History Books

>>2743187
I remember looking through the first few pages of it and finding a mistake, though I don't remember what it was. I think it was something minor, something that doesn't really matter that much, but it still bugged me. I'd still say it's a fine book, and I'm really glad that the origin of humans is getting more attention.

>>2743304
>and I'm really glad that the origin of humans is getting more attention.
Isn't the origin of humans only a portion of this book?

Is there a better book to read to learn about humans before civilization or how humans evolved?

>>2743409
It's only a portion of the book but it's very complete

>>2743187

Fair warning though, butt-blasted academics (or those larping as such) are going to tell you how terrible it is and how many "dangerous generalizations" it makes

I'm almost finished it and I think its been really interesting. I think it'd be the sort of book that'd make a really handy primer for people who haven't read a lot of history to get a really broad idea, then they can read books by specialists to narrow in on themes they liked.

>>2743304

What I say is take any generalist book with a grain of salt.
The guy has chosen to write a broad piece outlying general themes of history. He didn't extensively research every period he's discussing, you can't be an expert on all of human history. You don't open Sapiens to learn about the Roman Empire or 30 years war, you read it to get a general gist of the way humans have come to behave. I wouldn't cite Sapiens for any particular historical fact.

>>2743482
from this it looks like a basic scientistic grand narrative
pride of place to "the scientific revolution" and transhumanist speculation for futurology

>>2743475
Homo Deus does make some astonishingly stupid claims based on wildly speculative matters. Its an interesting read, but if you consider it prophetic in any which way the author intended your're and idiot, friendo.

>>2743492
Well, i mean that's why it is "brief history of humankind"

>>2743594

I know. I'm not saying it's a bad thing, I'm saying some people treat it like something it isn't and then get butthurt.

>>2743409
>Isn't the origin of humans only a portion of this book?
I didn't read it past the first few pages, so I thought it was mostly about the evolution and prehistory. It's fine if it covers the entire timeline of our species, it's good if more people will have a general understanding of the big picture. Also, I think I remember what it was that caught my attention. Not really a mistake, more of an oversimplification, it used that "definition" of species, the one that's about being able to produce fertile offspring.

>>2743632

He does allude that there are other means of taxonomy, just that that one is convenient.