The history of humanity is divided into four major revolutions: The Cognitive Revolution, the Agricultural Revolution, the Industrial Revolution, and the Scientific Revolution—and so is this book. Yuval Noah Harari looks at each revolution and how it changed the course of history.

Part I: The Cognitive Revolution

Chapter 1: An Insignificant Species

The author starts at the beginning, 2.5 million years ago when Homo sapiens were just one of many human species.

The Eight Human (Homo) Species
Humans originated in East Africa, evolved from a genus of apes. They settled all around the world in different climate conditions, giving them unique traits and became different species. Because of this, the evolution of humans is not a linear progression, but more so resembles a tree branch as there were at least six human species that coincided with our existence. Three notable species being:

1. Homo neanderthalensis (man from the neander valley): Residing in western Asian and Europe, Neanderthals were more muscular and had bigger brains than Sapiens.
2. Homo erectus (upright man): They lived in eastern Asia for almost 2 million years, which likely makes them the longest-living human species ever.
3. Homo sapiens (wise man): This is us. (Note: in the book and this blog, the term “human” refers to all species of the Homo genus while “Sapiens” refers to us.)

Shared Characteristics of Humans
Large Brains: An 130 lbs mammal typically have a brain that’s an average of 12 cubic inches while the brain of early humans were 36 cubic inches. The brain of modern humans is, on average, 73-85 cubic inches. This is an disadvantage as big brains consume a ton of energy. Our brains make up 2-3% of our body weight, yet use 25% of our energy. By contracts, the brains of our ape siblings only use 8% of their energy. this leads two main problems:

• Fuel-hungry brains required humans to search for food constantly.
• Their muscles atrophied as their bodies redirected energy from muscles to the brain .

This made us humans hungry and weak. Being such a bad use of our energy, scientists are still unsure why we evolved such large brains when it was a liability instead of an asset in early history.

Walking Upright: This might seem like an unequivocally positive trait but it has its downsides.

• Pros:
  • A better view: Standing makes it easier to see predators or prey hiding in the grass.
  • Ability to use tools: Walking upright frees up your arms for tasks like using tools.
• Cons:
  • Walking upright led humans to evolve narrower hips. This is a problem for childbirth because babies’ heads were getting bigger.

The Consequences of Having Premature Babies
Because childbirth is such a dangerous activity, especially with narrow hips, humans evolved to give birth earlier when the baby’s head was smaller and undeveloped. This meant that human babies are helpless compared to other animal infants. For example, a kitten knows to search for food on its own after a few weeks but babies are dependent on their parents for years. This was disadvantageous for early humans as they needed their energy for activities like hunting and escaping predators. Despite these risks, premature babies created unique social situations that may have contributed to the rise of human dominance in the animal kingdom:

• The “It Takes a Village” Mentality: Helpless children built communities because mothers relied on family and neighbours to help care for them, a rather unique behaviour among animals.
• Socialization: Children born helpless are also blank slates, ready to be shaped and formed by their societies.

Fire
The discovery of fire changed everything for humans, empowering them to gain dominion over the animal kingdom. Fire was a source of light, warmth, and protection in moments of conflict. Most importantly, fire allowed for cooking, making food easier to digest. This development allowed humans to evolve shortened intestine which reduces energy consumed during digestion, enabling that energy to be redistributed to the brain—and as the brain got more energy, it got bigger.

Why Are We the Only Humans Left?
How did sapiens end up on top? The current evidence suggests two possibilities:

• Competition: When migrating to new geographic areas, sapiens simply out-competed other human species due to their superior tools and collaboration skills.
• Genocide: Sapiens may have waged war on other species due to their desire to dominate the animal kingdom.

Chapter 2: Language, Gossip, and Imagined Realities

The Cognitive Revolution
The first major revolution for Sapiens was the Cognitive Revolution. No one’s sure what caused this revolution, but scientists speculate it was likely a gene mutation that rewired the brain. Through the Cognitive Revolution, Sapiens developed three langued-related abilities that distinguished them from other humans.

Ability #1: Complex Language
Language isn’t unique to Sapiens as many animals communicate vocally, but the Sapiens language was different due to its complexity. Other animals, like monkeys, would communicate like this: “Careful! A lion!” Meanwhile, the language of Sapiens could warn someone about a lion, describe its location, and strategize a plan.

Ability #2: Gossip
Gossip is typically viewed as a bad thing, but a key way to build trust is by using language to convey information about other people, which is critical for social cooperation. Even today, most of our communication is gossip, if gossip is defined as talking about others. For example, we do business with certain people because of recommendations from a friend.

Neanderthals likely weren’t capable of gossip. Because they couldn’t talk about others, they couldn’t trust or depend on strangers. This meant they could only cooperate with people they knew personally, which kept their groups small. On the other hand, Sapiens could form groups of up to 150 people as they didn’t need to know every group member personally to trust them. Consequently, in a battle between Sapiens and Neanderthals, the larger group wins.

Ability #3: Fictions
The third development of Sapiens’ language was fiction—also known as imagination or social constructs. Collective fictions—fiction that everyone believes—allow strangers, who would otherwise have nothing in common, to cooperate under shared assumptions and goals. This brings about concepts like money, human rights, corporations, religion, and countries.

Chimp and Sapiens Social Groups
Comparing chimp and Sapiens social groups highlights the advantages of complex language, gossip, and shared fictions.

• Chimps Social Groups
  With chimps, social structure, such as social hierarchy, only works within close-knitted tribes. Chimps who haven’t met each other won’t trust each other or know who is of higher rank. This generally limits each tribe to between 20 and 50 chimps as larger groups destabilize and breakout into smaller groups.
  
• Sapiens Social Groups
  Sapiens’ social groups functioned similarly to those of chimps prior to the Cognitive Revolution. But the development of gossip meant members could learn about each other through word of mouth, allowing for a much bigger social group than chimp’s. Gossip can only take you so far though as beyond a general maximum of 150 people, it becomes too hard to keep track of everyone.
  To form larger groups, collective fictions come into play. This ability allowed Sapiens to cooperate with large groups of people they’ve never met—to the point where they found cities, nations, and empires that aren’t real entities and only exist in the collective mind of the group. For example, citizens of a country are bound by a set of shared ideals, culture, and stories that they tell the world about themselves.

Language Allowed Sapiens to Out-compete the Neanderthals
As previously mentioned, Neanderthals had stronger bodies and larger brains than Sapiens, and were poised to be the dominant human species. However, the Cognitive Revolution paving the way for language, fiction, and cooperative skills allowed Sapiens to out-compete in trade and hunting.

• Trade: Archeological evidence showed that Sapiens traveled far and traded with strangers, which both require strong communication skills, cooperation, and shared myths. Because trust is an essential ingredient for trade, Sapiens are unique in this activity and likely fostered trust by calling upon shared mythical ancestors or gods. There’s no evidence of trade among Neanderthals or any other animals.
• Hunting: Neanderthals hunted by themselves or in small groups while Sapiens hunted in large, cooperative groups. This allowed Sapiens to communicate and strategically hunt for food. This meant if Neanderthals and sapiens were living in the same area and competing for the same food sources, Sapiens would win.

Genetic Evolution Versus Social Evolution
In the animal world, genetic mutation is usually required to significantly change behaviours, which can take hundreds, if not hundreds of thousands of years. For example, chimpanzees live in hierarchical societies led by an alpha male. In order for them to live in an egalitarian society, the change would have to come from their DNA as their social behaviour is so ingrained in their genes.

