What do you think?
Rate this book
Being Human: How our biology shaped world history
Being Human is history made flesh. It will change the way you see the world.
We are a wonder of evolution. Powerful yet dextrous, instinctive yet thoughtful, we are expert communicators and innovators. Our exceptional abilities have created the civilisation we know today.
But we're also deeply flawed. Our bodies break, choke and fail, whether we're kings or peasants. Diseases thwart our boldest plans. Our psychological biases have been at the root of terrible decisions in both war and peacetime.
This extraordinary contradiction is the essence of what it means to be human - the sum total of our frailties and our faculties. And history has played out in the balance between them. Now, for the first time, Lewis Dartnell tells our story through the lens of this unique, capricious and fragile nature. He explores how our biology has shaped our relationships, our societies, our economies and our wars, and how it continues to challenge and define our progress.
Praise for Lewis Dartnell's Origins and The Knowledge :
'Stands comparison with Yuval Harari's Sapiens ... A thrilling piece of big history' Sunday Times on Origins
'The most inspiring book I've read for a long time' Independent on The Knowledge
We are a wonder of evolution. Powerful yet dextrous, instinctive yet thoughtful, we are expert communicators and innovators. Our exceptional abilities have created the civilisation we know today.
But we're also deeply flawed. Our bodies break, choke and fail, whether we're kings or peasants. Diseases thwart our boldest plans. Our psychological biases have been at the root of terrible decisions in both war and peacetime.
This extraordinary contradiction is the essence of what it means to be human - the sum total of our frailties and our faculties. And history has played out in the balance between them. Now, for the first time, Lewis Dartnell tells our story through the lens of this unique, capricious and fragile nature. He explores how our biology has shaped our relationships, our societies, our economies and our wars, and how it continues to challenge and define our progress.
Praise for Lewis Dartnell's Origins and The Knowledge :
'Stands comparison with Yuval Harari's Sapiens ... A thrilling piece of big history' Sunday Times on Origins
'The most inspiring book I've read for a long time' Independent on The Knowledge
368 pages, Paperback
First published June 1, 2023
100 people are currently reading
1327 people want to read
About the author
Lewis Dartnell
14 books193 followersLewis Dartnell is an astrobiology researcher and professor at the University of Westminster. He has won several awards for his science writing, and contributes to the Guardian, The Times and New Scientist. He has also written for television and appeared on BBC Horizon, Sky News, and Wonders of the Universe, as well as National Geographic and History channels. A tireless populariser of science, his previous books include the bestselling The Knowledge: How to Rebuild Our World from Scratch.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 53 reviews
May 31, 2023
Being Human is a fascinating and surprisingly readable romp through the marvels and miscalculations of human evolution and the myriad miracles and pitfalls that befall our bodies and minds; it's both a celebration and an analysis of our issues as a species over the centuries - right up to present day. The chapter titles give an idea of the topics Dartnell focuses on: Software For Civilisation; Family; Endemic Disease; Epidemic Disease; Demographics; Changing Our Minds; Coding Errors; and Cognitive Biases.
In this book, the author takes a deep dive into human history and explores how our fundamental humanness has expressed itself in our cultures, societies and civilisations. How the different quirks of our genetics, biochemistry, anatomy, physiology and psychology have manifested themselves, and what the consequences and ramifications – not just in terms of singular, momentous events but for the over-arching constants and long-term trends of world history have been.
I must admit, I was concerned that it might be too similar to Yuval Noah Harari's 'Sapiens', which I thoroughly enjoyed, but, luckily, this explores different topics - these complement Harari's work exceptionally well and don't merely cover the same ground. Illustrated by a plethora of intriguing anecdotes, Dartnell weaves a coherent yarn presented in plain, layman's English which I feel sits closer to the popular science genre than academia and is packed with interesting information, facts and statistics. A corporeal delight which reveals the profound and often shocking ways in which intrinsic aspects of our anatomy, genetics, biochemistry and psychology have left their mark on human history.
In this book, the author takes a deep dive into human history and explores how our fundamental humanness has expressed itself in our cultures, societies and civilisations. How the different quirks of our genetics, biochemistry, anatomy, physiology and psychology have manifested themselves, and what the consequences and ramifications – not just in terms of singular, momentous events but for the over-arching constants and long-term trends of world history have been.
I must admit, I was concerned that it might be too similar to Yuval Noah Harari's 'Sapiens', which I thoroughly enjoyed, but, luckily, this explores different topics - these complement Harari's work exceptionally well and don't merely cover the same ground. Illustrated by a plethora of intriguing anecdotes, Dartnell weaves a coherent yarn presented in plain, layman's English which I feel sits closer to the popular science genre than academia and is packed with interesting information, facts and statistics. A corporeal delight which reveals the profound and often shocking ways in which intrinsic aspects of our anatomy, genetics, biochemistry and psychology have left their mark on human history.
February 23, 2025
Civilizația este expresia supremă a naturii cooperante a omului. După cum spune Nichola Rahani, în cartea sa "Instictul social": "Cooperarea este superputerea speciei noastre, motivul pentru care oamenii au reușit nu doar să supraviețuiască, ci să prospere în aproape orice habitat de pe Pământ."
Căsătoria este un construct social universal, bazat pe predispoziția umană de a forma legături afective. În cadrul dinastiilor, căsătoria a dobândit o importanță cu totul nouă. Imperativele umane ale legăturii de afecțiune și ale reproducerii au devenit instrumente ale politicii de stat. Pentru o familie regală, nașteri, decese și căsătorii sunt toate evenimente politice.
