Sapiens - A History of Humankind

[Weyird]

So I'm currently reading the book called Sapiens, by Yuval Noah Harari. It's super interesting, starting with the evolution of humans and our days as hunter gatherers and the agricultural revolution and formation of kingdoms and empires, role of the invention of money and the writing of "Wealth of Nations," European Imperialism, and scientific and industrial revolution, etc.

I've only just finished the chapter detailing how in the course of the modern era, Europe basically went from a pretty backward part of the world compared to the much richer and advanced Chinese, Indian and Persian nations, to controlling pretty much the whole world. How the concept of credit was developed and how it enabled ths Dutch to overtake the Spanish as a world power. How scientists and admirals were sent to explore together, that science was advanced through exploring and observing the new world they were discovering in the Americas and the Pacific. How the simple concept of admitting that they didn't know everything was a milestone moment in European history and created that curiosity to explore. Something that hadn't happened in the great asian empires of the time, because they thought they knew everything that there was to know. It's super fascinating and really made me feel like playing EU4. I feel like some different way of handli g institutions could be really amazing. But then I got sad because a lot of the things the book talks about simply isn't well represented in that game.

The section on capitalism and nationalism also made me so interested in an 1800's setting for a game, which made me think of all the "Vicky 3" comments in the forums, and now I'm quite interested in that too.

Anyway, I was curious who else has read it? What were your thoughts? I'd be particularly interested to know if any Devs have read it.

 

[Vakanüvis]

it was always a interetsing period for me

but victoria series is not just set in a interesting period. Its the paradox game with most potential for diffrent gameplay (except crusader kings)
You can have fun in peace unlike most paradox games and a strong ecomony and prestige is important as much as a strong military.
even a old game like vic2 works somehow and thats why demand is so high
well if they were to add those 4 things...
1-better graphic
2-a reworked ecomony system that preserves the spirit of series
3-a reworked diplomatic crsis system where people dont start a world war becouse of a tiny island but more important reasons
4-if timeline is the same then warfare should evolve in time just like ecomony and world

the last one is important, wars should slowly evolve from huge army clashes to front battles. I realise its harder to implement than aynthing...

 

[cpreston5]

I've not read it cover to cover, but I've been shown chunks from it by people who like it.

I think it suffers from the problem which is endemic to these kinds of broad-view, macro-histories. Many complex phenomena need to be touched upon, which can't all possibly be dealt with in depth.

The author has 3 options. See if you can guess which one is the most dependable way of writing a best-seller:

1: Admitting ignorance.
2: Admitting a lack of time and space, and giving the reader a footnote with relevant further reading.
3: Powering ahead quickly, fudging over any difficult concepts using some surface knowledge and passing-off value judgements as objective observation.

If it gets people interested in intellectual history, then great. But I worry that a lot of people won't go much further than Sapiens.

 

[Weyird]

Honestly, a lot of it I am already familiar with. And the new things I learned I really appreciate. It is a very broad view, and there are some things I disagree with (the section on religion kinda bugged me because he said a lot of things as matter of fact that I think are more subjective).

It reminds me of the CrashCourse World History videos on YouTube, which talks about concepts and patterns in history instead of just giving a chronological list of happenings. But the book is obviously in much more detail.

I just keep finding that after reading a chapter, I wanna scroll down to the comments section and see what the general opinion of it is - if people agree or not and any other notes people want to share. I think I may be too used to reading things online, lol.

 

[brantodb01]

wars should slowly evolve from huge army clashes to front battles. I realise its harder to implement than aynthing...

Vic 2 already managed that, it changes pretty much as soon as you get machine guns

 

[frolix42]

The way EU4's Institutions work, Europe builds a Tech advantage in the Early-Mid game that completely disappears by the Mid-Late game because Institutions become universally adopted in early 1700s. This is really the opposite of what happened historically.

A lot of how people look at historical progression today is tainted by Presentism. Modern people assume a kind of technological progression, we assume that 2070 will be more advanced technologically than 2020. This was not the view of Pre-Renaisance Europe, which looked back at the Roman Empire as a lost golden age. This was not the view of Ming or Qing, which view foriegn ideas not as sources of reform and strength but of decandence and disruption.

A player with perfect hindsight knows that adopting Institutions is very important and worth suffering short term disruption. It was not obvious to leaders of EU4's time that adopting things that would shake up and disrupt society would make it stronger in the long run. Peasants reading? No thank you!

 

[brantodb01]

A player with perfect hindsight knows that adopting Institutions is very important and worth suffering short term disruption. It was not obvious to leaders of EU4's time that adopting things that would shake up and disrupt society would make it stronger in the long run. Peasants reading? No thank you!