Sapiens also depended on changes in the DNA prior to the Cognitive Revolution, but thanks to language and collective fictions, they’re able to evolve much faster than other humans. Changes in social structures, interpersonal behaviours, and economic behaviours that used to take hundreds of years now can be changed within decades.

Chapter 3: The Life of a Forager

Before life in the office and hammering out spreadsheets, we were farmers and herders (for the last 12,000 years). Hundreds of thousands of years before that, the majority of Sapiens were foragers.

We Don’t Know Much About Foragers
Foragers would move around frequently, and because this was a time before wagons or pack animals, they had to carry everything themselves. This meant they had very few personal possessions and the lack of artifacts leaves many unknowns about forager life.

The Few Things We’re Pretty Sure Of

• There human population was small (less than the number of people living in Cairo today).
• Sapiens lived in tribes of up to several hundred individuals.
• Tribes cooperated in trade, but also fought.
• They were nomads, roaming back and forth according to animal migrations and seasonal changes.
• They ate anything and everything.
• They had skills. Everyone knew how to make a knife, how to trap, heal, etc.

Health
Foragers were taller and healthier than Sapiens after the Agricultural Revolution for a couple reasons:

• Diverse Diet: early foragers ate anything and everything, so the variety in their diet gave them all the nutrients and they were rarely malnourished.
• Less Disease: because foragers were spread thinly across the land, the lack of proximity to one another made epidemics uncommon. Additionally, many diseases are derived from domesticated animals so because their only domesticated animal were dogs, there was little opportunity to spread diseases.

Animism
The consensus is that early foragers were animists rather than theists.

• Animism: The belief that all things (animate and inanimate) are equal, have thoughts and feelings, and can communicate with people.
• Theism: The belief in a God or gods who created a universal order where divine beings are above the non-divine.

Foragers likely believed all things had the capability to reward or punish Sapiens for their actions.

Chapter 4: Human Migration and Mass Extinction

Humans first lived on the landmass of Afro-Asia and a few surrounding islands. Their presence didn’t alter these environments dramatically and lived in harmony with the animals there. As humans migrated to Australia, America, and the rest of the world, this would change.

Human-Caused Extinction in Australia
Although we’re unsure how humans managed to cross the sea, the best theory is that Sapiens in Indonesia learned how to build boats and sailed to Australia. Human colonization of Australia is one of the most important events in history as it was here that Sapiens became the deadliest species on the planet.

Australia was home to many large animals prior to the arrival of humans. Many of which sound mythical such as marsupial lions and flightless birds twice the size of ostriches. In just a few thousand years of humans, 23 out of 24 animals weighing 100 pounds or more became extinct.

How Could Humans Cause Such an Ecological Catastrophe?

• Large Australian animals were easy to kill
  Large animals breed slowly and infrequently, so even if humans only killed a few diprotodons each year, deaths could easily outnumber births, causing the species’ extinction within a few years. These animals also had no prior experience with humans and because humans don’t look particularly menacing, these animals didn’t evolve a fear of humans until it was too late.
• Humans had fire
  Humans used fire to burn down forests and shrubbery to create grasslands that were easy to navigate and hunt. Not only did this facilitate hunting, it changed vegetation, impacting animals who ate the vegetation and the animals that ate those animals—collapsing the food chain.
• Climate change
  Large animals were already vulnerable to climate change and human actions likely pushed the ecosystem over the edge.

Humans-Caused Extinction in America
Sapiens, the only humans to make it to America, came via a land bridge between Siberia and Alaska. For a species that came from Africa, Sapiens adapted to the cold and inhospitable land quickly. They invented snowshoes, used needles to sew fur into clothes, and made new weapons.

In just a couple thousand years, Sapiens adapted to the diverse ecosystems and climates of America including Easter U.S., the Mexican desert, the Amazon basin, and the Andean mountain valleys. They impressively achieved this without altering their genes.

Animals native to North America such as mastodons and bear-sized rodents became extinct shortly after the arrival of humans. In fact, 84 out of 107 large animal genera in the Americas went extinct.

Human-Caused Extinction in The Rest of the World
What happened in Australia and America happened everywhere else in the world. Between the Cognitive and Agricultural Revolutions, half of the world’s large beasts went extinct due to humans. What is known as The First Wave Extinction followed the Cognitive Revolution. The Second Wave followed the Agricultural Revolution, and we are now experiencing the Third Wave Extinction. Whales, sharks, and dolphins will likely follow in the footsteps of diprotodons, ground sloths, and mammoths unless humanity make dramatic changes.

Part II: The Agricultural Revolution

Chapter 5: Farming

Next, farming brings the advent of The Agricultural Revolution.

The Success (and Suffering) of People During the Agricultural Revolution
Roughly 10,000 years ago, Sapiens entered in the Agricultural Revolution when they started transitioning from a forager lifestyle to an agricultural one. In doing so, we boosted our population from 5-8 million in 10,000 BC to 250 million by the first century AD.

Interestingly, the transition to farming had numerous downsides. Agriculture was more challenging than foraging and hunting. Diets became less nutritious due to lack of variety. It also led to more diseases and child mortally as it promoted closer living proximities. Most agricultural surplus went to the elites, which meant the revolution didn’t lead to a better life for most people. In short, it benefitted the human race (population growth), but it hindered the individual (worst living conditions).

If the Benefits Were Few, Why Agriculture?
The transition from foraging to agriculture was due to a series of seemingly insignificant changes rather than a conscious collective choice:

• The end of the last ice age (18,000 years ago) increased rainfall, fostering the growth of grains.
• When people returned with wheat to their campsite, they sprinkled some along the path, helping its spread.
• Humans burned forests to create open fields that attracted animals. The biproduct is more sunlight and water for wheat.
• After discovering that wheat grew better when buried deep in the soil, humans invented stone scythes, pestles, and mortars, unknowingly becoming farmers.

The Success (and Suffering) of Animals During the Agricultural Revolution
The shift to agriculture was tough on animals. While farming helped species like cows and pigs thrive, it made the individual animals suffer. Domesticated animals live much shorter lives than their wild counterparts, they’re confined to small spaces, with little room to move, and are subjected to painful practices like castration. Female animals are kept constantly pregnant to produce milk, with their babies often taken away or killed. Though some animals, like dogs and horses, have it better, most domesticated animals endure hardship for the success of farming.

Chapter 6: The Rise of Anxiety and the Political Order

The Agricultural Revolution facilitated the Sapiens transition from a nomadic life to having houses. We cleared forests, planted trees and fences, and self-proclaimed ownership of our land. In doing so, we become more individualistic, self-centered, and separated from nature. This brought on more responsibility and anxiety.

Anxieties About the Future
Nomads focused on the present and didn’t worry much about the future because they had little influence over it. Farmers, on the other hand, were more focused on the future due to three reasons:

1. Because Agriculture is dependent on seasonal cycles, you have to think ahead about the next cultivation season in order to have a harvest
2. Agriculture is risky due to droughts, floods, pests, and several other calamities. Consequently, farmers must try to anticipate storms, floods, and dry periods, and plan ahead accordingly.
3. Farming is inherently future-oriented. You won’t be able to reap what you sowed for months and years to come. This also meant farmers had more control of their future, so they would sow more seeds and find more fertile soil to improve food security.

The Fiction of the Political Order
To cooperate in large groups, we need organizational structure. This involves creating myths that connect different groups of people in order to divide land, settle disputes, and keep the peace. Throughout history, cooperation is rarely egalitarian, and more often than not, built on oppression. Take the Code of Hammurabi for example. The Babylonian Empire was the largest in the world in 1776 BC. King Hammurabi established a code emphasized hierarchy and divided the population based on class and gender that he claims was mandated by the gods. The population believed the myth that these were divine laws, and the empire’s million subjects were able to cooperate with each other.

