Sapiens

I saw someone reading a book in the park last week. On closer inspection they were Asian. And then when I could work out the cover, I realized it was Sapiens.
Society and Yea Forums are now irredeemably Reddit. It's over.

>Yuval Noah Harari

Attached: 1632875276926.gif (320x320, 1.56M)

>if you agree with a single sentence in this book
The connection between Göbekli-Tepe (built by hunter-gatherers!) and the rise of agriculture (genetically, one species of wheat comes from a nearby region)
=> civilization was probably upstarted by some schizo's hallucinogenic delusion, that a god needs a temple in the middle of a wasteland.

It's okay to consume or do something popular, you fucking contrarianus maximus.

>I saw someone reading a book in the park last week. On closer inspection they were Homo Sapiens.

It's so over.

First you consume something popular, then you start allowing to get fucked in the ass. It's a slippery slope, user.

>Harari's key claim regarding the Agricultural Revolution is that while it promoted population growth for Sapiens and co-evolving species like wheat and cows, it made the lives of most individuals (and animals) worse than they had been when Sapiens were mostly hunter-gatherers, since their diet and daily lives became significantly less varied

Oh would you look at that, you disagree with that, fucking agrarian little last man. You think it is much better to live "safely" as a farmer than freely as a hunter-gatherer. Disguting. Absolutely disgusting.

His points in the book should be considered for what they are as they are written. It doesn't cease to be cancel culture just because you're arguing against globohomo.

my reddit therapist who would recommend me standup comedians so I would "feel happy" and talked about how The Dark Knight was the greatest movie of all time, told me I needed to read Sapiens.

Your memory bank is limited. After you've read (what is it 600 pages?) of globohomo bullshit, you've surpressed a memory of a great book you read in the past. This happens every time you choose to read a shitty book just to fit in with your social group.

That’s not something Ted K. Would disagree with, in fact that’s one of his main points, but do you think him and this WEF connected shill have the same solution? No.
The class that created those conditions and have dehumanised millions of people globally to such a degree that it is causing problems from them, are now trying to solve it on their terms, with their propaganda, with their infrastructure and solutions.
Maybe that poster phrased it wrong, it’s not that you shouldn’t agree with anything said in the book, but you should be wary of accepting his entire assessment and proposals, if not in the work, but inherent in his affiliations, etc.

Causing problems for them*

crush him, quiz him endlessly on the canon until he breaks down and becomes the patient

Kek I never read the book and expected it to be bad but this is even worse than I thought. Commie garbage

The ppint is that humans need to share common myths (law, religion, etc...) in order to stick together in great numbers. Yuval is absolutely correct. Jurisprudence IS a form of ritual, some guys saying certain words, signing some papers make something "official". What makes those things official is the faith people have in authorities, laws, etc...

People attacking the author instead of the ideas show that they are contrarians who probably didnt even read the book.

>Commie garbage
The idea that lies/delusions are necessary for your survival, stems from Nietzsche, for example. Is Nietzsche 'commie garbarge', too?
The whole continental philosophy has been for a long time expressing idea, that knowledge is a "constellation" of things you know and things you neglect. Sorry, but if you gonna dump so much in a trash bin, then it is way much more probable, that it is you, who is retarded.

>this is even worse than I thought
I'd be surprised, that you are able to think in the first place.

I'm sorry to hear that, user, I hope your taste improves. Praying for you.

>muh hackable animals
>muh le ebil ypipo put innocent 6^n gorillion cockmonglers into gaaas chaimbers with wooden doahs oy vey its unbelievable but it happened
Yeah, nah. Get Tay-Sachs, pussy.

yes it does, it absolutely does.

>social group
lol no

Attached: 1642636826147.jpg (1698x1474, 264.84K)

>The idea that lies/delusions are necessary for your survival
Except for the fact that they're not lies or delusions at all. Acknowledging that legal authorities possess their authority due to their expertise, training and general superiority in that field is not superstition at all. It's just plain fact. And people like you would be laughed out of court and any other higher institution if you actually tried to make the case that executive decision making and responsibility for one's acts is equivalent to superstition.
> Is Nietzsche 'commie garbarge', too?
Nope, just regular garbage.