Eh, EU4 is probably the most Arcady of the main PDXD titles and so it's a lot more on fun then historical accuracy. Vic 2 does this much better where when uncivs reform they get unrest.

It could easily be added to EU4 but people who like playing those countries would probably complain about it being too 'eurocentric' again

 

[Weyird]

A lot of how people look at historical progression today is tainted by Presentism. Modern people assume a kind of technological progression, we assume that 2070 will be more advanced technologically than 2020. This was not the view of Pre-Renaisance Europe, which looked back at the Roman Empire as a lost golden age. This was not the view of Ming or Qing, which view foriegn ideas not as sources of reform and strength but of decandence and disruption.

That's exactly what the book said, too. Most civilizations viewed the past as some age of glory, and the future was always getting worse, or at best would stay much the same. It's why the idea of credit and the rise of capitalism took so long - the idea of lending money to somebody so they could increase production, earn more, and pay back with interest was crazy-talk back then. Why would the future be any better than now?

Institutions in the game of EU4 are really bothering me right now and I kind of wish they would overhaul the whole mechanic. But considering it is an overhaul of the old westernization system, I suspect that is unlikely.
But the idea of adding unrest, or disincentivising it in some way would go a long way. Hell, the first railroads in China were built by Europeans, and the Qing dynasty tore them out not much later. The whole mentality was that change was bad and upset the natural order of things. Stability was much more important than progress.

Yeah, I think embracing an institution should cause unrest (at least in all the provinces where it isn't present yet) and cause a drop in Stability. Of course, the ability to just click the stability button needs to go away too.

 

[brantodb01]

Thing is you're trying to force greater realisim in a game no designed for it.
If they weren't present in a Victoria game that would be massive but EU4 is based around a fun arcade sandbox to conquer the world/colonize/get achievements, not realism

In Vic2 getting massive revolts from reforming as Qing is risk-reward. If you win you get to westernise but you take the risk of rebels winning and to win you're killing your own population.
If you get a revolt in EU4 you lose a little bit of manpower fighting it or gain autonomy and lose some income for a while

 

[frolix42]

That's exactly what the book said, too. Most civilizations viewed the past as some age of glory, and the future was always getting worse, or at best would stay much the same. It's why the idea of credit and the rise of capitalism took so long - the idea of lending money to somebody so they could increase production, earn more, and pay back with interest was crazy-talk back then. Why would the future be any better than now?

Institutions in the game of EU4 are really bothering me right now and I kind of wish they would overhaul the whole mechanic. But considering it is an overhaul of the old westernization system, I suspect that is unlikely.
But the idea of adding unrest, or disincentivising it in some way would go a long way. Hell, the first railroads in China were built by Europeans, and the Qing dynasty tore them out not much later. The whole mentality was that change was bad and upset the natural order of things. Stability was much more important than progress.

Yeah, I think embracing an institution should cause unrest (at least in all the provinces where it isn't present yet) and cause a drop in Stability. Of course, the ability to just click the stability button needs to go away too.

The first Arabic printing press in the Ottoman Empire was built by a Hungarian Muslim convert (Ibrahim Müteferrika) in 1727 against fierce opposition by Imams. The ban on printing Arabic religious books, the vast majority of all books, remained in place until 1745. Printing was viewed by the Ottomans as a foreign practice.
https://www.dailysabah.com/feature/...bout-the-printing-press-in-the-ottoman-empire
Meanwhile in EU4, Ottomans are one of the first nations to embrace Printing Press.

I've hoped the Institutions would be reworked since they were introduced, but I've lost most hope for that.

 

[Henry IX]

That's exactly what the book said, too. Most civilizations viewed the past as some age of glory, and the future was always getting worse, or at best would stay much the same. It's why the idea of credit and the rise of capitalism took so long - the idea of lending money to somebody so they could increase production, earn more, and pay back with interest was crazy-talk back then. Why would the future be any better than now?

In some ways the whole concept of usury (charging of interest on loans) is deeply problematic if you assume money is a physical thing (coinage). If this is the case then interest is simply a transfer of wealth, where those who have get more at the expense of those with less. This is the fundamental basis of the religious objection to usury.

Only with the intellectual frameworks of capital and productivity does the loaning of money become perceived as an economic benefit.

 

[Kazanov]

Both books of his "homo" saga are good, i find that PDX handling of institutions and tech trees are good enough for Europe, but absolutely garbage for Latin American countries, at least in Vicky. Because we never developed ideas, or constructed our own weapons and developed military doctrines on our own.

