Let's Read: Sapiens (2011) by Yuval Noah Harari, Part 4

Let's review: There were three revolutions: cognitive, agricultural, scientific.

Part 4: The Scientific Revolution

Chap 14: The Discovery of Ignorance

Our ancestors put a great deal of time and effort into trying to discover the rules that govern the natural world. But modern science differs from all previous traditions of knowledge in three critical ways:

1. The willingness to admit ignorance. Modern science... assumes that we don’t know everything. Even more critically, it accepts that the things that we think we know could be proven wrong as we gain more knowledge.

2. The centrality of observation and mathematics. Having admitted ignorance, modern science aims to obtain new knowledge. It does so by gathering observations and then using mathematical tools to connect these observations into comprehensive theories. 

3. The acquisition of new powers. Modern science is not content with creating theories. It uses these theories in order to acquire new powers, and in particular to develop new technologies.

This chapter talks about admitting ignorance.

Ancient traditions of knowledge assumed that all important things are already known. If someone doesn't know something, it's either unimportant, or can be found in a wiser man or a wiser book.

The problem with this is that it's hard to live with ignorance, and imagined orders are not supposed to leave doubts as to their own truth.

All modern attempts to stabilise the sociopolitical order have had no choice but to rely on either of two unscientific methods: 

a. Take a scientific theory, and... declare that it is a final and absolute truth. This was the method used by Nazis (who claimed that their racial policies were the corollaries of biological facts) and Communists (who claimed that Marx and Lenin had divined absolute economic truths that could never be refuted). 

b. Leave science out of it and live in accordance with a non-scientific absolute truth. This has been the strategy of liberal humanism, which is built on a dogmatic belief in the unique worth and rights of human beings – a doctrine which has embarrassingly little in common with the scientific study of Homo sapiens.

Science and social order

When Bacon said "Knowledge is power", it was revolutionary at the time.

... the relationship between science and technology is a very recent phenomenon. Prior to 1500, science and technology were totally separate fields. When Bacon connected the two in the early seventeenth century, it was a revolutionary idea... Even in 1800, most rulers who wanted a strong army, and most business magnates who wanted a successful business, did not bother to finance research in physics, biology or economics... Up until the nineteenth century, the vast majority of military revolutions were the product of organisational rather than technological changes.

Science also brought new hopes of progress.

Until the Scientific Revolution most human cultures did not believe in progress. They thought the golden age was in the past, and that the world was stagnant, if not deteriorating. Strict adherence to the wisdom of the ages might perhaps bring back the good old times, and human ingenuity might conceivably improve this or that facet of daily life. However, it was considered impossible for human know-how to overcome the world’s fundamental problems.

Such problems include hunger, disease, poverty, war, and death.

Science depends on certain social order, and does not have a preference itself.

Most scientific studies are funded because somebody believes they can help attain some political, economic or religious goal... scientific research can flourish only in alliance with some religion or ideology. The ideology justifies the costs of the research. In exchange, the ideology influences the scientific agenda and determines what to do with the discoveries.

The two ideologies/religions most important for science are Imperialism and Capitalism.

Chap 15: The Marriage of Science and Empire

Why the Great Divergence? Science and capitalism.

Europeans were used to thinking and behaving in a scientific and capitalist way even before they enjoyed any significant technological advantages. When the technological bonanza began, Europeans could harness it far better than anybody else.

European imperialism was entirely unlike all other imperial projects in history. Previous seekers of empire tended to assume that they already understood the world... In contrast, European imperialists set out to distant shores in the hope of obtaining new knowledge along with new territories.

Imperialistic science and scientific imperialism. Explore and conquer.

During the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, Europeans began to draw world maps with lots of empty spaces – one indication of the development of the scientific mindset, as well as of the European imperial drive. The empty maps were a psychological and ideological breakthrough...

China and Ottoman had the power to explore, but they didn't bother, because they were not scientifically curious about what's unknown.

The imperialism and sciences each other.