Based picture, I will hang this on my wall

>Acknowledging
How do you know you're doing that correctly? What does 'know' even mean?

>possess their authority due to their expertise
Nero, Caligula, Let's-Go-Brandon.

>executive decision making and responsibility for one's acts is equivalent to superstition
Consider films, for example. You are being able to see films as films, because your eye IS NOT able to differentiate frames at high rates.
You are exapting your disability.
You are able to do that, because you are disabled. Your eyes are literally malfunctioning.

>authority
>expertise
>superiority
mana-talk gibberish
>responsibility for one's acts is equivalent to superstition
Just because mana-talk is IMPORTANT (crucial for your survival, even), doesn't render it less FALSE. Am I understood?

"The proof by “pleasure” is a proof of “pleasure”—nothing more; why in the world should it be assumed that true judgments give more pleasure than false ones, and that, in conformity to some pre-established harmony, they necessarily bring agreeable feelings in their train?—The experience of all disciplined and profound minds teaches the contrary. Man has had to fight for every atom of the truth, and has had to pay for it almost everything that the heart, that human love, that human trust cling to. Greatness of soul is needed for this business: the service of truth is the hardest of all services." (Nietzsche, Antichrist, #50)

>How do you know you're doing that correctly? What does 'know' even mean?
Many, many reasons. The legal institution's history of excellence, its practical performance in all domains of society and ability to achieve just outcomes, its excellence in maintaining a well-functioning society, its erudition and ability to articulate clearly reasoned arguments and apply historical precedent to current cases.
>Nero, Caligula, Let's-Go-Brandon.
These were Roman emperors who were publicly deified, the Romans made no secret of their religious worship. Are we speaking about secular judiciaries or pagan religious-states? If the latter then it is a banal fact that they were "superstitious."
>Your eyes are literally malfunctioning.
No, they're not. Eyes are not meant to see still images any more than they are meant to see "moving images." The eye's purpose is to see, nothing more and nothing less. If we design a contraption based around the essential optical mechanics of the eye, that does not mean our eye is malfunctioning, it means we have just used our knowledge of it to create an object which can exploit the essential mechanism of the eye. The eye still functions perfectly well.
>doesn't render it less FALSE
You haven't even explained how it's false to begin with. Some people are superior to others, that is a fact.
>mana-talk gibberish
So you have literally no argument whatsoever. If I beat you in a game of chess, or whatever other competitive field, you would call my superiority over you "superstition", even though it's clear to all that you are simply lesser. That is called delusion and closer to superstition than the opposite. But you're free to keep believing your hocus pocus "what is truth" hogwash. Thankfully your types never gain any positions of authority; if they did, their institutions would fall apart due to ineptitude.

>You haven't even explained how it's false to begin with.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Müller-Lyer_illusion
Are lines longer or are they not?

>Are we speaking about secular judiciaries
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Let's_Go_Brandon

>pagan religious-states?
How is incompetence connected with paganism?

>meant to
Define 'meant to'

>Eyes are not meant to see still images
And the retard keeps switching to purpose-talk, not being able to comprehend that the existence of purposes is being problematized here in the first place.

>keep believing your hocus pocus "what is truth" hogwash
You are not very smart, you do realize that?

>I love to rape and murder people, here read my childrens book
Kys

No, you. Moralfag.

a gay jewish man paraded around think tank circles and international public-private cooperation corporations such as the WEF to promote transhumanism in the fourth industrial revolution

Attached: 1648746445425.png (324x339, 230.38K)

>Are lines longer or are they not?
The same length, which you can determine by examining the lines closely.
>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Let's_Go_Brandon
Irrelevant.
>How is incompetence connected with paganism?
You're using a case of overt institutional religion to argue that secular jurisprudence is religious.
>Define 'meant to'
Being crafted by nature for that purpose, or failing that, then serving their purpose as we see fit as thinking beings.
>And the retard keeps switching to purpose-talk
Everyone uses purpose talk; it is an objective feature of reality. And you will never be able to prove otherwise.
>You are not very smart, you do realize that?
You should keep that in mind yourself.

I saw a version with Jacques Camattes face on the skull

There's a difference between a myth that's created by the people and one that is imposed on them. Read Sorel

Watch clips of his talk at WEF this nigger kike is batshit insane.

