Sapiens: Chapter One - The First Section
This piece summarizes the first section of Chapter One in Yuval Noah Harari's 'Sapiens.'
I was really fascinated by this section, mainly because it gave me the opportunity to learn about how various animals are deeply interconnected, evolving from common ancestors. Here's a summary of what I've gathered from this section:
First Takeaway:
IN A NUTSHELL!
When humans first appeared, they couldn’t show any extraordinary feats. They had no more impact than elephants and chimpanzees.
Animals much like modern humans first appeared about 2.5 million years ago. However, these prehistoric humans didn't possess any unique or advanced traits that set them apart significantly from other animals at that time. They were just one of many species trying to survive in their ecological niches. They didn't have any remarkable impact on the environment or ecosystems.
Second Takeaway:
IN A NUTSHELL!
History began with the Cognitive Revolution, granting Homo sapiens the extraordinary ability to create cultures. History tells the story of how Homo Sapiens' cultures evolved over time.
History began 70,000 years ago when the Cognitive Revolution allowed a specific human species, Homo sapiens, to form cultures. So, history is essentially the story of these evolving human cultures. It's about how cultures change and adapt over time, leading to the emergence of new ideas, behaviors, and practices. As these cultures evolve and adapt, they often lead to significant events, such as the invention of tools, the development of agriculture, the rise of empires, or the emergence of philosophical and scientific ideas. These events, in turn, shape the trajectory of cultural evolution, allowing cultures to continually evolve and craft new chapters in history. Therefore, history is fundamentally a tale of the cultural journey of Homo sapiens.
Third Takeaway:
IN A NUTSHELL!
Picture your apple—it's a 'Fuji Apple.' Now, place that Fuji Apple into the broader category "Apple." Step back further, and you'll see the entire "Apple" category is part of a bigger group, "Fruit." Similarly, animals fit into a specific 'Species,' which fits into a larger category, "Genus," and that, in turn, fits into the even larger category "Family."
To understand how different animals are related and connected in the animal kingdom, they are classified into species, genera, and families. Let's break down what these terms mean:
If two animals willingly mate with each other and have fertile offspring, they are called members of the same species.
When species share a common ancestor, they are grouped into a category known as a ‘genus’ (plural form - genera). Species within the same genus share a more recent common ancestor with one another than they do with species in other genera. For example, a tiger shares a more recent common ancestor with a lion than it does with a cat, which falls into a different genus named ‘Felis.’ Despite being distinct species, lions, tigers, leopards, and jaguars all share a more recent common ancestor and, as a result, are grouped within the Panthera genus.
Several genera can be grouped into an even broader category known as a ‘family’. For instance, in the cat family, you'll find species from various genera like lions (Panthera), cheetahs (Acinonyx), and house cats (Felis), to name a few. Within each family, there is a single ancestral species from which all the species in that family have evolved over time.
Fourth Takeaway:
IN A NUTSHELL!
We once believed we were a unique creation, separate from the animal kingdom due to a divine origin and special status. However, the reality is different: we belong to the 'Sapiens' species within the 'Homo' genus and the 'Great Apes' family.
In the past, we considered ourselves distinct from animals, isolated as if we had no biological connection to other animals. In reality, we, like all living organisms, are part of the broader animal kingdom. Our species is known as "sapiens," and it belongs to the genus "Homo." Biologists typically use a naming convention with two Latin words: the first word represents the genus, and the second word represents the species. Therefore, we are scientifically called "Homo sapiens."
We are also part of a larger family known as the "Great Apes," which includes, besides ourselves, species like chimpanzees, gorillas, and orangutans. All these species are our relatives since we share a common ancestor. The chimpanzees are our closest relatives, which means we share a more recent common ancestor with them than with gorillas or orangutans.
Alright, these seem like the key takeaways for me. However, I found the section somewhat confusing, probably because I’ve little to no biology knowledge. I’ll compile a list of my questions and do my best to answer them:
Question 1:
The section says that history began about 70,000 years ago. Does this imply that events occurring before that period aren’t considered part of history? If not, how should we categorize events that took place before this point?
Answer:
Yes, events that occurred before 70,000 years ago are not considered part of history. Anything preceding this time frame is typically referred to as "prehistory." Prehistoric events are not considered part of recorded history and are studied through archaeological and anthropological methods, as they lack written documentation.
Question 2:
Why is history defined as the development of human cultures? I thought history was about the past.