Un exemplu de dinastie celebră este Casa de Habsburg, a cărei ramură spaniolă s-a stins din cauza consagnvinizării extreme, declanșând Războiul de Succesiune Spaniol 1701-1714. Carol al II-lea, ultimul rege Habsburg al Spaniei, avea un coeficient de consangvinitate de 0,254, chiar mai mare decât cel al urma;ilor rezultați dintr-o asociere incestuoasă directă între părinte și copil sau între frate și soră.
Bolile au impus mereu un tribut greu armatelor aflate în marș sau asediu, fiind o povară în plus pe lângă epuizarea generală și malnutriția. În Războiul Crimeii de la mijlocul anilor 1850, Marea Britanie a pierdut de zece ori mai mulți soldați din cauza dizenteriei și tifosului decât in confruntările efective cu rușii. De fapt, primul conflict major în care mai mulți combatanți au fost uciși în lupte reciproce decât ca urmare a bolilor asociate a fost Războiul Ruso-Japonez dintre 1904-1905 (lucru valabil doar pentru japonezi).
Autorul aduce multe exemple.
Citiți cu atenție primul capitol, cel despre cooperare, este cel mai dificil.
Recomand
Căsătoria este un construct social universal, bazat pe predispoziția umană de a forma legături afective. În cadrul dinastiilor, căsătoria a dobândit o importanță cu totul nouă. Imperativele umane ale legăturii de afecțiune și ale reproducerii au devenit instrumente ale politicii de stat. Pentru o familie regală, nașteri, decese și căsătorii sunt toate evenimente politice.
Un exemplu de dinastie celebră este Casa de Habsburg, a cărei ramură spaniolă s-a stins din cauza consagnvinizării extreme, declanșând Războiul de Succesiune Spaniol 1701-1714. Carol al II-lea, ultimul rege Habsburg al Spaniei, avea un coeficient de consangvinitate de 0,254, chiar mai mare decât cel al urma;ilor rezultați dintr-o asociere incestuoasă directă între părinte și copil sau între frate și soră.
Bolile au impus mereu un tribut greu armatelor aflate în marș sau asediu, fiind o povară în plus pe lângă epuizarea generală și malnutriția. În Războiul Crimeii de la mijlocul anilor 1850, Marea Britanie a pierdut de zece ori mai mulți soldați din cauza dizenteriei și tifosului decât in confruntările efective cu rușii. De fapt, primul conflict major în care mai mulți combatanți au fost uciși în lupte reciproce decât ca urmare a bolilor asociate a fost Războiul Ruso-Japonez dintre 1904-1905 (lucru valabil doar pentru japonezi).
Autorul aduce multe exemple.
Citiți cu atenție primul capitol, cel despre cooperare, este cel mai dificil.
Recomand
November 2, 2024
Dartnell explores how our biology has shaped our relationships, our societies, our economies and our wars, and how it continues to challenge and define our progress. This book is similar to Dartnell's previous book: Origins: How Earth's History Shaped Human History. I found the contents interesting but not particularly original. I was already familiar with quite a lot of it (this is a hazard of reading every book on a vaguely similar top that I can get my hands on). The book is clearly written, but a bit disjointed and rather superficial.
December 3, 2023
The book is well written and highly entertaining, but also largely superfluous: it is merely a smorgasbord of topics that have already been discussed elsewhere.
May 17, 2025
Echt genoten van dit boek! Tijdens het lezen vaak een glimlach op mijn gezicht gehad of met verbazing verder willen lezen. Aanrader !!
November 7, 2023
Having now read two of the three books from this "series", I'll officially read everything Dartnell puts out.
Often when I'm reading a book like this I feel like I have to frack it for information, the prose is coagulated and the fascinating facts too far apart. With Dartnell that's never ever the case. It's more like panning for gold and every time you dip your pan in the murky sediment you just keep finding more gold nuggets. For example did you know that the Crimean war gave us not one but two well known garments? I'm sure you'll know it's where the balaclava came from but did you also know it's where the officer who led the Charge of the Light Brigade, James Brudenell, the 7th Earl of Cardigan, made his open-fronted knitted top famous too? Nearly every page has a juicy little morsel that will essentially turn you into a trivia expert. Maybe that's what Dartnell's writing is; prose for trivia fanatics. There's no doubt that a parsimonious approach positing all of world history could be reduced to the human inability to produce ascorbic acid (vitamin C) internally is farcical but that doesn't mean it isn't fun.
Dartnell also writes the most fascinating footnotes in the business. Such that you could easily read your way through the footnotes of this book and come away quite happy. I'll attach some to the end of this review when I get a chance.
Unfortunately, this book does a horrible job of living up to the second half of its title; How our biology shaped world history. Although Dartnell can be forgiven for following the trend of choosing Exhibit A and suggesting the whole history of the world can be explained by it. Just this year I've come across similar ones for; wood, the ocean, porcelain, silk, plants, oil, salt, pathogens and the list goes on. In this particular instance it's a little bit odd because the definition of history is
History: The study of past events, particularly in human affairs.
Not to channel the philosophy of materialism too heavily but what are humans but their biology? In many ways Dartnell's sub heading is almost tautalogical. It's almost the definition of history itself. As in how our history shaped history.
I also found that he spent an inordinate amount of time talking about pathogens, such that I thought maybe we were getting a history of the world shaped by pathogens rather than our bodies. But that's actually another book on my to read list Pathogenesis: A History of the World in Eight Plagues.
