Chapter 2: The Tree of Knowledge
1. P. 21 “The “Cognitive Revolution.” Accidental genetic mutations changed the inner wiring of the brains of Sapiens, enabling them to think in unprecedented ways and to communicate using an altogether new type of language. We might call it the Tree of Knowledge mutation.”
What does he mean by the “Tree of Knowledge mutation”? Why do you think he uses that term? Why is this an appropriate/good name (or not!) for this shift in our cognitive abilities? Given the Christian history, does that place a moral judgement or value on that shift?
2. P. 22 - Our language developed as “a means of sharing information about the world. But the most important information that needed to be covered was about humans, not about lions and bison. Our language evolved as a way of gossiping.”
How was gossip pivotal to our development? What would you say is its role today?
3. P. 24/25 - Sapiens seem to be the only animal capable of imagining things they have never seen, including the creation of legends, myths, gods and religions. How has this helped us to “rule the world”? How might this be our downfall?
4. P. 28 -The author writes that there are “no human rights…outside the common imagination of human beings.”
Do humans innately ‘have’ rights, or have we decided as a species, to grant ourselves those rights? (What about other animals?)
5. pg 31 - The author writes, “An imagined reality is not a lie.”
Do you agree or disagree? (What would Trump or Kelly Conway say?) :)
6. P. 32 - “Ever since the Cognitive Revolution, Sapiens has thus been living in a dual reality. On the one hand, the objective reality of rivers, trees and lions; and on the other hand, the imagined reality of gods, nations and corporations. As time went by, the imagined reality became ever more powerful, so that today the very survival of rivers, trees and lions depends on the grace of imagined entities such as gods, nations, and corporations.” DISCUSS.
7. Pg 34 Our new ability to tell stories enabled cooperation of large groups of people (beyond 150), allowing us to transform social structures, interpersonal relations, economic activities within decades.
Our storytelling served a purpose; we ‘evolved’ quickly - not biologically, but societally and culturally. Does it still serve us? Will something else evolve in us? What do you think might be the next evolution for us as a species?
8. P. 35/36 - Trade. Seems pragmatic, but can’t happen without trust between strangers; we appeal to common myths to bring trust between strangers.
We are starting to see this today re: world markets — Brexit/EU, USA/Mexico, — closing down borders, putting up walls, decreased trust, re-negotiations of trade agreements.
How could common stories help our world right now?
How are some of the ‘stories’ being told affecting the world?
Chapter 3: Adam and Eve
1. P. 40 “For nearly the entire history of our species, Sapiens lived as foragers. …(E)volutionary psychology argues that many of our present-day social and psychological characteristics were shaped during the long pre-agricultural era.”
Our current “environment gives us more material resource and longer lives than those enjoyed by any previous generation, but it often makes us feel alienated, depressed and pressured.”
Plague of obesity because we are programmed to gorge on high-calorie sweets and fats — ripe fruit, in short supply for them, doughnuts and french fries for us.
What can we learn from our ancestry/ DNA to help us with today’s challenges?
2. Pg 43: Artefacts tell the story of the society to future generations.
Our ancestors, the foragers, moved all the time so “had to make do with only the most essential possessions…the greater part of their mental, religious and emotional lives was conducted without the help of artefacts.”
2. Pg 43: Artefacts tell the story of the society to future generations.
Our ancestors, the foragers, moved all the time so “had to make do with only the most essential possessions…the greater part of their mental, religious and emotional lives was conducted without the help of artefacts.”
In the digital age, are we moving away from artefacts, once again?
3. P. 46 “…they still spend the vast majority of their time in complete isolation and independence…there were no permanent towns or institutions. The average person lived many months without seeing or hearing a human from outside of her own band, and she encountered throughout her life no more than a few hundred humans.”
Imagine! Would you prefer a life like that, or ours today (seeing millions at one gathering, alone)!
4. p. 49 - “The human collective knows far more today than did the ancient bands. But at the individual level, ancient foragers were the most knowledgable and skillful people in history.”
They were smarter, more skilled, more capable, more knowledgable, than we are, as individuals. More tuned in to nature and to their own bodies. (Fit as marathon runners, observed foliage, great physical dexterity, moved silently etc.)
How do you think our movement from being outside, connected to nature, in tune with our bodies etc. into enclosed, concrete, out-of-the-elements environments has affected modern-day humans?
5. pg.54 - Animism:
“The belief that almost every place, every animal, every plant and every natural phenomenon has awareness and feelings, and can communicate directly with humans.”
3. P. 46 “…they still spend the vast majority of their time in complete isolation and independence…there were no permanent towns or institutions. The average person lived many months without seeing or hearing a human from outside of her own band, and she encountered throughout her life no more than a few hundred humans.”