Scientists have provided the imperial project with practical knowledge, ideological justification and technological gadgets. Without this contribution it is highly questionable whether Europeans could have conquered the world. The conquerors returned the favour by providing scientists with information and protection, supporting all kinds of strange and fascinating projects and spreading the scientific way of thinking to the far corners of the earth. Without imperial support, it is doubtful whether modern science would have progressed very far.

Chapt 16: The Capitalist Creed

Capitalism, as defined in this book, is more general than the usual kind. Here, it means "reinvesting wealth for more and faster wealth". A socialist state can well be capitalist in this regard, if it reinvests its wealth for more wealth.

Economy grows when there's lots of credit. Credit is based on trust in a future payment. Credit is easy to get when people are hopeful that the future will be better. Back then, people were hopeless about growth of economy, and thus gave little credit. Also, people hated rich people:

That’s why many cultures concluded that making bundles of money was sinful... If the pie [total wealth] is static, and I have a big part of it, then I must have taken somebody else’s slice. The rich were obliged to do penance for their evil deeds by giving some of their surplus wealth to charity.

But then progress and hope came, and credit became plentiful:

Over the last 500 years the idea of progress convinced people to put more and more trust in the future. This trust created credit; credit brought real economic growth; and growth strengthened the trust in the future and opened the way for even more credit.

The rich are now seen as drivers of growth, as long as they follow the capitalist ethic of reinvestment, and not waste their money on unproductive luxuries.

Medieval noblemen wore colourful robes of gold and silk, and devoted much of their time to attending banquets, carnivals and glamorous tournaments. In comparison, modern CEOs don dreary uniforms... and they have little time for festivities.

Capitalism is that it depends credit, which depends on future progress, which depends on science.

Over the last few years [2008-2011], banks and governments have been frenziedly printing money. Everybody is terrified that the current economic crisis may stop the growth of the economy. So they are creating trillions of dollars, euros and yen out of thin air, pumping cheap credit into the system, and hoping that the scientists, technicians and engineers will manage to come up with something really big, before the bubble bursts...

The history of Europe from 15th century could be seen as the struggle for capital. The Spanish Empire got rich from the capital from America. The Dutch Empire overtook the Spanish Empire because it had better financial system, could pay back its loans, and thus enjoyed more trust, and could raise more credit. Then England grew by savvy control of capital, while France foundered from the Mississippi Bubble.

Capital, Imperialism, and Science all come together.

Capitalism turned out to cause a lot of pain, but the justification are

1. Capitalism is the only one that still works, despite how bad it is. [This could be called "Capitalist Realism".]
2. Everyone would eventually benefit, just be patient. [This might not last for long, considering that inequality is rising in capitalist societies.]

Chap 17: The Wheels of Industry

Capital growth depends on industry, which depends on energy. The Industrial Revolution.

Life of animals in the factory farms are terrible.

Consumerism becomes the ethic of the masses, to support capitalism. Consumerism sees the consumption of ever more products and services as a positive thing, which is opposite to the previous ethic of frugality.

In medieval Europe, aristocrats spent their money carelessly on extravagant luxuries, whereas peasants lived frugally, minding every penny. Today, the tables have turned. The rich take great care managing their assets and investments, while the less well heeled go into debt buying cars and televisions they don’t really need... The supreme commandment of the rich is ‘Invest!’ The supreme commandment of the rest of us is ‘Buy!’

Amazingly enough, capitalism+consumerism ethic is great in that:

The history of ethics is a sad tale of wonderful ideals that nobody can live up to... In contrast, most people today successfully live up to the capitalist-consumerist ideal. The new ethic promises paradise on condition that the rich remain greedy and spend their time making more money, and that the masses give free rein to their cravings and passions – and buy more and more. This is the first religion in history whose followers actually do what they are asked to do.

Chap 18: A Permanent Revolution

Everything is changing faster now.

Time is under control now. Medieval people cared little about precise times, and lived in rhythm with nature. Modern people use atomic clocks and time zones and disregards natural rhythms and schedule their times 24/7.

The most important change is the collapse of family and community.

Prior to the Industrial Revolution, the daily life of most humans ran its course within three ancient frames: the nuclear family, the extended family and the local intimate community... 