Anyway I'd definitely recommend reading this, if for no other reason than to become a delightful little font of knowledge amongst your friends.
p.s. I expected a lot more talk about base ten coming from how many fingers we have.
Often when I'm reading a book like this I feel like I have to frack it for information, the prose is coagulated and the fascinating facts too far apart. With Dartnell that's never ever the case. It's more like panning for gold and every time you dip your pan in the murky sediment you just keep finding more gold nuggets. For example did you know that the Crimean war gave us not one but two well known garments? I'm sure you'll know it's where the balaclava came from but did you also know it's where the officer who led the Charge of the Light Brigade, James Brudenell, the 7th Earl of Cardigan, made his open-fronted knitted top famous too? Nearly every page has a juicy little morsel that will essentially turn you into a trivia expert. Maybe that's what Dartnell's writing is; prose for trivia fanatics. There's no doubt that a parsimonious approach positing all of world history could be reduced to the human inability to produce ascorbic acid (vitamin C) internally is farcical but that doesn't mean it isn't fun.
Dartnell also writes the most fascinating footnotes in the business. Such that you could easily read your way through the footnotes of this book and come away quite happy. I'll attach some to the end of this review when I get a chance.
Unfortunately, this book does a horrible job of living up to the second half of its title; How our biology shaped world history. Although Dartnell can be forgiven for following the trend of choosing Exhibit A and suggesting the whole history of the world can be explained by it. Just this year I've come across similar ones for; wood, the ocean, porcelain, silk, plants, oil, salt, pathogens and the list goes on. In this particular instance it's a little bit odd because the definition of history is
History: The study of past events, particularly in human affairs.
Not to channel the philosophy of materialism too heavily but what are humans but their biology? In many ways Dartnell's sub heading is almost tautalogical. It's almost the definition of history itself. As in how our history shaped history.
I also found that he spent an inordinate amount of time talking about pathogens, such that I thought maybe we were getting a history of the world shaped by pathogens rather than our bodies. But that's actually another book on my to read list Pathogenesis: A History of the World in Eight Plagues.
Anyway I'd definitely recommend reading this, if for no other reason than to become a delightful little font of knowledge amongst your friends.
p.s. I expected a lot more talk about base ten coming from how many fingers we have.
June 12, 2024
نحن البشر لدينا ميل قوي نحو سلوك القطيع، أي التوافق مع أفراد مجتمعنا من خلال تقليد قراراتهم. ومن الناحية التطورية، فقد خدمنا هذا جيدًا. في العالم الطبيعي المليء بالمخاطر، ربما يكون اتباع الجميع أكثر أمانًا، حتى لو لم تكن مقتنعًا بأنه أفضل مسار ، بدلاً من المخاطرة بالمضي قدمًا بمفردك. في كثير من الأحيان، حتى لو شعرنا أننا على حق، فإننا نكره أن نتميز عن الآخرين. إن سلوك القطيع هذا يُعَد وسيلة لجمع المعلومات من الجمهور ــ فقد يعرف الآخرون شيئاً لا نعرفه ــ ومن الممكن أن يخدم كأداة للحكم السريع، مما يسمح لنا بالاقتصاد في الوقت والجهد المعرفي في تقرير كل شيء بأنفسنا من الصفر. على سبيل المثال، أثناء السير في مدينة غير مألوفة بحثًا عن مكان جيد لتناول العشاء، فإننا ننجذب بشكل طبيعي إلى المطعم المزدحم بدلاً من المطعم الفارغ المجاور.
لقد تسبب هذا التحيز الرعوي في ظهور طفرات من البدع والموضات عبر التاريخ. فهو يؤثر أيضًا على تبني معايير ثقافية أخرى أو وجهات نظر دينية أو تفضيلات سياسية. ولكن نفس التحيز النفسي يعمل أيضاً على زعزعة استقرار الأسواق والأنظمة المالية. على سبيل المثال، كانت طفرة الدوت كوم في أواخر التسعينيات مدفوعة بتراكم المستثمرين لدعم شركات الإنترنت على الرغم من أن العديد من الشركات الناشئة لم تكن سليمة من الناحية المالية. لقد تبع المستثمرون بعضهم البعض، على افتراض أن الآخرين لديهم تقييم أكثر موثوقية أو ببساطة لا يريدون أن يتخلفوا عن الركب في هذا الجنون، فقط لكي تنفجر الفقاعة وتهبط أسواق الأوراق المالية بشكل حاد بعد أوائل عام 2000. وقد تكررت مثل هذه الفقاعات المضاربة عبر التاريخ منذ ذلك الحين. "هوس التوليب" في هولندا في أوائل القرن السابع عشر، وكان سلوك الرعي نفسه وراء دورات الازدهار والكساد الحديثة كما هو الحال في أسواق العملات المشفرة.
.
Lewis Dartnell
Being Human
Translated By #Maher_Razouk
لقد تسبب هذا التحيز الرعوي في ظهور طفرات من البدع والموضات عبر التاريخ. فهو يؤثر أيضًا على تبني معايير ثقافية أخرى أو وجهات نظر دينية أو تفضيلات سياسية. ولكن نفس التحيز النفسي يعمل أيضاً على زعزعة استقرار الأسواق والأنظمة المالية. على سبيل المثال، كانت طفرة الدوت كوم في أواخر التسعينيات مدفوعة بتراكم المستثمرين لدعم شركات الإنترنت على الرغم من أن العديد من الشركات الناشئة لم تكن سليمة من الناحية المالية. لقد تبع المستثمرون بعضهم البعض، على افتراض أن الآخرين لديهم تقييم أكثر موثوقية أو ببساطة لا يريدون أن يتخلفوا عن الركب في هذا الجنون، فقط لكي تنفجر الفقاعة وتهبط أسواق الأوراق المالية بشكل حاد بعد أوائل عام 2000. وقد تكررت مثل هذه الفقاعات المضاربة عبر التاريخ منذ ذلك الحين. "هوس التوليب" في هولندا في أوائل القرن السابع عشر، وكان سلوك الرعي نفسه وراء دورات الازدهار والكساد الحديثة كما هو الحال في أسواق العملات المشفرة.
