Contra Harari: Analyzing "Sapiens" on Empire

Because Yuval Noah Harari is a professor he naturally sees the coming empire of the educated Gentry as a Good Thing in his Bill-Gates pleasing Sapiens: A Brief History of Mankind.

Most of the time in the past 2,200 years, most humans have been ruled by an empire. Says he:

As the twenty-first century unfolds, nationalism is fast losing ground. More and more people believe that all of humankind is the legitimate source of political authority, rather than the members of a particular nationality, and that safeguarding human rights and protecting the interests of the entire human species should be the guiding light of politics.

You know, because "melting ice caps."

I suppose that Sapiens was conveniently written at the last moment before a clear rebellion against the global elite of educated gentry really got into the saddle, such as the Law and Justice Party in Poland, the nationalist Fidesz party in Hungary, Trump in the US and Brexit in the UK.

My line is that we won't get global government, a single human empire, until the Trisolarians are on their way to take over the Earth. Why? Because politics is division. So long as there is no global threat, so long will humans be disunited. (Yes, that is what the global threat of climate change is all about.)

However, Harari wouldn't be properly within the Overton window of fellow professors and think-tankers without tut-tutting about the 500-year European world empire of roughly 1500-1945: the Spanish clobbering the Aztecs and Incas, and looting them of all their silver and gold; the Brits going to India and causing the First Bengal Famine: "the British conquest of India cost the lives of millions of Indians, and was responsible for the continuous humiliation and exploitation of hundreds of millions more." Then introducing slavery to the Americas after it has been eradicated in Europe. And Africa.

See I think that the European imperialism of the last 500 years is far more consequential and interesting than that. 

First of all, the initial voyages to the Americas were conceived and sold as investment opportunities, not as the natural expansion of a territorial empire ruled over by Pharoahs or Roman Emperors.

Secondly, although the Spanish and Portuguese started out frankly as looting expeditions, plundering the Americas of gold and silver for use in military adventure back in Europe, things started to change quite quickly. The Brits in India, the Dutch in Indonesia, they were there to trade. (Because hey, kids, trading makes a lot more money that simple loot and plunder). Their military dominations issued from the need to deal with neighboring feudal chieftains and stop them from looting and plundering the trading operations of the Europeans and the Indians and Indonesians that joined them. I suspect that the scandal of the Bengal famine of 1770 was that, since the Brits were ruling Bengal, it became a "thing." I'm sure there were famines aplenty before the Brits showed up, but, hey, back in the day, famines were just a part of life! A bunch of people died; the local rajah had do deal with reduced revenue for a while, and life went on.

Thirdly, the "imperialists" were mostly nobodies, like Clive and James Cook. And that was true not just of the leaders but the ordinary nobodies. My father's family had a business in St. Petersburg in the late 19th century; my mother's family had an export business between the world wars in Kobe, Japan. They were nobodies that could earn a decent living doing business across the world in countries that weren't yet up to speed on capitalism and the life of the market economy.

Fourthly, issues like slavery and human rights became issues as the European empires developed. I like to think that is because the nobodies weren't to the manor born; they weren't really into being top dog as the old nobles were. Plus, I believe, slavery and serfdom did not pay. And then came the moment in 1820 when some Brit administrator in India observed that the Indians didn't really like their imperial overlords. Really, old chap? The imperator cared whether his subjects liked him? That's the point: as the European hegemony proceeded, notions of self-government began to take over the world. As early as the Indian Mutiny in 1857 advanced Brits began to realize that they couldn't rule India forever. But it wasn't time to leave, not just yet, old chap.

Harari is a loyal member of his tribe, the global educated elite. And that tribe fervently believes that the average Commoner can't be trusted to govern with the enlightened wonderfulness of the educated elite. Thus nations are over, finished, and can never be allowed to raise their brownshirt face again because you know what happens with nationalism: literally Hitler! We see that with the current political emergency in the US. The educated elite fervently believes that we are one and a half steps away from "far-right" white supremacy, unless the educated elite cancels anyone that shows his head above the parapet.

I believe that the global educated elite are fools and knaves, and have no better idea about governance and human welfare than the emperors of old. Far better for the nations of the world to blunder along from one self-imposed crisis to another than for a self-congratulatory elite to seize the reins of power, for the benefit of all the world.