The government had little control over personal life:

Often enough, transportation and communication difficulties made it so difficult to intervene in the affairs of remote communities that many kingdoms preferred to cede even the most basic royal prerogatives – such as taxation and violence – to communities... Many kingdoms and empires were in truth little more than large protection rackets. The king collected protection money, and in return made sure that neighbouring crime syndicates and local small fry did not harm those under his protection.

But then, the government and market finally became powerful enough, and ushered in Individualism.

Over time, states and markets used their growing power to weaken the traditional bonds of family and community... The state and the market approached people with an over that could not be refused. ‘Become individuals,’ they said. ‘You are no longer dependent on your family or your community. We, the state and the market, will take care of you instead.’ 

Romantic literature often presents the individual as somebody caught in a struggle against the state and the market. Nothing could be further from the truth. The state and the market are the mother and father of the individual, and the individual can survive only thanks to them.

Anomie though, is the price.

Many of us now bewail the loss of strong families and communities and feel alienated and threatened by the power the impersonal state and market wield over our lives... Millions of years of evolution have designed us to live and think as community members. Within a mere two centuries we have become alienated individuals. Nothing testifies better to the awesome power of culture.

The nuclear family is still a thing that provides emotional needs, but that too is under attack. Parents are forbidden from abusing their children, and forced to put their children into compulsory schooling, etc.

I have serious hopes of a future where the state gives basic training to prospective parents, so that they won't be abusive and ignorant. Or even better, a future where parents are professional parents raising children made in factories. In this perspective, I have swallowed the ideal of state-sanctioned individualism fully.

An imagined community replaces a local community. For example, nations, sports clubs, consumer tribes, fandoms...

People started to expect change too.

The main promise of premodern rulers was to safeguard the traditional order or even to go back to some lost golden age. In the last two centuries, the currency of politics is that it promises to destroy the old world and build a better one in its place. Not even the most conservative of political parties vows merely to keep things as they are. Everybody promises social reform, educational reform, economic reform...

Countries have become very peaceful. See The Better Angels of Our Nature (2011). The ends of British, French, and Soviet Empires were peaceful, compared to previous empires, whose collapses were bloody as hell.

Chap 19: And They Lived Happily Ever After

Happily Ever After!

In this chapter, we look at what is human happiness, and the history of it.

Happiness is the most important question in politics and sociology, but there's little study of it yet.

Most current ideologies and political programmes are based on rather flimsy ideas concerning the real source of human happiness. Nationalists believe that political self- determination is essential for our happiness. Communists postulate that everyone would be blissful under the dictatorship of the proletariat. Capitalists maintain that only the free market can ensure the greatest happiness of the greatest number, by creating economic growth and material abundance and by teaching people to be self-reliant and enterprising.

 The history of happiness is under-studied, but it's unclear if we are happier or not compared to our ancestors. What is clear is that our farm animals got a lot sadder compared to their ancestors.

What is happiness?

Psychologists and sociologists:

Money and health brings happiness, but only up to a satisfaction point. Above satisfaction, they do little to increase happiness. Good relationships are important, and in modern times they are fragile due to the freedom of individualism.

Most important of all, though, is expectation vs reality.

A modern tragedy

It's an idea that's getting more popularity, see this Ted talk.

If happiness is determined by expectations, then two pillars of our society – mass media and the advertising industry – may unwittingly be depleting the globe’s reservoirs of contentment.... In previous eras the standard of beauty was set by the handful of people who lived next door to you. Today the media and the fashion industry expose us to a totally unrealistic standard of beauty. They search out the most gorgeous people on the planet, and then parade them constantly before our eyes. No wonder we are far less happy with the way we look.

I mean, I feel it too. I feel ugly a lot, and looking at pretty pictures doesn't help, just makes me feel more inadequate.

How to feel ugly.

How to feel lonely

Age-reversing technology could bring the worst unhappiness. Everyone would expect immortality, but only a few could achieve it. And for those that can use it, they would fear accidental death even more, and the loss of any loved one to accident would be way more painful.