.
Lewis Dartnell
Being Human
Translated By #Maher_Razouk
January 2, 2025
Lewis Dartnell es de esos autores de ensayo científico que no solo no una tiene página mala, sino que además presenta temas sobre los que se ha escrito hasta la saciedad organizándolos de una forma original, construyendo para ellos una historia diferente que te atrapa hasta la última página.
"Ser humano" no es la excepción a ese modus scribendi de Dartnell.
En menos de 300 páginas esboza una Historia de la humanidad centrada alrededor de cómo nuestra biología ha determinado o afectado profundamente algunos eventos decisivos en el devenir humano en la Tierra. La tesis parece ser bastante "esencialista" aunque no es de esperar menos de un biólogo como él. Aún así Dartnell reconoce en algunos apartes que no todo ha sido estrictamente determinado por nuestra constitución como animales o por nuestra relación con otros organismos con los que convivimos en los ecosistemas. Sin embargo la suposición del esencialismo (que no es del todo inocente, ni entraña consecuencias desafortunadas como ya sabemos) en este libro funciona como una herramienta divulgativa que sirve para exponer conexiones increíbles entre eventos históricos y fenómenos de la biología humana que no esperarías que existen. Aquí radica su originalidad.
El libro es así pues, una deliciosa mezcla de buena ciencia, sociología, biología, neurociencias y psicología, con una alta dosis de buena historiografía.
¡De todo mi gusto!
Debo confesar, sin embargo, que los primeros capítulos me causaron alguna dificultad; incluso me vi tentado a abandonar el libro por algunas afirmaciones que encontré allí y que he leído ya no se sustentan.
Me refiero a su tratamiento de algunos temas álgidos tales como el origen de las relaciones sociales o los roles de los sexos, que, a mi buen saber y entender, no esta muy informado. Sugiere, por ejemplo, que en la prehistoria la división sexual del trabajo estaba claramente definida, los hombres se dedicaban a la cazan y las mujeres a la recolección y las crías. Una multitud de autoras y autores han corregido sistemáticamente esta creencia tan extendida.
También asume de manera simplificada que las sociedades humanas se parecen más a las de los chimpancés, con su dominancia masculina y su agresividad, en lugar de a la de los bonobos en la que el liderazgo de las hembras es reconocido así como el hecho de ser sociedades más pacíficas. ¿Por qué íbamos a creer, basándonos exclusivamente en el comportamiento humano en tiempos históricos -y vale la pena aclarar, no existió en todas las culturas- que la humanidad del pasado se comportaría de esa manera?. Podrían haber existido formas de organización diversas, posiblemente un espectro casi continuo entre las de nuestros primos cercanos, Chimpances y Bonobos, que determinaron las organizaciones sociales primigenias. Es más, no solo está última idea es relativamente aceptada en la literatura antropológica sino que es casi intuitivo que las capacidades lingüisticas humanas no solamente nos hicieron distintos de nuestros primos antropoides en temas tecnológicos o artisticos, sino que seguramente sirvieron para crear sociedades mucho más diversas.
Superados estos capítulos que contienen lo que para mí es un material debatible, Dartnell se sumerge en otros aspectos de la historia en los que no existen debates antropológicos tan álgidos, tales como el rol de las enfermedades y la manera en la que ellas determinaron las relaciones entre sociedades del pasado, o el papel de la demografía, las drogas psicoactivas y los sesgos cognitivos.
Me quedo con un montón de datos y la tarea de leer el primer libro de esta serie -según me entere en la introducción de "Ser humano"-, es decir "Abrir en caso de apocalipsis" que es el único que me falta leer de Dartnell. Los otros, "Orígenes" (el segundo de esta serie) y "Astrobiología", ya fueron devorados y disfrutados.
"Ser humano" no es la excepción a ese modus scribendi de Dartnell.
En menos de 300 páginas esboza una Historia de la humanidad centrada alrededor de cómo nuestra biología ha determinado o afectado profundamente algunos eventos decisivos en el devenir humano en la Tierra. La tesis parece ser bastante "esencialista" aunque no es de esperar menos de un biólogo como él. Aún así Dartnell reconoce en algunos apartes que no todo ha sido estrictamente determinado por nuestra constitución como animales o por nuestra relación con otros organismos con los que convivimos en los ecosistemas. Sin embargo la suposición del esencialismo (que no es del todo inocente, ni entraña consecuencias desafortunadas como ya sabemos) en este libro funciona como una herramienta divulgativa que sirve para exponer conexiones increíbles entre eventos históricos y fenómenos de la biología humana que no esperarías que existen. Aquí radica su originalidad.
El libro es así pues, una deliciosa mezcla de buena ciencia, sociología, biología, neurociencias y psicología, con una alta dosis de buena historiografía.
¡De todo mi gusto!