Imagine! Would you prefer a life like that, or ours today (seeing millions at one gathering, alone)!
4. p. 49 - “The human collective knows far more today than did the ancient bands. But at the individual level, ancient foragers were the most knowledgable and skillful people in history.”
They were smarter, more skilled, more capable, more knowledgable, than we are, as individuals. More tuned in to nature and to their own bodies. (Fit as marathon runners, observed foliage, great physical dexterity, moved silently etc.)
How do you think our movement from being outside, connected to nature, in tune with our bodies etc. into enclosed, concrete, out-of-the-elements environments has affected modern-day humans?
5. pg.54 - Animism:
“The belief that almost every place, every animal, every plant and every natural phenomenon has awareness and feelings, and can communicate directly with humans.”
Why do you think animism was the primary belief of the foragers?
How do theism (belief in a god-being) and animism compare?
If animism made a come-back today, what would be the result?
6. P. 57 - The pic of the hands — It seems we have always wanted to ‘make our mark’, to be remembered, to say, “we were here.” Is this some sort of quest for immortality? Wanting future generations to see something of us? Or is it some sort of communication with ourselves, to be a reflection of our OWN worth?
If animism made a come-back today, what would be the result?
6. P. 57 - The pic of the hands — It seems we have always wanted to ‘make our mark’, to be remembered, to say, “we were here.” Is this some sort of quest for immortality? Wanting future generations to see something of us? Or is it some sort of communication with ourselves, to be a reflection of our OWN worth?
Chapter 4: The Flood
P 64: “The journey of the first humans to Australia is one of the most important events in history, at least as important at Columbus’ journey to American or the Apollo 11 expedition to the moon…Homo sapiens climbed to the top rung in the food chain on a particular landmass and thereafter became the deadliest species in the annals of planet Earth.”
P. 66: - more than 90% of Australia’s megafauna disappeared
Homo sapiens was still overwhelmingly a terrestrial menace.
“ecological serial killer.” (Australia, New Zealand, Arctic Ocean…all islands…)
Homo sapiens was still overwhelmingly a terrestrial menace.
“ecological serial killer.” (Australia, New Zealand, Arctic Ocean…all islands…)
P 68: - Had mastered “fire agriculture” - “completely changed the ecology of large parts of Australia within a few short millennia (which, in turn, “influenced the animals that ate the plants and the carnivores that ate the vegetarians”.)
P 69 - To America: Even larger ecological disaster, this time in America
- within 2000 years - most species gone. 34/47 genera of large mammals (along with thousands of smaller mammals, reptiles, birds, insects, parasites.
P 69 - To America: Even larger ecological disaster, this time in America
- within 2000 years - most species gone. 34/47 genera of large mammals (along with thousands of smaller mammals, reptiles, birds, insects, parasites.
“…(T)he inevitable conclusion is that the first wave of Sapiens colonization was one of the biggest and swiftest ecological disasters to befall the animal kingdom.”
Author asks, ‘Perhaps if more people were aware of the First Wave (spread of the foragers) and Second Wave (the spread of the farmers) extinctions, the’d be less nonchalant about the Third Wave they are part of. If we knew how many species we’ve already eradicated, we might be more motivated to protect those that still survive.
Do you think that’s true? Would this knowledge make a difference in our collective behaviour?
Our ancestors were operating without the scientific information we have today (e.g., weather patterns, other species) and were also operating from a ‘survival perspective’. Today, we have the ability to do more than survive - yet we are creating a Third Wave of Extinction. What do you think our descendants will say about this period in time?
Given our level of awareness and scientific information (as compared with our ancestors who were just trying to survive and were unaware of the devastation they were wreaking) — what is our moral responsibility to the other species of the world, if any?
Or, is this just nature (survival of the fittest) continuing its natural path?
Author asks, ‘Perhaps if more people were aware of the First Wave (spread of the foragers) and Second Wave (the spread of the farmers) extinctions, the’d be less nonchalant about the Third Wave they are part of. If we knew how many species we’ve already eradicated, we might be more motivated to protect those that still survive.
Do you think that’s true? Would this knowledge make a difference in our collective behaviour?
Our ancestors were operating without the scientific information we have today (e.g., weather patterns, other species) and were also operating from a ‘survival perspective’. Today, we have the ability to do more than survive - yet we are creating a Third Wave of Extinction. What do you think our descendants will say about this period in time?
Given our level of awareness and scientific information (as compared with our ancestors who were just trying to survive and were unaware of the devastation they were wreaking) — what is our moral responsibility to the other species of the world, if any?
Or, is this just nature (survival of the fittest) continuing its natural path?
No comments:
Post a Comment