Answer:
Before history, there was prehistory. In the prehistoric era, no animals could act outside their biological boundaries. But that changed with the emergence of Homo sapiens as they developed writing systems, built pyramids, and sent rockets to the moon. Their actions were no longer solely driven by biology. Instead, their beliefs, values, customs, and social norms began to shape their actions and decisions. Culture became their defining characteristic.
This change marked the transition from prehistory to history, an era defined by the development of Homo sapiens’ cultures. Now, history is about the past too. Since history is marked by the use of written records to document past events, we can study this period to learn about past events, societies, and cultures. But remember history, as a period, began about 70,000 years ago. So, any past before that is not under the jurisdiction of history.
Question 3:
The section suggests that Homo sapiens started to form cultures about 70,000 years ago. But why is it that only sapiens formed cultures? Did other human species fail at it?
Answer:
I don't think it's possible to develop cultures without some level of cognitive ability. While I'm not entirely sure about the cognitive abilities of other human species, I'm pretty sure none of them had cognitive capabilities similar to Homo sapiens. If they did, we should have substantial evidence of their cultures. However, since such evidence is lacking, it's possible that they either didn't manage to develop a culture or, if they did, it might have been quite limited due to their cognitive limitations.
Question 4:
The section mentions that the Scientific Revolution might bring an end to history. What does it mean?
Answer:
Much like prehistory, history represents a specific period in time. Prehistory came to an end with the emergence of Homo sapiens and there’s no reason why history can’t also have an endpoint. History is defined by the cultural development of Homo sapiens, so the conclusion of history might mean the conclusion of sapiens' cultures.
Now, how could sapiens cultures come to an end? Perhaps, the Scientific Revolution could lead to the extinction of Homo sapiens, giving rise to an entirely different species with distinct defining characteristics. In the absence of Homo sapiens, history, as a period, might no longer exist. Or it could bring about such a profound transformation in sapiens that their defining feature – the ability to form cultures – might be replaced by something entirely new. If cultures cease to develop, history, with its timeline beginning 70,000 years ago, might also come to a stop.
Question 5:
What does a recent common ancestor mean?
Answer:
I’m not very clear about how evolution works, so I could be wrong. But here’s my attempt to explain what a “recent common ancestor“ means: Picture a family tree like the one given above. Imagine you have a grandfather, and he had two sons, one of whom is your father, and the other is your uncle. Now, your father has two kids, you and your brother, while your uncle has a child, your cousin.
An ancestor is a person from whom you are descended. Since both you and your brother descend from your father, he is, of course, a common ancestor for both of you. So is your grandfather since both of you are also his descendants, carrying forward his lineage.
Therefore, your father and grandfather are both common ancestors for you and your brother. But who is the most recent common ancestor between them? The answer is your father, as he is the more recent connection directly linking the two of you.
Now, you and your cousin also share a common ancestor. Can you guess who that is? If you look at the family tree, you'll see that your father and your uncle have gone separate ways, each starting their own family line with their own descendants. You and your cousin, as the children of your father and your uncle, respectively, represent different branches of the entire family tree. However, the common link between both of you is your grandfather. As a result, he is the common ancestor for both of you, and you are both part of his lineage. Also, your grandfather serves as the most recent common ancestor, as he's the latest link connecting you and your cousin.
We can apply this same logic of common ancestry to species. Consider Homo sapiens and their sibling species, Homo neanderthalensis. Both of these species can be traced back to a "parent" and a "grandparent" species, who naturally serve as common ancestors since both Homo sapiens and Homo neanderthalensis descend from these ancestral species. However, when we talk about the most recent common ancestor, it's their "parent" species because it's the one that immediately precedes them in the family tree.
Now, let's turn our attention to their cousins, the Chimpanzees. While the parents of Homo sapiens and chimpanzees went on separate evolutionary paths, giving rise to their own family lines, these lines are still interconnected through the "grandparent" species. So, this "grandparent" species is the common ancestor for both Homo sapiens and chimpanzees. And this common ancestor also serves as their most recent common ancestor, as it represents the last point where Homo sapiens and chimpanzees shared a common ancestor.
In a nutshell, a recent common ancestor represents the last common species from which two or more different species have evolved.
The information I've shared above is my interpretation of the first section of Chapter One in Yuval Noah Harari's 'Sapiens.' It's entirely possible that I’ve gotten some parts wrong, so please don't hesitate to offer your corrections and insights.