>The same length, which you can determine by examining the lines closely.
So, I take it, you agree, that films do not exist?
So, I take it, you agree, that "executive decision making and responsibility" is "superstion"?
Touché.

>Everyone uses purpose talk; it is an objective feature of reality
And moths keep flying into flames, confusing it with moonlight. Because they are crafted by nature for that purpose.

>it is an objective feature of reality
One, that you acknowledged objectively not existing.

I repeat: you are a complete retard, and it has been a waste of time conversing with you.

>And the retard keeps switching to purpose-talk
Keep in mind also, that you were the one who originally used "purpose talk." You stated that the use of rapid-sequence still images cause the eyes to "malfunction." How can our eyes malfunction if there is no purpose to them?

>So, I take it, you agree, that films do not exist?
In what sense are you using the word exist? Films exist as sequences of still images.
>So, I take it, you agree, that "executive decision making and responsibility" is "superstion"?
How does this follow?
>And moths keep flying into flames, confusing it with moonlight.
Yes, because they lack intellect, something we possess. Moths do as they are wont to do, even if they fail sometimes, just like us.
>One, that you acknowledged objectively not existing.
Where?

>it is much more expanded upon in "Homo Deus"
which is why Homo Deus is generally even more disliked

>How can our eyes malfunction if there is no purpose to them?
How can the Sun arise from the East, if heliocentric model is correct?

Your 'ought to'-talk need not be how it actually is. Neglect provides results.
You, making 'ought to'/'purpose'-talk, does not imply that there is some magical sphere called 'normativity'. It just means that a certain biorobot meat-blob makes certain specific screeches.

>How
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heuristic
Heuristically.

So our eyes malfunction heuristically, but in reality they are not malfunctioning. So tell me again how our eyes do not function "in reality", if there is no metric for their functioning or malfunctioning to begin with. Why is seeing a film in fluid motion any more erroneous than seeing the still images one by one?

It goes downhill about halfway through. Also read more of that’s the best book you’ve read.

>Films exist
And demonic clowns exist, because you experience schizo hallucinations.
And if a magician pulls a coin out of your ear, then he clearly materializes matter out of nothing. Because you perceive it that way, it is so.

>How does this follow?
Because you made an autistic screech, that you don't like something being called 'lies', because of how important it is.
Therefore, a magician materializes a coin out of your ear. Magic exists.

>Yes, because they lack intellect, something we possess
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases
And intellect itself (as a tool) isn't prone to ecological collapse, because?..
Or are you claiming, you'll just use your magical willpower to will it away?

>Where?
"The same length, which you can determine by examining the lines closely."
Do films and magic exists, or does not a magician actually pull a coin out of your ear?

>So our eyes malfunction heuristically
No, retard. Our eyes are attuned to a specific environment. Change the environment, and you turn into a moth, flying into a flame.

>Why is seeing a film in fluid motion any more erroneous than
Why is moth flying into a flame any more erroneous than not flying? Is moth purposed to do it?
>Why is seeing a film in fluid motion any more erroneous
Because films are functionally-depended on a very specific cognitive bias. Are cognitive biases erroneous (i.e. biases)? How do cognitive scientists objectively measure them?

It's wrong, read Graeber.

Attached: 31HUMANITY-GRAEBER-book-mobileMasterAt3x.jpg (1800x2056, 458.61K)

That would be true if the author wasn’t of a group historically known to speak out of both sides of their mouth.