The Requirements of an Imagined Order
Natural orders are based in physical reality, making it stable. E.g. Gravity exists regardless of whether we believe in it or not. Imagined orders, on the other hand, are based on myths, making it unstable. They cease to exist without the two requirements for maintaining them:

• Coercion: Belief in the fiction needs to be continuously enforced, which is often done through violence. For example, many Americans fought a war in the South to enforce the belief that African slaves should be free.
• True Belief: Coercion is very hard to coordinate as armies, courts, and police officers who enforces the imagined order must believe in a myth as well.

The Factors That Keep Us From Realizing Our Order is Imagined

Factor #1: The imagined order is woven into objective, material reality.
Imagined orders are reflected in our daily lives. This can be seen in our architecture when comparing individualistic and collectivist societies:

• Individualism Architecture: Western cultures believe we’re all unique individuals with an emphasis on determining your self worth and our architecture expresses this belief. Houses have many rooms so everyone can have their own space. These spaces are then decorated to reflect the identity of the individual, reenforcing the a sense of autonomy and individualism.
• Collectivism Architecture: In collectivist cultures, such as that during the medieval era, your place in the social hierarchy is determined by the gossip about you and your name. As such, their architecture consists of many shared communal spaces including bathrooms and sleeping quarters. Consequently, if you rarely have any privacy and are constantly surround by others, you are conditioned to believe that your worth is determined by those around you.

Factor #2: Our wants are shaped by the imagined order.
Your desires are not your own. The author argues your wants are likely influenced by Romantic myths from the 19th century and consumerist myths from the 20th century. Take tourism, for example. Our desire to travel is not a natural, biological urge. Instead, it’s a combination of Romanticism and Consumerism marketed by the tourism industry to sell you on the idea that these experiences will enrich your life.

• Romanticism: to live a fulfilling life, you must try new things.
• Consumerism: to live a fulfilling life, you must buy.

Factor #3: The imagined order doesn’t just exist inside our heads—it’s collective.
Because everyone else believes in these imagined orders, it’s hard to believe they’re just myths. It’s something embedded in your culture since the day you were born, so it feels natural to believe in them too. Further, because the imagined order exists in the collective mind, it’s hard for just one person to change them. It doesn’t just cease to exist if one person stop believing in it.

Chapter 7: The Invention of Writing

For some species, social orders and cooperative systems are encoded in their DNA. For example, bees instinctively know to pollenate flowers and produce honey for the colony. For Sapiens, we have to memorize our imagined systems because they aren’t encoded in our DNA, and when these systems became more complex, it had too much information to be held in the brain.

The Invention of Writing
Rather than recording spoken language, early writing was invented to fill a gap where spoken language failed — recording data. This was crucial during the Agricultural Revolution as knowing the harvest numbers would allow for better planning, leading to population growth. Other early writing was used to record tax payments, debts, and property ownership. It was invented by the Sumerians in southern Mesopotamia between 3500 and 3000 BC. Though they started with numbers, they gradually added signs to their script so it can transcribe spoken language (called cuneiform).

The Problem with Writing
Inventing a way to organize and retrieve data turns out to be much harder than inventing writing itself. In order for data to be useful, it needs to be intuitively organized and easily accessed — empires like Sumer, pharaonic Egypt, and Inca all thrived because of their organization of written information.

Arabic Numerals
The Hindus were responsible for a huge advancement in writing by inventing the signs representing 0 to 9. We call them Arabic numerals because they were refined and circulated by the Arabs. This served as the foundation of the mathematical notation we use even today, increasing the efficiency of recording, processing, and transmitting data. Regardless of what language a country speaks, almost everyone speaks the language of mathematics.

Chapter 8: The Imagined Reality of Justice

To organize themselves into large groups, Sapiens formed societies through the use of imagined orders and writing.

Imagined Hierarchies
There’s no known society that doesn’t discriminate some and privilege others. We need imagine orders as a society to function, ones that are neither equitable nor impartial. Hierarchies exist to let us know how to interact with others without knowing them, which, in theory, lets us function more efficiently in large societies.

Despite appearing to be natural, almost all hierarchies are imagined. For instance, capitalists believe the rich are rich because they worked smarter and harder than everyone else. But the truth is most rich people are rich because their parents were rich, while most poor people are poor because their parents were poor. Wealth is rarely earned based on merit.

This also means success isn’t solely based on intelligence, skills, or hard work. Society still largely determines who wins and who loses by dictating whose abilities are nurtured and who gets what opportunities.

How Hierarchies Are Formed
Imagined societies are generally formed by two things:

• Fear of Pollution: We have a survival instinct to fear people and animals that might carry disease. But historically, this biological fear has been used to manipulate and exploit people. To ostracize a group, tell people that they’re polluted and could contaminate you if you interact with them.
• Historical Accidents and Cycles of Discrimination: Prejudicial hierarchies often start from a random accident in history. Once this random event that benefits one group and discriminates against another occurs, those who benefit from it will perpetuate the hierarchy. This reinforces the prejudice and maintains the system, allowing the cycle to continue.

Sex and Gender
There is one hierarchy that is based in biology and not imagined: male vs female. For a quick differentiation between sex and gender:

• Sex, male or female, is determined by biology. One born with XY chromosomes is a male while one born with XX chromosomes is a female.
• Gender, man or woman, is determined by social and cultural myths. So one’s gender is based on how they fit into the “man” or “woman” mold as outlined by their particular culture.

Sex has remained constant throughout history while characteristics of masculinity and femininity have changed drastically. That’s a leading indicator that these characteristics are social myths, and not biology.

Natural Versus Unnatural Behavior
When a minority group does something that doesn’t align with societal norms, it’s deemed “unnatural”. For instance, society’s view on the naturalness of homosexuality has varied throughout history. In modern Greece, society recognizes heterosexuality as a biological reality because it allows for procreation, whereas homosexuality does not so they deem it unnatural. Yet, cultures of ancient Greece saw homosexuality as natural and productive with many elites having same sex partners.

One way to differentiate biological reality from myths is that “biology enables, culture forbids”. Biologically, if something is possible, it’s natural. If something can’t exist in nature, it’s impossible and unnatural.

Biological Nature v. Theological Nature
Although the argument that homosexuality is unnatural because sex is meant to procreate sounds like a biological argument, it’s actually a Christian one. Theologians believe that God created each organ for a specific purpose. Therefore, usage of them for any other purpose is “unnatural”. So because God designed sexual organs for reproducing, homosexuality is unnatural.

But biology states that God didn’t create organs, evolution did. And evolution doesn’t create organs for specific purposes, which is why animals usage of organs changes throughout history. For example, mouths evolved as a way to receive nutrients from the environments; yet, kissing and speaking isn’t considered unnatural. Similarly, many animals use sex for purposes besides procreation such as for pleasure or to form alliances. These uses aren’t unnatural simply because they weren’t the original purposes of sex.

Male Dominance
Most cultures have valued males over females since the Agricultural Revolution, but we can’t explain the prevalence of patriarchy throughout history the same way we explain other hierarchies — patriarchy is too universal to be caused by accidental events.

