Thoughts on this book? I really liked it. Looks not only at

>>9773743
>Is Homo Deus (his new book) worth reading?
I read this and Sapiens not yet. Homo Deus is speculative but I think we need these kinds of books to think about the future (which we cannot predict but at least think of scenarios)

What do you think of Sapiens? Can you tell me about the anthropology behind it? I have some interest in anthropology but it seems some of their ideas are a bit sketchy. Like the idea of societies without hierarchy (though I could agree it was much more flexible back then)

And I do not mean the idea that agriculture was a mistake I can follow that, though between hunter-gatherer and now I couldn't be luckier, yet the time between hunter-gatherer and now (as a first worlder) must be the worse

If this interests you I suggest checking out books on cultural evolution

>>9773813
Aye, I enjoyed that it didn't just assume we have it better now. It rightly points out the improvements in health and so on, but I find the argument that our happiness hasn't necessarily increased (and the question of whether it even can be) interesting.

I'd respond to more of your post but I'm not sure English is your first language. Could you rephrase a little?

File: 290240a2d569ce81244701b472f98340.jpg (147KB, 354x419px) Image search: [Google]

147KB, 354x419px

How does it stack up

>>9773870
>Could you rephrase a little?
Ok sure. All I want to know:
Some anthropologists think that hunter-gatherer societies lacked any hierarchy. Does this book go into that?
>I'm not sure English is your first language.
No, but I also do not put effort into making it 'correct' unless I'm crafting something special. I'm going quickly from threads to threads now.

>>9773944
Yeah, wasn't meaning to be a prick, just wanted to make things a tad clearer.

It explores different options but ultimately admits how little evidence we have on the social hierarchis of prehistoric culture makes it a near impossible task, even modern hunter gatherer tribes are hugely varied.

>>9773920
don't read it if you value your time. it's trash.