Debo confesar, sin embargo, que los primeros capítulos me causaron alguna dificultad; incluso me vi tentado a abandonar el libro por algunas afirmaciones que encontré allí y que he leído ya no se sustentan.
Me refiero a su tratamiento de algunos temas álgidos tales como el origen de las relaciones sociales o los roles de los sexos, que, a mi buen saber y entender, no esta muy informado. Sugiere, por ejemplo, que en la prehistoria la división sexual del trabajo estaba claramente definida, los hombres se dedicaban a la cazan y las mujeres a la recolección y las crías. Una multitud de autoras y autores han corregido sistemáticamente esta creencia tan extendida.
También asume de manera simplificada que las sociedades humanas se parecen más a las de los chimpancés, con su dominancia masculina y su agresividad, en lugar de a la de los bonobos en la que el liderazgo de las hembras es reconocido así como el hecho de ser sociedades más pacíficas. ¿Por qué íbamos a creer, basándonos exclusivamente en el comportamiento humano en tiempos históricos -y vale la pena aclarar, no existió en todas las culturas- que la humanidad del pasado se comportaría de esa manera?. Podrían haber existido formas de organización diversas, posiblemente un espectro casi continuo entre las de nuestros primos cercanos, Chimpances y Bonobos, que determinaron las organizaciones sociales primigenias. Es más, no solo está última idea es relativamente aceptada en la literatura antropológica sino que es casi intuitivo que las capacidades lingüisticas humanas no solamente nos hicieron distintos de nuestros primos antropoides en temas tecnológicos o artisticos, sino que seguramente sirvieron para crear sociedades mucho más diversas.
Superados estos capítulos que contienen lo que para mí es un material debatible, Dartnell se sumerge en otros aspectos de la historia en los que no existen debates antropológicos tan álgidos, tales como el rol de las enfermedades y la manera en la que ellas determinaron las relaciones entre sociedades del pasado, o el papel de la demografía, las drogas psicoactivas y los sesgos cognitivos.
Me quedo con un montón de datos y la tarea de leer el primer libro de esta serie -según me entere en la introducción de "Ser humano"-, es decir "Abrir en caso de apocalipsis" que es el único que me falta leer de Dartnell. Los otros, "Orígenes" (el segundo de esta serie) y "Astrobiología", ya fueron devorados y disfrutados.
January 7, 2025
Perfektná, jedna z ľahších a oddychovejších z edície Civilizácia. Odporúčam
January 2, 2025
Divulgación para amateurs, con algunas hipotesis ad hoc (del tipo psicología evolucionista) y algunos reduccionismos biológico-cientifistas.
Entretenido como introducción, sí, pero oportunista y comercial al fusionar una serie de hechos mejor tratados (con mayor profundidad y matices) por autores anteriores como Harari, Diamond o Sapolsky. Y todo eso sin hablar de autores que superan los discursos unidimensionales de este ensayo (como podrían ser Scott, Graeber...).
Dartnell recopila una serie de viñetas conocidas, aprovechando el tirón de la divulgación pensada como entretenimiento. Aparte de que exagera las consecuencias históricas de tantos factores...
No obstante, reitero, cumple una función introductoria en varias de las temáticas tratadas, pese a que su valor radica más bien en las anécdotas que narra. En conclusión, un libro divulgativo sencillo y ligero para pasar el rato: notablemente apto para el principiante y el universitario. Para el lego versado en estos temas, superficial.
Entretenido como introducción, sí, pero oportunista y comercial al fusionar una serie de hechos mejor tratados (con mayor profundidad y matices) por autores anteriores como Harari, Diamond o Sapolsky. Y todo eso sin hablar de autores que superan los discursos unidimensionales de este ensayo (como podrían ser Scott, Graeber...).
Dartnell recopila una serie de viñetas conocidas, aprovechando el tirón de la divulgación pensada como entretenimiento. Aparte de que exagera las consecuencias históricas de tantos factores...
No obstante, reitero, cumple una función introductoria en varias de las temáticas tratadas, pese a que su valor radica más bien en las anécdotas que narra. En conclusión, un libro divulgativo sencillo y ligero para pasar el rato: notablemente apto para el principiante y el universitario. Para el lego versado en estos temas, superficial.
October 10, 2024
Lewis Dartnell trabaja en la universidad de Westminster buscando vida bacteriana en Marte, pero también escribe originalísimos libros sobre las interacciones entre la evolución humana y la historia. Títulos como Abrir en caso de apocalipsis (2015), un manual fascinante para después del armagedón; Orígenes (2019), acerca de cómo la geología puede explicar la política actual; o el último que acaba de llegar a las librerías españolas: Ser humano: cómo nuestra biología ha moldeado la historia universal (Debate, 2024).
"Lo que intenté hacer en este libro, como en los dos anteriores, es observar qué hay detrás de nuestro mundo moderno y de todas las cosas que damos por sentadas, y preguntarme de dónde vienen", explica Dartnell cuando hablamos con él por videoconferencia. Y el inevitable punto de partida cuando investigamos al animal humano es su extraordinaria capacidad social. La cooperación es el software de la civilización. Y para que funcione necesitamos algo esencial: ser chismosos. El cotilleo nos hizo humanos.
Seguir leyendo la reseña / entrevista aquí:
https://www.elmundo.es/papel/historia...
"Lo que intenté hacer en este libro, como en los dos anteriores, es observar qué hay detrás de nuestro mundo moderno y de todas las cosas que damos por sentadas, y preguntarme de dónde vienen", explica Dartnell cuando hablamos con él por videoconferencia. Y el inevitable punto de partida cuando investigamos al animal humano es su extraordinaria capacidad social. La cooperación es el software de la civilización. Y para que funcione necesitamos algo esencial: ser chismosos. El cotilleo nos hizo humanos.