Though studies on this subject has yet to reach a consensus, the answer likely lies in three biological theories:

• Theory #1: Males are naturally stronger, so they exercised their physical dominance over females. For example, males might have used their strength to monopolize agricultural tasks that were labour-intensive, giving them power over food production, and ultimately, power over society. However, there’s a couple problems with this theory:
  • Historically, females were forbidden from entering professions that required no physical labour like law and religion, but did taxing household chores.
  • There are also many females that are stronger than males, yet hold no additional power.
  • Historically, there’s little relation between physical strength and social power. Those in power are rarely ever physically the strongest.
• Theory #2: Males are naturally more aggressive, so they fought wars and were able to seize power. The theory is simple: because males are more aggressive, they make better soldiers and fight wars. The more wars you fight and win, the more power you have. And since males control armies, they hold all the power. The problem with this theory:
  • Soldiers are not the ones in power, it’s generals and politicians — roles that require tact, skills, cooperation, and wide-perspective rather than aggression and strength. Roles where males have no biological advantages over females. In fact, females are often stereotyped for having more tact and perspective than males.
• Theory #3: Males had to become competitive as a reproductive strategy. Males had to compete against each other to impregnate females, so they evolved to be aggressive and competitive. Meanwhile, females could easily find a male to impregnate them. Their problem was getting food during pregnancy and caretaking, so they evolved to be submissive and dependent on males to provide. The problem with this theory:
  • It’s unclear why females wouldn’t just depend on each other rather than on males. Females of many species, such as elephants, would collectively raise children.

Part III: The Creation of a Global Society

Chapter 9: The Direction of Cultural Evolution

Culture is the “network of artificial instincts” that connects us. While their values and norms are based on tradition, they are also ever evolving.

The Value of Cognitive Dissonance
Cultural changes can stem from external factors such as environmental or neighbouring cultural influences, or it can be internal factors such as contradictions. These contradictions are also known as cognitive dissonance — psychological discomfort experienced when holding contradictory thoughts or beliefs. Cognitive dissonance is inherent in every culture. But they’re actually beneficial because they force us to examine them and change. This leads to a multitude of varied opinions on how to resolve the contradictions, allowing for a more creative and dynamic species while moving the culture forward.

The Merging of Worlds
Cultures are constantly evolving, but historically, they tend to move in the direction of unity. Small cultures tend to merge together to form larger and more sophisticated culture.

Today, we have a global culture; but for most of history, humans were in countless little isolated groups. In 10,000 BC, there were thousands of distinct cultures, but by AD 1450, 90% of the world lived in Afro-Asia, where Asia, Europe, and Africa were connected by culture, politics, and trade. By 1788, the rest of the world has been absorbed into Afro-Asia. And today, all humans are tied by a shared geopolitical, legal, scientific, and economic system.

Chapter 10: The Monetary Order

Money is the first unifier of mankind. Though money is a relatively recent invention, hunter-gatherers had their own “money” in the form of favours.

Economies of Favors and Bartering
When the Agricultural Revolution first started, there was little need for money. Villages were able to provide for themselves, and what they couldn’t, they bartered for in other villages. While some individuals were skilled in areas like clothing or medicine, villages were too small for anyone to have a full-time specialization other than farming.

However, as societies grew and transportation improved, everything changed. In large cities, it made sense to have specialized expertise as there were many people in need of different goods and services and can reciprocate with their own specialization. Specialization allowed individuals to hone their craft, benefiting society as a whole.

The Limitations of an Economy of Favors and Bartering
An economy of favour only works if you know the person as a stranger may never reciprocate if you provide them with free goods or services. This renders cooperation to be ineffective in large groups.

Bartering poses problems as well:

• Problem #1: Bartering requires constant recalculation of exchange rates. For example, an apple grower must determine how many apples to trade for shoes, factoring in quality, time, cost, and the shoemaker’s needs. In a market with 100 commodities, this means memorizing thousands of exchange rates, making bartering impractical for large communities.
• Problem #2: Bartering relies on mutual desire. If you want to trade apples for shoes but the only shoemaker in town doesn’t want apples or already has enough, you’re stuck.

The Development of Currency
Money is anything that A) represents the value of goods and services, and B) is accepted in exchange for goods and services. It’s a shared myth that facilitates cooperation among strangers in large groups.

Money offers three key benefits over bartering or favors:

1. It converts nearly anything into anything else. Unlike bartering, where you may struggle to find someone who wants your goods, everyone wants money because everyone else does too.
2. It stores wealth efficiently. Unlike perishable goods like avocados or bulky items like grain, money can be stored easily and securely, preserving value without the need for space or protection from spoilage.
3. It’s portable. Unlike grain or real estate, currencies like coins and paper are easy to carry. This mobility helped expand trade networks and grow communities.

Types of Currency
Cattle, animal skins, grain, salt, beads, and cloth have all been used as currency throughout history. While we often think of coins and banknotes, they represent just a small portion of today’s money. Of the $60 trillion in global wealth, only $6 trillion is physical currency; over 90% exists as electronic data.

Inherent v. Noninherent Value
The first types of money, like barley in Sumer around 3000 BC, had inherent value because they were edible. However, most common forms of money, like shells, dollars, and silver, have no inherent worth. Its worth comes solely from our collective belief in its value.

A System of Mutual Trust
Why would anyone trade something with inherent value, like rice, for a chunk of metal or a piece of paper? Because we trust others do too. Trust is the foundation of our economic system. You believe a dollar bill has value because your neighbor does, and vice versa. Both of you trust it because the government does too by requiring taxes to be paid with it. Currency’s value comes from government authority—if you trust the government, you trust the money it backs.

Money, the Great Unifier
Money united disparate cultures by creating a shared belief in the value of currency, regardless of race, language, or religion. From Rome to India, the common use of gold coins allowed commercial ties to form, eventually leading to a global financial and political community.

But How did currencies once tied to things like cowry shells, barley, or beads become unified? The answer lies in supply and demand. Imagine when India and the Mediterranean started trading. Indians don’t value gold. However, in the Mediterranean, gold is a prestigious symbol. Mediterranean traders notice they can acquire gold cheaply in India and sell it for much higher prices back home. As the demand for gold rises in India and it floods the Mediterranean, gold’s value starts to balance between the two regions. As the value of gold shifts, Indians begin to see its worth because Mediterranean traders highly value it.

This shows how money fosters unity more easily than religion. While religion asks us to believe in something, money simply asks us to believe that others believe in something. And that’s much easier.

The Dark Side of Money
Problem #1: Money often conflicts with our community and family values. While we value loyalty, morality, and love, money has caused knights to abandon their post and families to turn on each other. Historically, when monetary values clash with community values, money wins.

Problem #2: The monetary system trains us to trust currency over people. We don’t trust strangers, but we trust the money they carry. Once that money runs out, so does our trust in them.

Chapter 11: The Imperial Order

While money has brought together the world, looking at history through the lens of economy only paints part of the picture. The second unifier of mankind is empire, which is a political system that meets two criteria:

1. It governs a large population in distinct areas and of distinct cultures. I.e. the Roman Empire consisted of communities from Europe, Africa, and Asia.
2. It can expand without fundamentally changing its structure, function, or identity. I.e. Great Brian today is not an empire. They have defined borders and changing them would also alter Great Britain’s basic structure and identity. However, a century ago, the British Empire spanned all over the world, but still retained its British identity. This ability to expand without losing its identity defines an empire.

Benevolent Imperialism
Today, the words “empire” and “imperialism” have negative connotations, associated with the destruction and exploitation of local cultures and resources. While many successful empires did involve war and genocide, they also shaped the world and human culture in positive ways.

As previously mentioned, Sapiens have evolved to be selfish. We’re programmed to only care about those who share our language, beliefs, and customs. Given this, imperialism does bring the benefit of unification which helps spread ideas, technology, and goods. Encouraging this spread helped rulers govern more efficiently by standardizing languages, policies, and currencies.

