A philosophical discussion about the rise of religion, from theist dogmas to humanist and post-humanist, with a focus on how crowds and governments behave, and discussions on the faults of all these religions and how they arose.

Truly enjoyable, especially as a continuation from Sapiens. I love the way this author writes, though by the end some of his style was repetitive. The first part was probably my favorite, as it described modern history in the context of human desires as a whole, not just as nations. The examples that he gives of twentieth century politics and the inevitable collapse of some systems was very enlightening. The rise of different forms of government such as communism and fascism, the setting that allowed the (sort of) collapse of both for the rise of democracy was so well written. I also really enjoyed the description of the “humanist religion”, as the author argues well for what it is, and how it comes together. I think he’s premature in declaring God dead, but maybe he has access to better data than me. It’s only when he gets to the post-humanist aspect of the future that he didn’t quite convince me. I can see the difference between intelligence and consciousness, and I can accept that a lot of humanity is made up of algorithms, but I still don’t see how that debunks individuality, and oversimplifies desires. I also don’t think he takes into account the human desire to make mistakes, so while we already give up a lot of control in our lives to computers, from Fitbits to doctor apps, but what is the purpose of life if we only do things that make us happy? Although I moan and groan about reading books that I find tiresome, I often don’t regret reading them, because I still learn from them. With the final sections, I was hoping he would refer to Asimov’s psychohistory, as it’s almost was he was describing. The timing of this book’s publication is almost unfortunate, as five or six years later he could have had reference to a modern pandemic, his political statements could have used some Trump references to prove his points, and he could have pointed to the invasion of the Ukraine as he discussed war. 

Right from the start, the author mentions how pandemics can arise due to global infrastructure and supply, but there was no way he could know how prophetic he was being. He also points to the fragility of democracy, and how it fits the needs of the times. He mentions American politics so often in his examples, but he missed out on the current threats because of when the book was published. I can only imagine the examples he would give if the book had been published more recently. Regardless, the book is powerful, and the examples are well chosen to illustrate all of his points. They come from all around the world, and show how the world is continuously changing, adapting to the new technology and ideas.

When he talks about the end of poverty, war and famine, it’s hard to believe when we look at the state of the world. But he shows the data to back up his points, and the reasoning behind his thesis –the international community has less tolerance for war and famine than ever before, and will rise up to reduce its effects. Poverty is a harder one, but there are a lot more organizations dedicated to protecting the poor than a hundred years ago. He shows how humanity has dedicated itself to eliminating poverty, war and famine, moving from kings to communities. It’s fascinating the way he weaves the stories of old kingdoms and new ones, the way they rise and fall depending on the social circumstances of the time, and the upheavals that almost always followed. People in the past expected to go to war, and peace really was an illusion, or highly temporary. Most of the reasons to go to war seem silly to us right now.

It’s an essential element in the transition of values. While I think he’s a little premature in repeating the declaration that God is dead, it’s true that people generally take a broader interpretation of life, need evidence of God’s work less and less. Highly religious people will sigh and scorn the way the world has gone to Hell, but it’s been that way for centuries, and most of them will not go on a crusade to convert people to God. He dismisses the religious zealots and jihadists, though he lives in Israel, because they don’t have a plan to embrace newer technologies to their religion. I’m not so sure, as they certainly use cell phones and many will justify their sacrifice or implants and whatever else we come up with, to tell their story and kill for God.

Much of the book is dedicated to the transition from one religion to another. He’s careful to define religion as a belief system, and not what we traditionally think of as religion. He’s already traced the religion of the natural world in Sapiens, and reiterates some of this here. Then, as people came together and needed a guiding force, humans moved from nature to theist religions like Judaism, Christianity and Islam. In the last two centuries, we have moved to a humanist religion. He makes a convincing argument that people have moved from putting God central in their lives to putting people first. It fits the facts around us, as we seek equality, prosperity, and the pursuit of happiness. His text is inspiring as he describes the search for meaning as moving from reading religious texts to looking inside ourselves. Psychologists make a lot of money asking people how they feel, and asking people to follow their dreams, take time for themselves, and so on. I don’t think they spend a lot of time telling people to read the Bible to find meaning in their lives.

There is an entire section devoted to religion vs science, but not in the way I expected. He correctly states that science has no morals. It takes religion to guide us to the best use of scientific progress. Science shows us what can be done, religion shows us how it should be used. In a theist religion, science would be pointed to worshiping God, but in a humanist religion, we work toward the betterment of humanity. The same goes for economics. We are always wanting to increase productivity, profits, and innovation. Can it ever end? Is there enough of everything to keep progressing forever? Maybe. In Isaac Asimov’s The Caves of Steel, it’s said that the resources of Earth cannot sustain its population indefinitely, and by this time, they are all eating paste! So far, human ingenuity has found us alternate sources in the face of expected disaster.

Another very interesting section dissects different versions of humanism, from communism to capitalism to fascism, and why some emerged while others died. I wasn’t aware of how close democracy came to dying in the last century, before it reversed course, mostly due to technological advances. The distributed way democracy and capitalism works at problems are just that much more efficient than the centralized system of the others. But it does pose the question of what can come next, because democracy and capitalism aren’t perfect, by any means.

Where the book delves more into philosophy is the definition of what is a person, a consciousness and intelligence, what is an individual, or a soul? I had a much more difficult time accepting and rejecting arguments against all of these, which is what I recall from my philosophy course in university. I can accept the rejection of a soul, but not consciousness –why? His citations show that humans are made of algorithms, and as such there is no proof of consciousness –yet I wonder at his arguments, which start with the idea that only humans can have consciousness, though he also produces many examples of animal consciousness, counter to humanism as that is. The same goes for individuality, especially as people have no true self because we have internal dialogs and arguments, and the left side of the brain can be controlled separately from the right side (very interesting experiments!). I don’t think that proves we don’t have a true self, unless you define self as being one unique and confident voice. What causes us to believe one thing over another? How far will we go before crossing a line? These things are not binary, and are much more of a fluid experience.

The last sections of the book describe potential future religions, and how we will evolve beyond humanist. There is the interesting future where we give up our freedom to machines or algorithms, maybe AI, that can make better decisions than we can. We already give up a lot of that freedom, but how far are we willing to go? The Matrix tells us that humanity could not live in a paradise, and the way we are, I reluctantly have to agree. Would we allow machines to make decisions that always make us happy? What kind of human life would we have without the struggle? Maybe I’m just limited in my homo sapiens mind, such that I can’t imagine life beyond this experience. I think it likely that we’ll consult machines more and more, but we’ll continue to make our own decisions. However, if more and more people accept the machine decisions, maybe the whole species will move that way, too. Then there’s the data religion, where anything that increases the amount of data in existence replaces happiness. We already do this, too, wanting more data about ourselves, adding statistics about our bodies and behaviors. Where could this lead? The inevitable conclusion is something like Asimov’s psychohistory, which can predict human behavior in groups, but not individuals. Given enough data, some futures may become inevitable.

I think the best thing this book has done is make me think –whether I accepted his arguments or not, the author made me wonder about so many things, from politics to religion, science and the way we think of individuality. His citations are amazing, the stories about people, nations, beliefs, and so much more were so very interesting. It made me question some beliefs, and reminded me to continue questioning what I think of as facts, and the way they can be skewed to fit what we see –including those in this book. Truly a great work. I’d read much more from this author if he publishes another book.