I’ve just finished Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind, and I’m honestly conflicted. On one hand, I understand why it became a global phenomenon, it’s readable, ambitious, and packed with ideas. But on the other hand, the more I sat with it, the more certain parts felt uneven or even misleading.
Here are the main points that kept me from fully enjoying the book, and I’d love to hear how others approached these aspects:
1. The sweeping generalizations
Harari makes extremely large claims, about human behavior, psychology, economics, religion, and even consciousness — often presented as if they’re settled truths. But many of these topics are actively debated in anthropology, archaeology, and evolutionary biology.
At times, I felt he was simplifying humanity to the point of distortion.
2. Blurring the line between evidence and storytelling
One thing that really threw me off is how the book shifts between:
documented archaeological evidence
plausible speculation
and imaginative what-if scenarios
…without always clarifying which is which.
This can make the narrative exciting, sure, but it also makes it hard to know how much of what I’m reading is grounded in actual research and how much is there to create a neat, dramatic story.
3. Philosophical opinions presented as scientific conclusions
Especially in the sections about:
happiness and human fulfillment
capitalism and consumerism
religion and meaning
the future of biotechnology
Harari often presents his philosophical worldview as if it were a natural extension of historical evidence. Sometimes it felt less like a historian explaining the past and more like a futurist or moral philosopher pushing a narrative.
Not bad on its own — but I wish it had been framed more clearly.
4. The very confident, authoritative tone
Even when discussing highly controversial debates (like the cognitive revolution, early human cooperation, or morality), the tone rarely reflects the uncertainty or the existence of alternative interpretations.
I found myself wanting more nuance and more acknowledgement of complexity instead of single sweeping explanations.
5. The final chapters felt rushed and less convincing
The jump from deep human history to predicting future bioengineering and AI-enhanced societies felt like a big tonal shift. The arguments became broader, less detailed, and more speculative.
It was interesting, but the foundation didn’t feel as solid.
Overall
I didn’t dislike the book, it’s engaging, it’s thought provoking, and it’s the kind of work that makes you pause and reconsider things. But the more I reflected on it, the more the drawbacks outweighed the strengths for me personally.
I’d really love to hear your thoughts:
- Did the mix of fact and speculation work for you?
- Which parts of the book resonated most, and which didn’t?
- Did the broader philosophical claims feel justified to you?
by Scenora