As such, kings believed they were improving their subjects’ lives, justifying their rule. This is common throughout history. Muslims rulers spreading Islam, Brits introducing liberalism, and Americans establishing democracy in developing countries.

In a xenophobic world, these rulers tried to be inclusive and unite diverse people under one system.

The Dissolution of Us versus Them
Imperialism dissolved cultural divides in two ways:

1. Complete Assimilation: Over time, conquered people fully assimilated into the dominant culture, leaving no trace of their original culture.
2. Cultural Amalgamation: Because of their inclusivity, rulers often embraced and spread cultures from the people they conquered. Empires became blends of the civilizations they absorbed.

The Legacies of Empire
The world today is smaller and more united thanks to the collapse of past cultures and the legacies of empires. Most of us now speak an imperial language, and colonized groups has embraced Western ideals. There’s no return to cultures before imperialism — its legacies are heavily embedded into modern society and removing them would erase contemporary culture.

The Future: A Global Empire
As the world shrinks, we’re moving toward a single global empire. Nationalism is diminishing, and governments are more focused on protecting human rights globally than just within their borders. Today, countries can’t function independently. Our economy, social policies, and even our ability to wage war are dependent on other countries. Issues like global warming highlight the need for a unified global community where no country can stand alone.

Chapter 12: The Religious Order

Religion is the third unifier of mankind. While we often view religion as being divisive, it actually plays a key role in supporting imagined orders that have made Sapiens successful. These social orders are fragile because they’re myths, and religion provides “superhuman legitimacy”, stabilizing them and making them harder to challenge.

Not all belief systems are religions. To be a religion, a system must meet two requirements:

1. It must to be based on the belief in a “superhuman” order, and not the product of human actions. e.g. soccer has many rules and rituals, but it’s not a religion because it was man-made.
2. It must provide moral standards and values, like modesty or compassion.

Religions that revolutionized the world and shaped our global empire have two additional traits:

1. Universal: it must be applicable to everyone, everywhere.
2. Missionary: its believers must actively spread the religion to all of humanity.

The History of Religion

Animism
As previously mentioned, animism is a belief system where all objects, animate or inanimate, have a soul and are equal.

Most hunter-gatherer religions were animistic and local, not universal. Since hunter-gatherers didn’t travel far, their beliefs centered on specific territories and weren’t missionary either.

The Rise of Polytheism
The Agricultural Revolution sparked a religious revolution. The invention of farming overturned Animism as humans gained dominion. Sheep and crops became possessions to be owned and protected, and human concerns became the center of religion.

Although man gained more control over nature, their control was not absolute. They still faced droughts, epidemics, and sick animals. Man needed to something else to control over the natural world so they turned to the gods as a solution.

As empires and trade networks expanded, so did people’s needs. Instead of relying on local gods, they needed a pantheon to address new concerns. This gave rise to polytheism, where each god had distinct roles—such as fertility, rain, or war.

The Inherent Tolerance of Polytheism
Polytheism’s belief in many gods made it inherently tolerant as people easily accepted the existence of other gods who meet the needs of different people. Polytheistic empires, like Rome, didn’t force conversion on conquered subjects. They only asked the conquered to respect their gods while allowing worship of local gods.

The Rise of Monotheism
Over time, some polytheistic worshippers began favoring one deity, leading to the rise of monotheism. Unlike polytheism, monotheism’s God had personalities and was actively interested in the human world. This allowed for negotiations through prayers and offerings as people believed the God could intervene.

Early monotheistic religions struggle to spread because they weren’t universal. For example, In Judaism, the Jewish God only focused on Israel, limiting Judaism’s appeal outside that region. Christianity on the other hand, is a religion that believes their God died for the sins of all humans, making it a universal faith and becoming the first missionary religion.

The Benefits of Intolerance
Believing in one God means rejecting the existence of the rest, making monotheism inherently less tolerant than polytheism. As such, to spread their religion, monotheists must discredit all other gods and religions. The conviction needed to challenge competing religions actually fueled the spread of monotheism. Today, most of the world outside of East Asia practices monotheism, even shaping the politics.

Natural Law Religions
Although we tend to associate religion with the belief in God(s), it’s not a requirement. For example, while Jainism, Buddhism, Epicureanism, and Confucianism don’t deny the existence of gods, they focus on natural laws, not divine ones. Buddhism, the most well-known natural law religion, resembles more of a set of philosophies than it does a religion in the traditional sense.

Humanism
Humanism is a religion that worship Homo sapiens rather than God(s). They believe humans are sacred and special, and other species exists for humanity’s benefit. The religion’s teachings can be divided into three sects:

1. Liberal Humanism
   Liberal humanists believe every human is sacred. The most important teaching is to protect the life and freedom of everyone, giving way to the modern idea of “human rights”. For example, preferring imprisonment over the death penalty for criminals.
2. Socialist Humanism
   Socialist humanist believe that sacredness lives in the collective species, prioritizing equality over individual freedom. Inequality undermines our sanctity, as it privileges superficial qualities like wealth or skin colour.
3. Evolutionary Humanism
   Evolutionary humanists believe that we must actively guide our evolution to ensure we evolve optimally. A notable example would be Naziism, the belief that the Aryan race was the most advanced and interbreeding with “inferior” race would pollute their pureness.

Chapter 13: Success and Alternate Paths of History

History Isn’t Predictable
Hindsight bias is the human tendency to believe past events seem obvious and predictable looking back. While we can describe how history unfolded, we can’t explain why it unfolded the way it did. For instance, we can trace Christianity’s rise in the Roman Empire, but we don’t know why Constantine chose Christianity over other religions.

The less we know about a period, the more we think the events were inevitable. The more we learn, the more we see all the untaken paths. History is unpredictable—what was once improbable now seems inevitable. For the same reason, we can’t predict the future. We fall for the hindsight fallacy because we find comfort in thinking history is deterministic, that everything happened the way it was meant to.

History Is a Level Two Chaotic System
History is chaotic and too complex to fully understand. It’s a “level two” chaotic system.

• A level one chaotic system isn’t affected by predictions. For example, the weather can be predicted, but forecasts don’t change the weather itself.
• A level two chaotic system is influenced by predictions. For example, politics: If someone predicted the a revolution was imminent, leaders might have taken actions to prevent it.

Why We Study History
Although history is full of unknowns and doesn’t predict the future, we study it to understand the present. It’s crucial to realize that nothing in life is inevitable. Just as the past had many variables, the present holds countless possibilities, and we should never assume any path is unavoidable.

History Doesn’t Benefit Humans
We often think that as history progresses, life for humans improves, but there’s no reason to believe that’s the case. The best outcome doesn’t always happen, it’s all just random occurrences. Similarly, just because Christianity and Islam defeated other religions doesn’t mean they are the best for humanity. We have no objective way to judge what’s truly “good,” as different cultures define it differently.

We believe the current state of affairs is the way it should be, for two reasons:

1. The victors define what’s “good.” The winners write history and shape empires.
2. We’re biased toward the present. We assume that the widespread success of certain ideologies, like Islam and Christianity, is an indication of goodness rather than chance.

