I enjoy books of science enough that one of the bigger problems that I often run into is that the more popular books generally cover the same topics as others I’ve already read. If you’ve read “A Brief History of Time” and then pick up another book on physics for the general population, there is going to be a lot of crossovers in information. I have read no books that are one to one for “Sapiens”, but I feel some level of knowledge on the subject and not just because I am one but because I’ve watched documentaries and read books that cover parts of the subject like books on psychology or the history of Egypt which both touch on subjects in “Sapiens” but while all of that was true I still got a fair amount out of this book.

The basic structure of “Sapiens” by Yuval Noah Harari is simply to focus on one broad subject and look at it carefully, then move onto the next. This mostly works well, and he covers subjects like religion, economics, science and more. Each of them is then explored carefully and from a scientific viewpoint. He, for example, doesn’t discuss the relative merit of different religions from the viewpoint of whether they are correct or moral, but on their ability to expand. Pointing out that part of the reason that modern religions are aggressively expansive is that those were the religions most likely to expand while religions that cared or even believe that they were useful for other people were likely to be subsumed by those religions actively trying to grow.

This way of looking at human society from an evolutionary standpoint is used for each of the broad subjects. Exploring why some ideas are effectively more fit than others in the view of survival of the fittest. This isn’t a revolutionary way of looking at things, but for many ideas it is useful because it can make you rethink the reasons you believe certain things and give you perspective whether or not you want to.

Overall, this is a well written book that covers what you would expect when talking about humans. And one of my only real issues with the book were the times when the author’s viewpoint felt as if it intruded into the discussion more than in should. This happened little, and it wasn’t always when I disagreed with him. But it was jarring every time he stated an absolute when people, including scientists, economist, etc are still not in consensus. This simply isn’t the type of book that I want to hear the views of the author over the science.

I can’t say that I loved “Sapiens”by Yuval Noah Harari, but I liked it well enough to read all the way through. And I suspect if I hadn’t read quite so many books touched on the same ideas that they would feel more special. But I’m not convinced that this is a book that people need to read, so much as something that leads you to a lot of different ideas that have entire books written about which makes it a good starting point for exploring what humans are and can be rather than a comprehensive guide.