>And demonic clowns exist, because you experience schizo hallucinations.
Insofar as they are a hallucination and the hallucination exists, yes.
>then he clearly materializes matter out of nothing. Because you perceive it that way, it is so.
No, because no one sane bases important judgements simply on momentary perceptions, especially without using the important faculty of thought.
>And intellect itself (as a tool) isn't prone to ecological collapse, because?..
It's not prone to collapse, it is misused. That's why the term "bias" is used, and not "failure."
>Or are you claiming, you'll just use your magical willpower to will it away?
Yes, that is what most rational people are capable of doing, although it is not magic, it is called having a spine and living in accordance with truth and justice. I suppose from certain perspectives having moral principles might be considered magic if it is really that foreign to you.
>Do films and magic exists, or does not a magician actually pull a coin out of your ear?
Films evidently exist by whatever definition you wish to define them by, as for magic I am simply unsure. I have no sufficient reason to believe for or against, but any trivial claims like those of magicians are easily sorted into the "against" pile, thanks to the discriminating faculty of reason and probability.
>that you don't like something being called 'lies', because of how important it is.
I don't like things being called lies when there is no grounds for calling them such. Judgements themselves in law can never have "true" or "false" connotated with them if all facts available are considered, this is what decisional discretion is; it's an application of law based on the best considered understanding of the facts. Insofar as there are facts of the matter, then there is truth involved. The judgement is based on the application of law and precedent where possible, and in novel cases it is based on reasoning in accordance with the justice that law seeks to maintain. These judgements are made by those with the highest credentials and preparation to make such judgements, and they are also ratified and considered by other legal authorities, especially in the case of appeals to higher courts with greater authority. This is the basis for all authority, and insofar as it is authoritative, it is objectively justified.
>Our eyes are attuned to a specific environment.
Right, and that is the environment which is relevant to our existence, and which can be approximately understood in its own domain. Or is your entire argument just that the eyes are not capable of perceiving virtually everything? Because that is trivially true and is not even worth arguing about. That is where our intellect is involved in sorting between the reliability of perceptions. The fact that our senses are imperfect is as old as Plato and nothing particularly remarkable.

>the hallucination exists, yes.
Your behavior as a biorobot exist. The content of your hallucinations does not.

>no one sane bases important judgements simply on
Define 'importance'
Define 'sane'
Define 'judgement'
And how do you know that?

>That's why the term "bias" is used, and not "failure."
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases
"Plan continuation bias, FAILURE to recognize that "
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_attribution_error
"fundamental attribution ERROR, also known as correspondence BIAS or attribution effect, "

You are not very smart, you do realize that?

>it is misused
And the retard keeps on switching to normativity- and purpose-talk. Again.

>Films evidently exist by
Magic self-evidently exist, because a magician pulled a coin out of your ear! If you'll voice your doubt, he'll curse you!

>then there is truth involved
"Truth" is when you DO NOT see something being false. But just because you don't see, how a magician pulls a coin... Well, you get the idea.

>an application of law based on the best considered
Spoiler alert: "best" is normative, and normativity is a delusion.
>I don't like things being called lies when there is no grounds
There are. It's called cognitive biases. Explained as failures and errors. Illusions, delusions, fuckups. Are failures of perception not false?

>These judgements are made by those with the highest credentials
Spoiler alert: "credentials" is normative, and normativity is a delusion.
Once again you are switching to normativity-talk, not being able to comprehend that the existence of normativity is being problematized here in the first place.

>preparation to make such judgements, and they are also ratified
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Split-brain#Visual_test
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Wegner#The_illusion_of_conscious_will
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Choice_architecture

The adequacy of your ability to make judgements, is what is questioned. Your judgements are prone to ecological degradation and collapse. Your brain is part of the environment.

>that is the environment which is relevant to our existence,
The more you change your environment, the less your heuristics toolkit is reliable. All your cognitive biases are BIASES, because NOW they are backfiring. But originally - back when you were a cave-ape - they helped you to survive.
>Or is your entire argument just that the eyes are not capable of perceiving virtually everything?
My argument is that since brains' resources are engaged, the environment selects furless apes to operate using as little info as possible => i.e. you operate, ignoring as MUCH as possible. Any fuckery with the ignored things, causes your environment to stop being attuned to your existence.
And guess what? You have literacy, you have science, you're actively tweaking both brains and environment. So, do the math.

>Because that is trivially true
"Normativity" being bullshit is trivially true then, too.

Attached: Martian face.jpg (200x175, 25.57K)

I liked it too. Not sure why Yea Forums hates it so much but I think him being jewish probably has something to do with it.

>new history

Oof.

lol therapists are fucking garbage

This but unironically.

Stop posting cringe brainlet

Take away the fact that the author is a literal jewfaggot, I also found the book really good. Got it as a gift and finished it in six days.

>Is Nietzsche 'commie garbarge', too?
Yes.