Cultures Take Advantage of Humans
We think cultures exist to serve us, but we’re actually serving them. This concept is described in three ways:

• Mimetics: Culture as a Parasite of Humanity
  Mimetics compares cultures to parasites. Cultures spread from person to person, existing not for our benefit but to infect and exploit us. This analogy highlights how cultures can dominate minds and lead people to die in their name, whether for Nazism or democracy.
• Postmodernism: Culture as a Plague of Society
  In postmodernism, scholars describe how cultures spread and harm societies like a plague. Nationalism, for instance, started in a few countries and spread, leaving wars and genocide in its wake.
• Game Theory: Culture as a Game That No One Wins
  Game theory compares culture to a game with no winner. For example, the arms races benefit no one. As one country increases its weapons, its rival follows suit, resulting in no change in power but draining resources.

Because history is unpredictable, we can’t fully explain why the world is the way it is. But we should remember that history isn’t inevitable, and our world isn’t shaped by benevolent forces. It’s important to question our values, cultures, and systems and ask why we adhere to them.

Part IV: The Scientific Revolution

Chapter 14: Knowing We Don’t Know

In the last 500 years, scientific and technological progress has been staggering. We’ve cured diseases, travelled around the globe, and even landed on the moon. These breakthroughs stem from the Scientific Revolution.

Changes in How We Understand the World
The Scientific Revolution changed our perspective of the world and our future:

1. We acknowledge our ignorance
   Acknowledging our ignorance sparked the Scientific Revolution. We recognize that gaps exist in our knowledge and are willing to question what we think we know to fill it.
2. Science over religion
   Before the Revolution, knowledge mainly derived from religious texts which used stories to link observations with theories. Today, we use our senses and technology to observe, and mathematics to form coherent theories.
3. Knowledge is the new superpower
   Historically, power came from governments and armies rather than science. The Revolution shifted our desire for power to come from knowledge instead as it enables technological advancements.
4. We believe in progress
   Before the Scientific Revolution, people didn’t believe in progress. They thought the golden age was behind them. Unlike our ancestors, our scientific discoveries have driven a sense of progress, motivating further research and reinforcing the cycle of discovery.
5. The Problem of Death
   The Scientific Revolution changed how we now perceive and confront death. Historically, death was seen as inevitable, but modern science challenges that notion. Medical advances like pacemakers, cancer treatments, and antibiotics have extended life expectancy from 25 years in pre-scientific times to 67 years today (80 in developed countries).

The Web of Science-Economy-Politics-Religion
Funding is often the key to driving scientific breakthroughs as research is expensive. Modern science thrives because governments, businesses, and the rich invests invests billions of dollars to serve a specific political, religious, or economic goal. Without their funding, many theories would only be theories. Consequently, those with money and power shape the scientific agenda.

Chapter 15: The Quest for Knowledge…and Land

Those in power rarely pursue knowledge for the sake of knowledge. Expeditions to colonize new lands also facilitated scientific discoveries, with each goal reinforcing the other. In the 18th century, European imperialism and the Scientific Revolution became inseparable.

European Dominance
Despite having small armies and little global influence, Europeans, once insignificant, became the word’s superpower — even during a time where Asia seemed poised for dominance. The Ottoman, Safavid, Mughal, Ming, and Qing empires controlled 80% of the global economy. Until 1850, military and technological strength between East and West was similar.

So what happened? Eastern leaders failed to embrace new technologies, while Westerners welcomed progress. European nations were more adaptable due to shared values and political structures, while Asia lacked these commonalities. Science and capitalism were key Western advantages.

Today, global culture is shaped by Europe, from food and fashion to thought and music.

Science and Empire
Science gave imperialists practical advantages: better navigation, sophisticated weaponry, and advanced medicines. Perhaps most importantly, science provided the “ideological justification” for continued colonization:

1. Science believed new knowledge was inherently good, so conquering foreign lands was seen as a positive thing since it led to new discoveries.
2. Science promised improvements like better medicine, education, and infrastructure, which imperialists argued were ways to “help” the people they conquered.
3. Science fueled the belief in European superiority, claiming that Aryans, the alleged ancestors of all Indo-European languages, were the purest race. This theory justified imperialists’ right and duty to rule over other races.

Thus, European imperialism relied on science for both practical means and ideological justification—something other empires lacked.

The Power of Ignorance to Build Empires
What gave Europeans an edge was the shared drive of scientists and naval officers to acknowledge their ignorance and make new discoveries. Scientists admitted they didn’t know everything about nature; officers acknowledged they didn’t know every part of the world—both were driven to fill these gaps. This thirst for knowledge was unique in history. Unlike the Arabs, who conquered to spread their own knowledge, Europeans conquered to learn more.

Christopher Columbus’s Ignorance of His Ignorance
Though often celebrated as the “discoverer” of America, Columbus embodies the old European attitude of ignoring the ignorance of his time.

When Columbus reached the Bahamas in 1492, he mistakenly believed he had arrived in the East Indies. He continued to believe this throughout his life—it was unthinkable to Columbus and his crew that an entire continent could exist beyond their knowledge.

However, this mindset began to shift in the 15th and 16th centuries. The discovery of the Americas sparked the Scientific Revolution, revealing Europe’s lack of knowledge and the need to trust observations over Scripture. Europeans started creating maps with blank spaces, acknowledging the unknown instead of filling gaps with false details. It motivated Europeans to explore and conquer unknown lands, requiring them to gather data on geography, climate, plants, animals, and cultures.

Chapter 16: The Myth of Capitalism

Capital is the term for money and resources that are invested in the production of a product or service, which is where capitalism derived its name. Science, through its discoveries and the mindset it promoted, was one of the two key drivers of imperialism. Capitalism was the other.

The Idea of Growth and the Invention of Credit
Modern economy is growing. While this seems obvious now, for most of history, the economy was stagnant. Economic growth is a recent development, and it’s been growing fast: In 1500, global production was $250 billion. Today, it’s around $60 trillion.

What changed? Belief in the future. Collective optimism in the future drives economic growth as the belief in future value allows banks to issue loans and people to invest in businesses. Without such trust, many businesses wouldn’t exist and the economy would have stayed stagnant.

Credit, the modern concept of borrowing based on future resources, emerged from this belief that the future will bring more abundance. In the past, loans were rare and only given to trusted individuals as people believed resources were finite. With limited resources, wealth was also limited and seen as a zero-sum game: if you had it, you were taking it from someone else. Extending credit was risky because there was no guarantee the borrower would succeed and repay the loan.

The New Ethics of Capitalism
Before the idea of progress, wealth was often seen as sinful, rooted in the belief that resources were finite.

However, over time, people began to view wealth as separate from others’ poverty. Not only was individual wealth no longer considered a sin, it became a societal good. Adam Smith led the idea that an employer’s profits benefit society because they are reinvested in hiring more employees, thus spreading wealth. In this view, greed is good for everyone.

People began seeing money-making as a public service and this also led to a new expectation of how profits should be used. Wealthy individuals and rulers once spent money on extravagances like wars or banquets, but now they were expected to reinvest profits in production, fueling further growth.

The Codependency of Science and Capitalism
Capitalism has reshaped science. If the research can’t answer the question “How will this study help my company increase production and profits?”, it won’t get funding.

But science has also influenced capitalism. For capitalism’s optimistic predictions that “future resources will be more abundant”, science needs to keep producing discoveries. Until science delivers something new, governments often print money, hoping a breakthrough will occur before the bubble bursts. Science and capitalism rely on each other to thrive.

The Codependency of European Imperialism and Capitalism
One reason Europe dominated the world while Asian empires remained passive was that Asian rulers viewed merchants with disdain and taxed them heavily. In contrast, European kings and generals embraced the merchant mindset. They recognized that while no one liked paying taxes, many were eager to invest in the empire’s conquests with hopes of fortune. This trust in exploration paid off. Explorers used credit to travel and discover new lands, which in turn provided new sources of wealth. These profits reinforced governments’ faith in explorers, leading to more credit being handed out.