Because here's the problem. What happens when the globalist rulers rulers screw things up? As they always do. Who gets to step in and fix things? Under our current flawed system, we get alternation in office where the voters get to throw the rascals out every 8-10 years. I haven't seen anything from our global masters to indicate how they propose to enact the principle of Alternation in Office in their global empire that allows for the correction of mistakes on the political front. In all the supranational institutions from the EU to the UN to the World Bank to the IMF it's a case of Buggins' Turn, with one globalist turning the reins of office over to the next apparatchik in line. And a jolly good racket it is, for those in on the inside.

I look forward to an age of nation states all over, quarreling like mad, but never quite coming to blows. As the US never quite comes to blows with Canada and Mexico, and indeed as the nations of the Americas never quite come to blows.

But there is a problem. Without the hegemony of the global educated Gentry, where is honor, where is vanity, where is power for the worthy elite that is wiser and more evolved than you and I? It's a global problem.

Contra Harari: Analyzing "Sapiens" on Religion

There's a women's book club book out there, recommended by Bill Gates and others, that gives us the human story so far.

Sapiens: A Brief History of Mankind by Israeli prof Yuval Noah Harari is, as you might expect if Gates likes it, carefully located within the Overton Window of acceptable thought. As in: science good, Nazis bad, European imperialism bad, capitalism questionable.

The book was published in 2015 before wokiness became a global problem, so it doesn't really deal with the critical theory problem and the current ferocious ideological campaign that represents the ordinary middle class as the worst racist sexist homophobes ever.

To introduce the agricultural age Harari presents the colorful idea  that humans did not domesticate wheat; wheat domesticated humans. In the good old days of hunter-gathering humans didn't work much. They hunted, they gathered, and everyone lived happily ever after. But wheat is a demanding master. 

The ape had been living a fairly comfortable life hunting and gathering until about 10,000 years ago, but then began to invest more and more effort in cultivating wheat. Within a couple of millennia, human in various parts of the world were doing little from dawn to dusk other than taking care of wheat plants.

Wheat takes a lot of looking after, including clearing rocks and pebbles, weeding other plants, keeping the rabbits off: you name it. And, of course, you needed warrior lords to protect your grain stores and they don't come cheap. But the Earth could support a lot more human farmers than human hunter-gatherers.

But the larger communities of the agricultural age needed a change in religion. 

Stories about ancestral spirits and tribal totems were strong enough to enable 500 people to trade seashells, celebrate the odd festival, and join forces to wipe out a Neanderthal band, but no more than that.

So what humans came up with is an "imagined order," a religion or ideology, a shared belief system so "large numbers of humans can cooperate effectively." In other words, religions like "Christianity, democracy, or capitalism" are an imagined order imposed on the human community and insist "that the order sustaining society is an objective reality created by the great gods or by the laws of nature." And "you also educate people thoroughly" in the imagined order.

But suppose you want to change things: revolution baby! Then you have a big task.

In order to change the imagined order I must convince millions of strangers to cooperate with me. For the imagined order is not a subjective order existing in my own imagination -- it is rather an inter-subjective order, existing in the shared imagination of thousands and millions of people.

You can see what our wokie friends are up to. They want to change the imagined order. They want to change the shared imagination of America. Of course, they do not want to do it by persuasion. Canceling and struggle sessions are more their style.

In fact this has always been the agenda of the left. They don't like our current imagined order of Christianity and the market economy. They want to change it, and they will turn the world upside down trying.

But Harari sees a different religious landscape. He sees three versions of "humanism" competing to create an imagined order in which "the supreme good is the good of humanity," thus:

Liberal humanism. "Humanity" is individualistic and resides within each individual Homo sapiens.

Socialist humanism. "Humanity"is collective and resides within the species Homo sapiens as a whole.

Evolutionary humanism. "Humanity is a mutable species.Humans might degenerate into subhumans or evolve into superhumans.

The "evolutionary humanism" is the Nazi one. Just so you knew.

Yes, but I'd say that that what unites these three humanisms is that they presume that humans have the ability and the opportunity to create a new man. And this fits into my reductive Three Peoples notion that the Subordinates have a god that orders them around, the Responsibles have a god that sets out a divine law for them to follow as responsible humans, and that the Creatives get to create their own world and law.

So, while the humans in the world come in three flavors (which Harari admits in his analysis of Hammurabi's code, with its superiors, commoners, and slaves) the only religion that counts for him is a religion that appeals to the creative types.

And that, in my opinion, is humanity's Big Problem right now. Its educated gentry cannot conceive of anything outside its own walled garden of creativity, cannot understand that other people don't want creative types creating wonderful new worlds for them that look to the outsider like oppressive hells.

See, I think that the beginning of wisdom is to recognize that there is a world outside your own little walled garden and that what works for you may not work for others.