Seguir leyendo la reseña / entrevista aquí:
https://www.elmundo.es/papel/historia...
June 26, 2024
Incredibly interesting!
November 1, 2024
Dense with information conveyed in clear, concise writing.
November 12, 2024
incredible! goes to show how humans and society itself is incredibly flawed and interconnected. my hunger for random knowledge has been sated. thank you.
September 10, 2025
Rychlokurz histórie ľudstva ovplyvňovanej našimi biologickými nedostatkami.
December 22, 2025
5 din 5. O carte foarte subapreciată care explorează modul în care a evoluat societatea prin prisma cooperării, familiilor și dinastiilor, impactul bolilor, erorilor cognitive.
Recomand în special celor cărora le place Y. Harrari, D. Kahneman.
Recomand în special celor cărora le place Y. Harrari, D. Kahneman.
June 15, 2023
A fascinating, informative and intriguing book on the relationship between our anatomy and the history.
Well written and informative
Highly recommended.
Many thanks to the publisher for this ARC, all opinions are mine
Well written and informative
Highly recommended.
Many thanks to the publisher for this ARC, all opinions are mine
May 27, 2025
TLDR: Farming was the worst thing we invented for ourselves and every single sentient and non-sentient inhabitants of this world.
Really cool fun facts throughout the book (ie. G&Ts previously concocted as an anti-malarial!), so now feeling a little bit more enlightened about the world and our role in it. Gave me a nice shot of optimism at the start which then eventually plateaued to something more of an “ah well, this is how we’re built, can’t fault ourselves” (we can’t even overcome cognitive biases we’re aware of! what to do!)
Really cool fun facts throughout the book (ie. G&Ts previously concocted as an anti-malarial!), so now feeling a little bit more enlightened about the world and our role in it. Gave me a nice shot of optimism at the start which then eventually plateaued to something more of an “ah well, this is how we’re built, can’t fault ourselves” (we can’t even overcome cognitive biases we’re aware of! what to do!)
July 30, 2024
A very unique and novel idea, allowing for a good blend of history, biology and psychology. It was fun jumping through many different pivotal moments in time, getting a brief history review, then reading the explanation on how specific examples of our human biology and psychology was responsible for the decisions made, and outcomes that followed. If you are a fan of biology and a bigger fan of history (mostly European & British history) then this book is for you, although two thirds of the book were taken to cover the topics of both diseases and psychology (two chapters on diseases and two chapters on psychology), which at times I felt like the connection to our biology a bit lose and the thesis of the book slightly sidetracked. But I enjoy pharmacology and psychology so it was a bonus to me.
My favourite chapter by far was chapter 6, entitled Changing our Minds, and I thought both the introduction and coda were very well written, pursuing the idea that in the future, too will our biology play a major role.
My favourite chapter by far was chapter 6, entitled Changing our Minds, and I thought both the introduction and coda were very well written, pursuing the idea that in the future, too will our biology play a major role.
February 26, 2025
A very well written book full of fascinating anecdotes about how the underlying mechanisms of our body shaped the world we live in today. It goes from vitamins to drugs to cognitive biases... etc. It has also allowed me to refresh on some basic biological knowledge which is a plus.
August 17, 2025
I am fed up with these types of non-fiction books - the kind that don’t really fit into any specific genre, yet try to explain how the world works with absolute certainty.
Every now and then I forget my past disappointments and give them another shot - say because of an enaging title, say because I tell myself I was just unlucky before - but every time, the end result is the same.
Being Human: How our Biology Shaped World History fooled me with its title. There’s barely any biology in here, and very little history either. What we get instead is only a bunch of well-selected biological human traits and their (supposed) effect on major historical events - as if those facts alone could explain how everything unfolded.
But just because something could have influenced an event doesn’t mean it did. Nor that it was the most significant part of it. The book is built on a series of elegant correlations. It presents one selective explanation while ignoring the infinte number of alternative - and likely more complex - contributing factors, and the interactions between them.
To be fair, there are a few interesting anecdotes worth remembering: the reasons describing the genetical problems of the Habsburgs and the narration behind the scurvy, for instance. But they do not by themselves elevate the book to something remarkable. The rest is just a re-elaboration attempt of what is more than extensively discussed elsewhere: cognitive biases, population dynamics, and so on.
I am tired of books like these: they cherry-pick information, bulk it with notes, citations, references and present it as if it were the only valid intepretation, offering the illusion of clarity where there is only complexity.
Which is a shame, because I’m genuinely fascinated by both biology and history. A book that promised to bridge the two deceived me in believing it did just that. Instead, this one leans more toward pop psychology or speculative hindsight dressed up as theory.
Ultimately, I am afraid it was a bit of a waste of time.
Every now and then I forget my past disappointments and give them another shot - say because of an enaging title, say because I tell myself I was just unlucky before - but every time, the end result is the same.
Being Human: How our Biology Shaped World History fooled me with its title. There’s barely any biology in here, and very little history either. What we get instead is only a bunch of well-selected biological human traits and their (supposed) effect on major historical events - as if those facts alone could explain how everything unfolded.
But just because something could have influenced an event doesn’t mean it did. Nor that it was the most significant part of it. The book is built on a series of elegant correlations. It presents one selective explanation while ignoring the infinte number of alternative - and likely more complex - contributing factors, and the interactions between them.