Governments Serving Capitalism
While capitalists have historically served governments, there are also numerous instances where governments have done the bidding of capitalists. In the 18th and 19th centuries, the balance of power shifted, raising the question: “Who truly runs the nation—the government or the wealthy?” Take the First Opium War for example. In 1840, the British government went to war with China to dispute the Chinese government’s ban on British drug merchants. While Britain claimed they were fight for free trade, many British officials held stock in drug companies so they were actually sacrificing the health and freedom of the Chinese for the sake of profits.

When Capitalism Fails
Capitalism has driven unprecedented economic, scientific, and imperial growth. But what happens when it doesn’t work as intended? Here are two key critiques of capitalism.

1. The Free-Market Doctrine Makes Us Vulnerable
   Most capitalists support a “free market,” believing the government shouldn’t regulate it. However, no market is free of politics as trust is essential for capitalism and can be undermined by dishonesty and cheating. A free market lacks safeguards, so governments must step in to protect people, enforce laws, and ensure stability.
2. Reinvesting Profits Doesn’t Always Benefit Employees
   Capitalism assumes that employers reinvest profits and hire more workers, but this is flawed, especially in monopolies or exploitative systems. In monopolies, workers have few alternatives, making it easier for employers to take advantage of them. Historically, employers have even eliminated wages entirely through slavery. These exploitative practices reveal a key flaw in capitalism: it doesn’t guarantee fair wealth distribution or just earnings, and doesn’t ensure equality.

Chapter 17: The Industrial Revolution

The Industrial Revolution changed what we know about energy and raw materials. It gave us both better ways to use existing resources and entirely new ones.

Take transportation: in 300 years, we went from wagons and carts to planes and spaceships. Vehicles that once relied on wood and iron now use new materials like aluminum and titanium. Energy sources evolved from muscle power to petroleum engines and nuclear plants. As long as science pushes forward, our resources may not be infinite, but also not finite.

Early Energy Conversion
Early humans had limited use of energy. First, they had few resources. Before the Industrial Revolution, energy came from wood, wind, and water. No river nearby? No trees left? No wind? No power.

Second, they had no way to convert energy. They couldn’t transform wind into heat or water into motion. The only energy converter was the body. Animals ate plants, which stored solar energy, and turned it into muscle power. That muscle fueled work—humans built carts, oxen plowed fields, and horses hauled goods. The obvious flaw with this system was that it depended on plant growth and sunlight, which isn’t very reliable.

Breakthroughs in Energy Conversion
Gunpowder introduced the idea of converting heat into motion, but the concept was so foreign that it took 600 years for widespread use in artillery. Another 300 years passed before the steam engine; only this time, the idea to convert energy didn’t seem so odd. From then on, the race to harness energy began. Physicists found ways to release the energy in atoms for electricity and bombs. The internal combustion engine turned petroleum from a roofing material into a fuel that nations fought wars over.

The Search for More Energy and Materials

• Energy: At its core, the Industrial Revolution was about discovering and converting energy—with new discoveries emerging every day. While resources like fossil fuels are finite, energy is all around us if we can harness it. The sun alone delivers 3,766,800 exajoules of energy to Earth annually. Nuclear and gravitational energy offer even more potential. We’ve barely scratched the surface of available energy.
• Raw Materials: More energy also means more resources as it powers research. Scientific breakthroughs led to the invention of new materials like plastic and silicon. Energy also improved extraction methods. Aluminum, discovered in the 1820s, was once pricier than gold. Only after chemists refined cheap extraction methods did it become widely used.

Impact on Agriculture
The first impact of the Industrial Revolution was on agriculture. Manpower was replaced with tractors, while inventions like fertilizers, insecticides, and hormones improved yields. Refrigeration, shipping, and air transportation transformed global trade by allowing farmers to supply food worldwide.

Impact on Animals and Plants
Animals and plants became part of industrial machinery, valued for production rather than as living beings. Even today, most cows spend their lives in small enclosures, standing in their own waste, fed by one machine and milked by another. We know that animals feel pain and emotions, yet we ignore this so industrialized farming can thrive. Our treatment of animals isn’t born from hatred but from economic production and indifference.

In reshaping the world to suit our needs, we’ve destroyed habitats and driven countless species to extinction. Instead, we’ve filled the planet with the animals most useful to us. We’ve prioritized livestock over wildlife, yet farm animals still got the short end of the stick.

The Move to Cities
The industrialization of farming reshaped society. Before the Industrial Revolution, 90% of the population worked the land. Today, thanks to machines, just 2% of Americans work in agriculture.

With fewer hands needed in the fields, people moved to cities, fueling industrial production. We now manufacture steel, clothing, and buildings, along with once-unimaginable goods like cell phones and dishwashers.

The New Problem: Supply Outpaced Demand
For most of history, Sapiens lived in scarcity. Today, we live in abundance. Instead of struggling to meet demand, industries struggle to create it. Thus, consumerism was born, where consumption was reframed as positive. Self-indulgence became “self-care,” while frugality became “self-oppression.”

Consumerism reshaped our values, habits, and even health. We accept low-quality, short-lived products and eagerly buy unnecessary “new models.” Shopping defines holidays like Christmas and Halloween. In many places, you are more likely to die from obesity than hunger. We spend fortunes on junk food, then more on healthcare, fueling the economy twice over.

Consumerism contradicts capitalism’s emphasis on efficiency and reinvestment. But the two coexist in the capitalist-consumer ethic, which sets different rules for different people. The rich are told to invest; the poor are told to spend. In this system, the poor’s spending sustains the rich’s wealth—ensuring the cycle continues.

Chapter 18: The Societal Revolution

Major Change #1: Artificial Time
We used to look at the sun to tell time; with industrialization, we use machines.

For most of history, timekeeping was imprecise—and it didn’t need to be. People rose with the sun, laid with the night. In medieval times, there was no need for shifts or clocking in as long as the work was being done. But in a modern factory with assembly lines where collaboration was key to production, employees needed to work in sync. As such, businesses imposed strict schedules: start and stop times, lunch breaks, and shifts.

Soon, artificial time governed life beyond the factory. Railways played a key role: before the 19th century, each British town followed its own local time. But as faster trains connected cities, these differences caused confusion. To standardize schedules, railway companies adopted Greenwich Mean Time, leading to Britain’s first national clock in 1880. Today, artificial time is everywhere— on our phones, laptops, and even microwaves.

Major Change #2: From Family and Community to State and Market
For most of history, people relied on three tight-knit groups: their immediate family, extended family, and local community. These groups met nearly all survival needs. Even with early markets, people still relied the help of their neighbours and vice versa. Kingdoms and governments had little involvement in people’s lives as they lacked the resources and were mostly concerned with building roads and defending their territories.

As the Industrial Revolution facilitated transportation and communication, the government and market now has the means to offer education, law enforcement, and social services, influencing nearly every aspect of life. The state and market persuaded us to breakaway from family and community values by offering the dream of individualism—the freedom to marry whomever we want, choose any career, and live wherever we please. In return, they promised to provide what families and communities once did: food, shelter, jobs, and protection. The newfound choices were too tempting to resist:

• Sickness: Back then, your family cared for you. Now, health insurance covers you.
• Education: Back then, you’re homeschooled. Now, you go to public or private school.
• Conflict: Back then, your family defended you. Now, the police protects you.

While dependence on the state and market has granted us greater freedom, it also left us more vulnerable. Without strong family and community bonds, we’re easier to exploit and easier to control.

