I can dig your argument, specially Hararis leap of faith in numbers saying the rudimentary tools that started t ag revolution constrained the attention. There is zero reason One: to suppose that a highlands Papuan with a digging stick is an idiot. And two, the inmovations came slow to our lights as molasses, your grandmother was not less agile for reusing things than we are for th rowing them away. His intuition that our horizons are limited by work is one of my own worth saying outloud: in my repeated experience your bosses' horizons limit yours. Observe your bosses blind spots, and you might like I have discover yourself trying to find a place for yourself in a pitiless situstion. Which is not like is in youth or in imaginatiom. But that comes from the relationship and not the tool. 40 generations takes us where, thirdly, nearly to the agricultutal revolution? Famously 10000 years is a minimum under auspicious island conditions to expect to see genetic differences. You make a better case for the Davids Dawn book / than against Harari who as you show here, clings to extra terrestrial technological invasians to explain change, where the Davids's suggestion that tribes dis t inguish themselves out of force of persuasion, in order (schismogenesis) to di stinguish themselves, that is the simpler solution t o explain why for example the Incas di d not grasp who they were dealing with, more simply than his what? Would you call it if you strong manned it, a case for genetic change based on bad nutrition? But we know all about that , and the consensus is that peoples appetite for more fat sugar and the third thing goes back much further....
Hey Nathan! Thanks for the comment. Interesting insights.
The point about the relation between “horizons” and work, between knowledge and division of labor in particular, is one where, for a moment, Harari is agreeable, and in agreement with Marx. However, from there, Harari takes it into eugenics territory.
He argues that the simplified work created through the division of labor of the agricultural revolution enabled the passing on of genes of people whose brains would otherwise be too small for them to survive (which is an insane presumption): “You could survive and pass your unremarkable genes to the next generation by working as a water carrier or an assembly-line worker.”
I have Harari on my desk i presume for t same reason you do. To assign myself to mind other minds. I should have kept up my German, maybe the Back of German food packages in slow german, could keep me aware of the needs of others. Jaspers drew the conclusion from t kind of studying others, that our nationstate draws our horizones. To be sure t was only a g uess, but that is given a quant basis with the Righteous Mind book. At the same time it looks like the old amnesiac heuristic- do you know where you live? D y know who is president? Was not_underlined based only on conservative minds, since the commander in chief has touched all our hearts with his confusion.
I can dig your argument, specially Hararis leap of faith in numbers saying the rudimentary tools that started t ag revolution constrained the attention. There is zero reason One: to suppose that a highlands Papuan with a digging stick is an idiot. And two, the inmovations came slow to our lights as molasses, your grandmother was not less agile for reusing things than we are for th rowing them away. His intuition that our horizons are limited by work is one of my own worth saying outloud: in my repeated experience your bosses' horizons limit yours. Observe your bosses blind spots, and you might like I have discover yourself trying to find a place for yourself in a pitiless situstion. Which is not like is in youth or in imaginatiom. But that comes from the relationship and not the tool. 40 generations takes us where, thirdly, nearly to the agricultutal revolution? Famously 10000 years is a minimum under auspicious island conditions to expect to see genetic differences. You make a better case for the Davids Dawn book / than against Harari who as you show here, clings to extra terrestrial technological invasians to explain change, where the Davids's suggestion that tribes dis t inguish themselves out of force of persuasion, in order (schismogenesis) to di stinguish themselves, that is the simpler solution t o explain why for example the Incas di d not grasp who they were dealing with, more simply than his what? Would you call it if you strong manned it, a case for genetic change based on bad nutrition? But we know all about that , and the consensus is that peoples appetite for more fat sugar and the third thing goes back much further....
Hey Nathan! Thanks for the comment. Interesting insights.
The point about the relation between “horizons” and work, between knowledge and division of labor in particular, is one where, for a moment, Harari is agreeable, and in agreement with Marx. However, from there, Harari takes it into eugenics territory.
He argues that the simplified work created through the division of labor of the agricultural revolution enabled the passing on of genes of people whose brains would otherwise be too small for them to survive (which is an insane presumption): “You could survive and pass your unremarkable genes to the next generation by working as a water carrier or an assembly-line worker.”
I have Harari on my desk i presume for t same reason you do. To assign myself to mind other minds. I should have kept up my German, maybe the Back of German food packages in slow german, could keep me aware of the needs of others. Jaspers drew the conclusion from t kind of studying others, that our nationstate draws our horizones. To be sure t was only a g uess, but that is given a quant basis with the Righteous Mind book. At the same time it looks like the old amnesiac heuristic- do you know where you live? D y know who is president? Was not_underlined based only on conservative minds, since the commander in chief has touched all our hearts with his confusion.