Biologists:

Happiness is a state of brain caused by biochemistry, such as serotonin, oxytocin, etc. The happiness circuits evolved to help people reproduce, not to help people to be happy. This explains why humans are on the hedonic treadmill.

Some scholars compare human biochemistry to an air-conditioning system... Events might momentarily change the temperature, but the air-conditioning system always returns the temperature to the same set point.

If we accept the biological approach to happiness, then history turns out to be of minor importance, since most historical events have had no impact on our biochemistry... it cannot make people happier.

And in fact, a historical development that could reliably make people happier would be as described in Brave New World. It's supposedly a dystopia, but it makes people happy more than any other historical development in human history, so it might be a utopia in disguise.

"meaning of life" theory:

People do painful things all the time and they still feel happy about it, as long as they find a good meaning in them.

He who has a why to live can bear almost any how. - Friedrich Nietzsche

Modern science however, makes people nihilistic as to the meaning of life. The universe doesn't care. The best one can do, then, would be to make a meaning up, like how the existentialists recommend.

So perhaps happiness is synchronising one’s personal delusions of meaning with the prevailing collective delusions. As long as my personal narrative is in line with the narratives of the people around me, I can convince myself that my life is meaningful, and find happiness in that conviction.

Buddhism:

For 2,500 years, Buddhists have systematically studied the essence and causes of happiness... Buddhism shares the basic insight of the biological approach to happiness, namely that happiness results from processes occurring within one’s body, and not from events in the outside world. However, starting from the same insight, Buddhism reaches very different conclusions.

People are liberated from suffering... when they understand the impermanent nature of all their feelings, and stop craving them. This is the aim of Buddhist meditation practices... All kinds of feelings go on arising and passing – joy, anger, boredom, lust – but once you stop craving particular feelings, you can just accept them for what they are. You live in the present moment instead of fantasising about what might have been.

"Be here now."

Let's illustrate with two Applejacks.

Not liberated.

Liberated

Buddha agreed with modern biology and New Age movements that happiness is independent of external conditions. Yet his more important and far more profound insight was that true happiness is also independent of our inner feelings... Buddha’s recommendation was to stop not only the pursuit of external achievements, but also the pursuit of inner feelings.

If this theory is widely accepted, then it would revolutionize human society. It would probably be a lot more like Bhutan than America. Instead of promising reforms and economy growth, governments would promise helping people achieve self-knowledge and enlightenment.

Chap 20: The End of Homo Sapiens

Humans are too powerful for their own good, in a sense. They will do genetic engineering, make superhuman AI, enhance humans, become cyborgs, upload into computers, etc. Homo Sapiens will not be able to compete with these superior intelligences.

The book uses the definition of "singularity" in the sense of von Neumann: "a point in the history of the race beyond which human affairs, as we know them, could not continue".

What is this post-singularity future going to be like? Sci-fi usually does not have the answer.

Most science-fiction plots describe a world in which Sapiens – identical to us – enjoy superior technology such as light-speed spaceships and laser guns. The ethical and political dilemmas central to these plots are taken from our own world, and they merely recreate our emotional and social tensions against a futuristic backdrop. 

Yet the real potential of future technologies is to change Homo sapiens itself, including our emotions and desires, and not merely our vehicles and weapons... Science fiction rarely describes such a future, because an accurate description is by definition incomprehensible. Producing a film about the life of some super-cyborg is akin to producing Hamlet for an audience of Neanderthals.

All the political, social, human problems become unimportant in front of the problem of what comes after the Sapiens. Sapiens have one last chance to influence history: decide what comes next.

This question, sometimes known as the Human Enhancement question, dwarfs the debates that currently preoccupy politicians, philosophers, scholars and ordinary people... it seems doubtful that Christianity or Islam will be of interest to them, that their social organisation could be Communist or capitalist, or that their genders could be male or female...  

Since we might soon be able to engineer our desires too, perhaps the real question facing us is not ‘What do we want to become?’, but ‘What do we want to want?’ Those who are not spooked by this question probably haven’t given it enough thought.

Afterword

Is there anything more dangerous than dissatisfied and irresponsible gods who don’t know what they want?

Hmmm...