Major Change #3: Peace
We often think we live in violent times, yet since World War II, we’ve experienced the most peaceful era in history. Because we weren’t around during humanity’s bloodiest periods, we don’t realize how rare this peace is. War was once a constant. Empires historically collapsed in violent upheavals, yet post-WWII decolonization—from the British, French, and Soviet empires—happened largely without bloodshed.

True peace isn’t just the absence of war, but the implausibility of it—which is now very unlikely for several reasons:

1. Extinction: Nuclear weapons make war too dangerous to wage. A global conflict could mean mutual destruction.
2. Low financial incentive for war: Conquering land once meant acquiring gold, fields, and slaves. Today, wealth is intangible, residing in companies. Invading Silicon Valley wouldn’t yield much loot.
3. High financial incentive for peace: Global trade creates financial incentives for stability. Countries benefit far more from commerce than conflict.
4. The rise of pacifism: For the first time in history, war is widely seen as evil rather than noble.
5. Global interdependence: These factors reinforce each other—nuclear deterrence fuels pacifism, pacifism enables trade, and trade makes peace more profitable.

The modern world is more interconnected than ever, making peace not just preferable, but essential.

Chapter 19: Theories of Happiness

The Agricultural, Cognitive, and Industrial Revolutions advanced civilization, united nations, and expanded economies. But did they make us happier? If not, what was the point? Can we truly call ourselves successful if we aren’t happier today than we were yesterday? To explore whether happiness has truly increased, we’ll examine four key theories on what it means to be happy, and whether progress has actually improved our well-being.

The Expectations Theory of Happiness
Happiness depends on the gap between expectations and reality. If reality meets or exceeds expectations, we’re happy. If it falls short, we’re unhappy. A medieval boy who expects a horse from his father and receives one is satisfied. A modern teen who expects a Ferrari but receives a used Toyota is disappointed. The obvious solution is to lower your expectations, but that isn’t as simple as it sounds. As life improves, so do our expectations, leading to a cycle where the more we have, the more we want, with marketing and media fanning the flame.

Are we unhappier than our ancestors simply because our lives are “better”? This is hard to answer because we can’t measure their expectations without modern bias. Take hygiene: medieval peasants rarely bathed, and they didn’t seem to mind. Yet, by today’s standards, such a life would be unbearable. Regardless, we don’t compare ourselves to the past; we compare ourselves to the world around us, and that world keeps raising the bar.

The Biological Theory of Happiness
Biologists argue that happiness is a biochemical process triggered by hormones like oxytocin, serotonin, and dopamine. Whether we win the lottery or fall in love, the joy we feel doesn’t come from the event itself but from the brain’s chemical response. However, our brains are wired to maintain a stable level of happiness as constant bliss is not conducive to survival. For example, if sex were endlessly pleasurable, men might neglect essential tasks like hunting.

Like a thermostat, each person’s happiness has a natural set point. Some fluctuate between a 6 and 10 and settle at 8, while others range from 3 to 7 and stabilize at 5. This means some people are naturally happier than others, regardless of wealth, health, or historical progress. If this theory holds, then history has had little impact on happiness since our brains function the same as they did 5,000 years ago.

The “Finding Meaning” Theory of Happiness
Studies suggest happiness isn’t just about biochemistry or pleasure. The “finding meaning” theory argues that happiness comes from a sense of purpose. Even struggles can contribute to happiness if they feel meaningful. For many, raising children provides this sense of purpose. Parenting involves sleep deprivation, stress, and endless tantrums; yet, parents overwhelmingly report that having children is their greatest source of happiness.

Historically, our ancestors found meaning through religion. Belief in an afterlife made hardships more bearable as there will be an eternal reward. But with secularism on the rise, meaning is now found in alternative ideologies like capitalism.

The “Present Moment” Theory of Happiness
So far, all the happiness theories have focused on feelings, as we often judge what is good or moral based on our emotions. We value being true to ourselves and following our hearts. Yet, not everything that feels good is good—just look at heroin addicts.

Buddhism challenges this feeling-centered idea. It teaches that “true happiness” comes from accepting our feelings without attaching value to them. Feelings are just sensations and they are neither inherently good nor bad. The root of suffering comes from the pursuit of pleasure and the avoidance of pain, so by living in the present moment, we find peace. We learn to know ourselves and realize that we are not our emotions.

From this perspective, we can’t truly measure if our ancestors were happier than we are today,

Chapter 20: The Birth of a New Species

So far, we’ve explored the history of Homo sapiens. But what about our future? Rather than extinction, our future might involve transforming into an entirely new species.

For nearly 4 billion years, evolution followed the rules of natural selection. Today, we’re on the cusp of replacing natural selection with intelligent design. We saw this with the Agricultural Revolution when humans began domesticating animals and breeding them intentionally, speeding up the selection process. While we could select for traits like size and temperament, we couldn’t introduce entirely new traits.

Now, science allows us to do just that. In 2000, French scientists inserted a gene from a fluorescent jellyfish into a rabbit embryo, creating a glowing rabbit. Therefore, the Scientific Revolution may be the most significant change in life on Earth’s history.

The Future of Intelligent Design
In the future, intelligent design could replace natural selection. Here’s how:

1. Biological Engineering involves modifying an organism’s biology including physical traits and behaviours. In the past, we used methods like castration to reduce aggression. Today, examples include genetically engineered E. coli for biofuel and insulin or introducing worm genes into pigs to make pork healthier. Scientists are even working on resurrecting extinct species like Neanderthals. What if, in the future, genetic engineering could cure diseases like Alzheimer’s and improve memory?
2. Cyborg Engineering combines organic life with inorganic parts. Today, many cyborgs already walk among us—such as those who rely on pacemakers or hearing aids. Future examples could be bionic arms controlled through thought, retinal prostheses to restore sight, and the most ambitious project aims to create a brain-computer interface for two-way communication between brains and machines.
3. Inorganic Life Engineering involves creating life forms from completely inorganic materials like self-evolving computer programs. A prime example is computer viruses, which evolve and spread independently of human control. Currently, the most ambitious project in this field is the Human Brain Project, which aims to create a digital replica of the human brain. But advances in this area challenge how we define “life.” If we could upload our consciousness onto a computer, would the computer think or feel? If it did, would this computer be considered a person?

DNA Mapping
Today, you can have your DNA mapped in just weeks. The affordability of DNA mapping has led to personalized medicine, but it also raises important ethical questions:

• Should insurance companies have access to your DNA to check for disease risks or risky behaviors?
• Could employers choose candidates based on DNA traits?
• If you create a new species, can you patent its DNA? For example, could you own an entire species of chicken—or even a new species of human?

The Danger of Inequality
We may be heading toward the most unequal society in history. The rich have always seen themselves as superior, but in the future, it might actually be true. The wealthy could pay to enhance their intelligence and abilities, creating a divide where the rich are objectively more capable than the rest of humanity.

Important Questions to Ask Ourselves Now
We can’t predict the future. When Apollo 11 landed on the moon, people thought we’d be living on Mars by now. But history often takes unexpected turns. The political and social issues we face today may be irrelevant to our future superhuman successors. As a new species, they might have little interest in religion, ideology, or gender. They may not even be human.

Therefore, the importance of today’s culture is that it will shape the ideas and values of those who will create our successors. Scientists could soon even manipulate our desires so the crucial questions now are “What do we want to want?” and “What do we want to become?”

Mankind has historically struggled with this as we don’t always know what we want. While we’ve reduced famine and war, we haven’t eliminated suffering. We’re still unhappy and unsure of where we’re headed. This uncertainty could lead to disaster.