But anyways, the book is a must read and i have been recommending it to my irl friends for some time.

 

[loup99]

I have not read the books myself, largely after having read some rather strong criticism of the author's slightly liberal worldview, to say the least, as well as having several persons tell me it was not worth the read. Harari has indeed received a lot of praise from persons such as Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerberg and Barack Obama. Especially the quotes about "communists of being ready to risk nuclear holocaust", "someday breakthroughs in neurobiology will enable us to explain communism and the crusades in strictly biochemical terms" and "capitalism having reduced human violence and increased tolerance and cooperation" were what made me very sceptical, given the dubious nature of all three statements which do not seem to correspond at all with historical evidence. He is naturally allowed to be a liberal capitalist and anti-communist in his beliefs, but such opinions combined with historical anecdotes do not convince me of purely scientific aims with his vulgarisation.

 

[Weyird]

There's stuff I disagree with too, especially in the later chapters. Thats where he starts putting forward his opinions as fact. But the 1st two thirds of the book felt pretty solid. It's still worth a read, if you can trust yourself not to throw out the baby with the bathwater.

 

[loup99]

There's stuff I disagree with too, especially in the later chapters. Thats where he starts putting forward his opinions as fact. But the 1st two thirds of the book felt pretty solid. It's still worth a read, if you can trust yourself not to throw out the baby with the bathwater.

I do frequently read works with which I strongly disagree, and I do not exclude reading Harari's book in the future, but I'm not going to prioritise this when much of the quotes and opinions of the author is what I constantly read and hear from medias and political leaders, because it is a way of viewing history I'm already largely familiar with. Then I'm more interested in spending that time discovering views which challenge the dominant narrative in the medias and political discourse and have a more academic approach to history. I guess the fact that he is specialised in medieval history is what might make the later chapters less pertinent, and maybe why he decides to compare an ideology such as communism with the crusades, in the sense that the crusades feel close at hand for him?

 

[Avernite]

I do frequently read works with which I strongly disagree, and I do not exclude reading Harari's book in the future, but I'm not going to prioritise this when much of the quotes and opinions of the author is what I constantly read and hear from medias and political leaders, because it is a way of viewing history I'm already largely familiar with. Then I'm more interested in spending that time discovering views which challenge the dominant narrative in the medias and political discourse and have a more academic approach to history. I guess the fact that he is specialised in medieval history is what might make the later chapters less pertinent, and maybe why he decides to compare an ideology such as communism with the crusades, in the sense that the crusades feel close at hand for him?

My impression from reading it was you should read the book if you're interested in human biological history; for political etc. history, there are better options out there.

 

[Barsoom]

I have not read the books myself, largely after having read some rather strong criticism of the author's slightly liberal worldview, to say the least, as well as having several persons tell me it was not worth the read. Harari has indeed received a lot of praise from persons such as Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerberg and Barack Obama. Especially the quotes about "communists of being ready to risk nuclear holocaust", "someday breakthroughs in neurobiology will enable us to explain communism and the crusades in strictly biochemical terms" and "capitalism having reduced human violence and increased tolerance and cooperation" were what made me very sceptical, given the dubious nature of all three statements which do not seem to correspond at all with historical evidence. He is naturally allowed to be a liberal capitalist and anti-communist in his beliefs, but such opinions combined with historical anecdotes do not convince me of purely scientific aims with his vulgarisation.

You're missing out. Don't be misled by selective quotes, there's bound to be a few whoppers in a single volume history of everything human. (Besides, viewing capitalism as progressive is pure Marxism. That quote compares it to feudalism.) Don't be misled also by the celebrity fans, they make the publisher happy, not necessarily the author. Harari is actually a pretty strong leftist, subtype environmentalist. The central thesis of the book is that many historical developments were collectively held ideas which allowed for different modes of interaction, which sometimes helped human health and happiness and sometimes hindered. Money, for example, is practical when we all believe in its value but becomes worthless when we lose our trust in it. So it's a kind of deconstructionist world history.

 

[Barsoom]

My impression from reading it was you should read the book if you're interested in human biological history; for political etc. history, there are better options out there.

I strongly disagree. It's not a book for details, it focuses on the longue duree. But most of it deals with the ideas that govern social interactions (money, empire, religion, etc.) and those are definitely political.

 

[Sarmatia1871]

My impression from reading it was you should read the book if you're interested in human biological history

Nah, it's bad on that too.

 

[Sabotage13]

What is it with military historians and their propensity to engage in political "big picture" hackery?
Is it some kind of minority complex, or is it a money thing?