To be fair, there are a few interesting anecdotes worth remembering: the reasons describing the genetical problems of the Habsburgs and the narration behind the scurvy, for instance. But they do not by themselves elevate the book to something remarkable. The rest is just a re-elaboration attempt of what is more than extensively discussed elsewhere: cognitive biases, population dynamics, and so on.
I am tired of books like these: they cherry-pick information, bulk it with notes, citations, references and present it as if it were the only valid intepretation, offering the illusion of clarity where there is only complexity.
Which is a shame, because I’m genuinely fascinated by both biology and history. A book that promised to bridge the two deceived me in believing it did just that. Instead, this one leans more toward pop psychology or speculative hindsight dressed up as theory.
Ultimately, I am afraid it was a bit of a waste of time.
September 21, 2024
Dartnell has an easy writing style and some interesting anecdotes but there’s very little here that felt genuinely fresh.
In addition, there is an inherent sexism bias when Dartnell talks about patriarchy and the family. We are told that no one knows why almost all human societies exhibit patriarchal structures, when there have been perfectly explicit and plausible explanations, rooted in a Natural Selection perspective, for decades. In this he almost exactly follows the pattern of Harari’s Sapiens: the greatest single source of human injustice, whereby one half of the population throughout history has been subjected to the authority of the other half, is dismissed in less than half a page in both books that purport to offer sweeping reviews of our species. They do not, because of this omission.
The natural selection argument for the roots of patriarchy:
the pair bond was for around 200,000 years the most effective way of ensuring the helpless human child grew up and reached adulthood to breed. Women consequently have a strong disposition to keep a male partner close and providing. Men, on the other hand, are torn two ways. They could stick by a primary mate and support her kids to give them a really good chance of going the distance. Or, they could instead just impregnate as many women as possible and hope that, say, out of 100 inseminations, 10 make it to adulthood, even without Dad’s help.
Best of all for men is to have it both ways. They stick loyally by their primary mate and work hard at supporting her to ensure those babies stay alive, but when opportunity arises they quickly have a crack at inseminating someone else. No skin off their nose if those babies don’t make it, they’re sticking by primary mate’s babies anyway. And they might strike lucky and have a few extra that have cost them nothing but a roll in the hay.
The main problem for loyal Dad, of course, is that he could be expending all this energy and primary mate’s babies might not even be his. Women know, men don’t. Not for sure.
But if you introduce religion, marriage, and social norms which create disgust, disapprobation and punishment for any women who is sexually active (which is the case in all patriarchal societies) – then all of a sudden the man’s chances of raising his own children are enhanced dramatically. Take away a woman’s economic and legal power and the man’s control is almost total: the woman has no legal redress, no way to survive without him, and so becomes utterly dependant.
The outcome of this, and one of the most obvious and consistent features of patriarchy, is that women’s sexuality is controlled. So a man can be pretty certain that the babies he is raising carry his genes and not someone else’s.
These ideas have been around for decades and there is a great deal of evidence to support them. The Case Against the Sexual Revolution by Louise Perry describes them far better than me and is well referenced. Why Harare and Dartnell profess to be baffled by the ubiquity of patriarchy is in itself baffling. Maybe they just aren’t reading the right books.
And then Dartnell tells us that humans show a natural preference for polygyny - people choose polygyny as soon as they have the societal surplus to manage it (ie a richer male who can afford to support multiple wives, so we’re mainly looking at more complex societies here, post hunter-gatherer.)
This is a fallacy. Richer males – those with the power and influence to take more than their fair share of women in a standard, broadly 1:1 male:female ratio population – of course prefer polygyny. It is a mark of their status, it gives them more progeny, it gives them greater access to readily available sex to satisfy their sexual urges. It’s spreading their seed over numerous females – their ideal – but legalised.
Polygyny is associated with strong patriarchal social structures and almost always results from arranged marriages. Young women rarely have any choice: they have to marry the powerful, often older man. In such circumstances, the arrangement might be beneficial to a new young wife - she can share the burden of chores and some strange old guy's sexual favours - but not always. Older wives may feel hurt and slighted, resentful and angry. They can make a new wife's life very difficult.
Poorer, younger males, on the other hand, will be deprived of mates altogether in a polygynous society. If a rich man takes four wives, three young men have none. It’s simple maths. So what happens? It is conceivable that those deprived young men will obediently wait, hoping that in time they will become the rich and powerful patriarch with four wives. Or, the young men are ousted altogether from the group before they become troublesome – in which case they might form some kind of marauding band, which is not ideal for overall social stability. Or, war parties set out specifically to attack other groups and bring home extra women. Which eventuates in pretty well constant warfare between neighbouring groups as men become desperate for women.
Our current western society is sexually more free than possibly any ever in history. If humans genuinely had a strong natural preference for polygyny, you would think we would see it regularly right now, yet most western women recoil from the idea. 200,000 years of programming for a pair bond is not easy to overturn. Rich, powerful men like it; breeding age women are far more inclined for a good man of their choice to stand by them.
The thing that is most flawed in Dartnell’s analysis is that he many, many times states some variant of people/human societies prefer polygyny. The men deprived of women, and the women themselves, do not. Rich, powerful men are not everyone. They just write the rules and the histories.
The only other thing I would mention is Dartnell’s firm assumption that hunter gatherer societies were gentler, kinder, more egalitarian, non-hierarchical and generous: kind of Utopian. This is also a feature of Harare’s Sapiens, I suspect Dartnell has been influenced by the earlier book.
