing that they could see. Perhaps we should say "good for them," they stayed within their boundaries and left the rest of the world alone. Perhaps they were very wise. Instead, we ponder the reasons for their failure to exploit opportunities.Harari wrote:. . . Until the Scientific Revolution most human cultures did not believe in progress. They thought the golden age was in the past, and that the world was stagnant, if not deteriorating. Strict adherence to the wisdom of the ages might perhaps bring back the good old times, and human ingenuity might conceivably improve this or that facet of daily life. However, it was considered impossible for human know-how to overcome the world’s fundamental problems. If even Muhammad, Jesus, Buddha and Confucius – who knew everything there is to know – were unable to abolish famine, disease, poverty and war from the world, how could we expect to do so? . . . When modern culture admitted that there were many important things that it still did not know, and when that admission of ignorance was married to the idea that scientific discoveries could give us new powers, people began suspecting that real progress might be possible after all.geo wrote:In Part 4, Harari similarly startles with the idea that the discovery of ignorance was the basis for the scientific age and the progress that followed. Although, as Harry has said, “progress” is often a double-edged sword. "Progress" sometimes leads to genocide and our continued alienation from the natural world.
I should have read the whole post before starting to comment, as you've already said what I was trying to get at in my opening. But speaking again of his startling statements, he claims that the true, ultimate goal of science is to "give humankind eternal life." In Homo Deus he is supposed to tell us how that may happen.Anyway, Harari does continue to present new ways of seeing things. I guess it comes from being able to see the big picture, a broad overview of human history. Such insights seem very useful from a philosophical perspective. What can we glean from the past and through the filter of human progress as we envision our future?
The enormity of the subject forces Harari, as you say, to occasionally make overly broad statements that rely on very strict definitions. For example, he says, “humanism is a belief that Homo sapiens has a unique and sacred nature which is fundamentally different from the nature from all other animals and phenomena.” He fails to acknowledge that there are many different definitions of “humanism” and that in the real world people can rarely be categorized so exactly. Seems a bit like seeing all Christians as fundamentalists when in truth “Christians” come in many different flavors.DWill wrote:His strength might be in seeing the forest rather than enumerating the trees. I found his insights and conclusions to be different and occasionally startling, for example that Nazism was a humanistic religion. On the more negative side, the book lacked narrative drive and organization, mostly due to the enormity of the subject. I'm not exactly eager to read his newer book, Homo Deus: A Brief History of Tomorrow, but that may be because summer seems a good time for lighter reading. Maybe I will pick that up later.
I was surprised by this statement as well. I doubt many scientists would agree with him. Also, if science could extend human life indefinitely, it would present a seemingly insurmountable problem of overpopulation. For that reason, such knowledge would almost certainly be available only to a select few rich individuals. It would be every bit as evil as eugenics.DWill wrote:But speaking again of his startling statements, he claims that the true, ultimate goal of science is to "give humankind eternal life." In Homo Deus he is supposed to tell us how that may happen.
I meant my reading, but I have been working on a novel for some time. If it ever gets published, I will be sure to mention it here.DWill wrote:Do your fictional pursuits include writing?
This is a popular trope in sci-fi, and there are countless ways I've seen it implemented. If our genetic code was re-engineered to eliminate aging, we'd still have radiation damage to cellular DNA here and there, which would add up over time. The only way to counter this would be a "gene resetting" procedure, which would be tremendously expensive.Also, if science could extend human life indefinitely, it would present a seemingly insurmountable problem of overpopulation. For that reason, such knowledge would almost certainly be available only to a select few rich individuals. It would be every bit as evil as eugenics.
He agrees that there are different varieties of humanism, but his view from 20,000 feet is that they all share belief of the sort you quoted him stating, which amounts to "the worship of man." This is not, of course, the professed belief of we humanists, but Harari asserts that it is the basis of humanism, nonetheless. Perhaps "worship of man" has a negative ring to humanists, but I see this phrase as showing evenhandedness on Harari's part. He's already told us that theistic religions worship figments. He's not going to let nontheists off the hook by granting that they're too enlightened to need to worship anything. They have their "superhuman" religion or ideology of liberal humanism, extolling the rights of individuals (I say hurrah to that). Back in his religious phase, Bob Dylan said, "You've got to serve somebody" (or some thing). It's sort of like that.geo wrote: For example, he says, “humanism is a belief that Homo sapiens has a unique and sacred nature which is fundamentally different from the nature from all other animals and phenomena.” He fails to acknowledge that there are many different definitions of “humanism” and that in the real world people can rarely be categorized so exactly. Seems a bit like seeing all Christians as fundamentalists when in truth “Christians” come in many different flavors.
In any event, I agree with this definition of humanism from the American Humanist Association: "Humanism is a progressive lifestance that, without theism or other supernatural beliefs, affirms our ability and responsibility to lead meaningful, ethical lives capable of adding to the greater good of humanity."
Yes, we can tack onto humanism a degree of inhumanism, acknowledging that we have to yield space to other animals and forgo economic opportunities, but it's very open to question whether our kind of humanism can really accommodate such noble sacrifice. Our belief (again, not professed) is that to thrive as a species we need to continually grow economically, gaining access to the good things of life, which puts us on a collision course with nature. We like to escape the bind by saying that preservation and growth are not mutually exclusive. But I fear they are.This is a very different definition from Harari’s. The "ethical" component would include an awareness that Homo sapiens are part of the natural world, and in that sense just another animal—see Jared Diamond’s Third Chimpanzee. We have an obligation to consider our impact on the environment and to minimize damage that is intrinsic to our species. To see ourselves as better or above other animals is rather loaded with hubris.
Just as with religion, Harari isn't consulting people to get their views on what they're involved in. Immortality may be a scheme that just a few crackpots are now declaring openly, but the drift of the life sciences is toward this ultimate goal, Harari says. Given the progression we've seen so far, with likely major achievements such cancer cures to come, who can say that Harari is wrong about this?geo wrote:DWill wrote:But speaking again of his startling statements, he claims that the true, ultimate goal of science is to "give humankind eternal life." In Homo Deus he is supposed to tell us how that may happen.I was surprised by this statement as well. I doubt many scientists would agree with him. Also, if science could extend human life indefinitely, it would present a seemingly insurmountable problem of overpopulation. For that reason, such knowledge would almost certainly be available only to a select few rich individuals. It would be every bit as evil as eugenics.
Please do mention it, or even before it's published. I recalled your mentioning once that you were working on a novel. I'm curious what it's about, but probably writers like to keep mum about works in progress or that haven't been published.I meant my reading, but I have been working on a novel for some time. If it ever gets published, I will be sure to mention it here.
That doesn't surprise me, though I can't think of many movies or novels that use this theme of extending our longevity. There's In Time, starring Justin Timberlake, which I haven't seen. I have always been fascinated by cryogenics, people frozen after death with hopes of being revived later when technology has figured out how to do it. There's a great James Taylor song about a Frozen Man who was frozen in the 1800s and is revived, but he only feels despair because everyone he has ever known is "dead and gone from extreme old age."Interbane wrote:This is a popular trope in sci-fi, and there are countless ways I've seen it implemented.
There are probably many aspects of aging that aren't well understood. We probably see much more cancer today than we used to, but only because people live so much longer. Add another 50 years to someone's life and I would bet you would start seeing many complications that would not normally arise. We simply weren't designed to live that long. It's a fascinating idea though.Interbane wrote:. . . If our genetic code was re-engineered to eliminate aging, we'd still have radiation damage to cellular DNA here and there, which would add up over time. The only way to counter this would be a "gene resetting" procedure, which would be tremendously expensive..
I agree that humans have evolved to come to beliefs easily and resistant to being talked out of those beliefs. So it's possible that atheists merely worship different things than theists. That would certainly explain why the two species can hardly understand one another.DWill wrote:. . . He's not going to let nontheists off the hook by granting that they're too enlightened to need to worship anything. They have their "superhuman" religion or ideology of liberal humanism, extolling the rights of individuals (I say hurrah to that). Back in his religious phase, Bob Dylan said, "You've got to serve somebody" (or some thing). It's sort of like that.
This is, of course, the subject of the next section of the book. Our economy is based on growth. But we can’t grow forever. We can look at aging societies like Japan to see what happens when growth stops. I don’t think it’s a very rosy picture.DWill wrote:. . . Our belief (again, not professed) is that to thrive as a species we need to continually grow economically, gaining access to the good things of life, which puts us on a collision course with nature. We like to escape the bind by saying that preservation and growth are not mutually exclusive. But I fear they are.
I will definitely check Jeffers out. Thanks.DWill wrote:The philosophy of Robinson Jeffers, which he called "inhumanism" really did give primacy to all of life. I think inhumanism has roots in Thoreau. Worth checking out.
I don’t mind mentioning it. It’s a novel called Echoes, and I’ve been working on it for, like, forever. I have been working with an agent who referred me to an editor and the book is still coming along. It’s a sort of a ghost story, but one could also describe it simply as a story about a woman trying to come to terms with her past. Stay tuned!DWill wrote:Please do mention it, or even before it's published. I recalled your mentioning once that you were working on a novel. I'm curious what it's about, but probably writers like to keep mum about works in progress or that haven't been published.
If I had to choose between language, enabling coordination, and imagination, enabling new solutions, as a source of human uniqueness I would go with language. Elephants have demonstrated ability to conceptualize solutions to problems, as have apes, dogs and even cats. Nevertheless the extension of language into the imaginary, so that we communicate about something not seen, is as amazing as you say.DWill wrote: His focus on imagination represents his entry into the "what makes humans unique" sweepstakes. It's a good handle on the question, I think. We need to use an expanded meaning of "imagine" to follow him, as our common use of the word shades toward the fantastical, the fictional, or the unreal. For Sapiens, the imaginary is serious business. It's as though we took the ability almost all animals have, to receive sight images from the outside, and made the reception of the sensory image unnecessary. We can do it in-house, in our amazing brains. To "imagine" all of this activity occurring in every human brain during both waking and non-waking hours is really impressive.
Startling, yes, and intriguing, but I have the same complaint about this that I had about his "coordination by mythology" meme: the practical aspect comes first. We didn't "discover ignorance" until a certain amount of awareness developed that problems were being solved and things were changing as a result. When movable type was introduced (which provided very little help where it was invented, in China, because of pictographic writing) people were, if anything, getting more invested in the past. Calvin and Luther were using scripture, the first book Gutenberg produced, to take stands against the entire faith structure of the age. Rulers, usually for reasons of their own, were backing them. About the same time Columbus really turned loose the forces of "recognized ignorance" or "potential knowledge." And he was trying to solve a practical problem, and furthermore going about it wrong, as Prince Henry's experts recognized.Harari wrote:Until the Scientific Revolution most human cultures did not believe in progress. They thought the golden age was in the past, and that the world was stagnant, if not deteriorating. Strict adherence to the wisdom of the ages might perhaps bring back the good old times, and human ingenuity might conceivably improve this or that facet of daily life. However, it was considered impossible for human know-how to overcome the world’s fundamental problems. If even Muhammad, Jesus, Buddha and Confucius – who knew everything there is to know – were unable to abolish famine, disease, poverty and war from the world, how could we expect to do so? . . . When modern culture admitted that there were many important things that it still did not know, and when that admission of ignorance was married to the idea that scientific discoveries could give us new powers, people began suspecting that real progress might be possible after all.
I think Harari's take actually helps to visualize the workings of the standard answer, which is that Europe's broken up, patchwork geography inhibited overall domination by a single power and thereby induced the competition that led to recognizing "potential knowledge." My brother-in-law the historian rejects any "geographical determinism", but the point is to try to uncover forces that might help explain it, rather than to reduce everything to a single factor.DWill wrote:So being an ignoramus was no bad thing! Harari never arrives at an answer of why Europeans created the scientific revolution, and not the other main candidate, the Chinese. He does tell us that the scientific push was aided by Europe's embrace of capitalism and by empire, but of course that only raises another "why Europe" question.
It makes sense to me that Portugal might have visualized the possibility of sailing around Africa as a way of dodging the extortion by Venice and the Turks in the spice trade. That Prince Henry went about it by building up expertise and gathering knowledge shows a certain enterprise, but so does Zheng He's expeditions. (He was an admiral, by the way, not an emperor, and the interesting Wiki page says he was a Muslim, which might help explain his interest in contacting the lands of the Indian Ocean.)DWill wrote: Harari brings up the 15th Century Chinese emperor Zheng He, whose armada of exploring ships made that of Columbus seem like a pod of rowboats. Zheng He explored as far as the horn of Africa, then turned back. The subsequent emperors dismantled both his fleet and the ambition to see the rest of the world.
Yes, it's a famous issue. Up to the 19th century, Chinese emperors were uninterested in Western artifacts, except fancy toy contraptions that had moving parts. You can see some of the amazing things produced for them by the clockmakers of Geneva, in the Patek Philippe museum here. They were mostly sold to ambassadors who could not even get in to see an emperor without such a thing to offer as a gift.DWill wrote:What was out there that the advanced Chinese needed? Nothing that they could see. Perhaps we should say "good for them," they stayed within their boundaries and left the rest of the world alone. Perhaps they were very wise. Instead, we ponder the reasons for their failure to exploit opportunities.