I’m not going to say this wasn’t the case, but neither do I think we can know this for sure, at all, at this time. I suspect this idyllic picture is why Sapiens met with such success – we like to think of this Eden-like earlier existence where people were kinder and looked after each other and even lived long lives. Where the Neanderthals just died out by you know, bad luck and a change in the weather or something. Hm. I’d just say, we need a lot more evidence.
Highly recommended read: https://www.theguardian.com/books/202...
In addition, there is an inherent sexism bias when Dartnell talks about patriarchy and the family. We are told that no one knows why almost all human societies exhibit patriarchal structures, when there have been perfectly explicit and plausible explanations, rooted in a Natural Selection perspective, for decades. In this he almost exactly follows the pattern of Harari’s Sapiens: the greatest single source of human injustice, whereby one half of the population throughout history has been subjected to the authority of the other half, is dismissed in less than half a page in both books that purport to offer sweeping reviews of our species. They do not, because of this omission.
The natural selection argument for the roots of patriarchy:
the pair bond was for around 200,000 years the most effective way of ensuring the helpless human child grew up and reached adulthood to breed. Women consequently have a strong disposition to keep a male partner close and providing. Men, on the other hand, are torn two ways. They could stick by a primary mate and support her kids to give them a really good chance of going the distance. Or, they could instead just impregnate as many women as possible and hope that, say, out of 100 inseminations, 10 make it to adulthood, even without Dad’s help.
Best of all for men is to have it both ways. They stick loyally by their primary mate and work hard at supporting her to ensure those babies stay alive, but when opportunity arises they quickly have a crack at inseminating someone else. No skin off their nose if those babies don’t make it, they’re sticking by primary mate’s babies anyway. And they might strike lucky and have a few extra that have cost them nothing but a roll in the hay.
The main problem for loyal Dad, of course, is that he could be expending all this energy and primary mate’s babies might not even be his. Women know, men don’t. Not for sure.
But if you introduce religion, marriage, and social norms which create disgust, disapprobation and punishment for any women who is sexually active (which is the case in all patriarchal societies) – then all of a sudden the man’s chances of raising his own children are enhanced dramatically. Take away a woman’s economic and legal power and the man’s control is almost total: the woman has no legal redress, no way to survive without him, and so becomes utterly dependant.
The outcome of this, and one of the most obvious and consistent features of patriarchy, is that women’s sexuality is controlled. So a man can be pretty certain that the babies he is raising carry his genes and not someone else’s.
These ideas have been around for decades and there is a great deal of evidence to support them. The Case Against the Sexual Revolution by Louise Perry describes them far better than me and is well referenced. Why Harare and Dartnell profess to be baffled by the ubiquity of patriarchy is in itself baffling. Maybe they just aren’t reading the right books.
And then Dartnell tells us that humans show a natural preference for polygyny - people choose polygyny as soon as they have the societal surplus to manage it (ie a richer male who can afford to support multiple wives, so we’re mainly looking at more complex societies here, post hunter-gatherer.)
This is a fallacy. Richer males – those with the power and influence to take more than their fair share of women in a standard, broadly 1:1 male:female ratio population – of course prefer polygyny. It is a mark of their status, it gives them more progeny, it gives them greater access to readily available sex to satisfy their sexual urges. It’s spreading their seed over numerous females – their ideal – but legalised.
Polygyny is associated with strong patriarchal social structures and almost always results from arranged marriages. Young women rarely have any choice: they have to marry the powerful, often older man. In such circumstances, the arrangement might be beneficial to a new young wife - she can share the burden of chores and some strange old guy's sexual favours - but not always. Older wives may feel hurt and slighted, resentful and angry. They can make a new wife's life very difficult.
Poorer, younger males, on the other hand, will be deprived of mates altogether in a polygynous society. If a rich man takes four wives, three young men have none. It’s simple maths. So what happens? It is conceivable that those deprived young men will obediently wait, hoping that in time they will become the rich and powerful patriarch with four wives. Or, the young men are ousted altogether from the group before they become troublesome – in which case they might form some kind of marauding band, which is not ideal for overall social stability. Or, war parties set out specifically to attack other groups and bring home extra women. Which eventuates in pretty well constant warfare between neighbouring groups as men become desperate for women.
Our current western society is sexually more free than possibly any ever in history. If humans genuinely had a strong natural preference for polygyny, you would think we would see it regularly right now, yet most western women recoil from the idea. 200,000 years of programming for a pair bond is not easy to overturn. Rich, powerful men like it; breeding age women are far more inclined for a good man of their choice to stand by them.
The thing that is most flawed in Dartnell’s analysis is that he many, many times states some variant of people/human societies prefer polygyny. The men deprived of women, and the women themselves, do not. Rich, powerful men are not everyone. They just write the rules and the histories.
The only other thing I would mention is Dartnell’s firm assumption that hunter gatherer societies were gentler, kinder, more egalitarian, non-hierarchical and generous: kind of Utopian. This is also a feature of Harare’s Sapiens, I suspect Dartnell has been influenced by the earlier book.
I’m not going to say this wasn’t the case, but neither do I think we can know this for sure, at all, at this time. I suspect this idyllic picture is why Sapiens met with such success – we like to think of this Eden-like earlier existence where people were kinder and looked after each other and even lived long lives. Where the Neanderthals just died out by you know, bad luck and a change in the weather or something. Hm. I’d just say, we need a lot more evidence.
Highly recommended read: https://www.theguardian.com/books/202...
March 2, 2025
For readers who read little, if at all, about evolutionary biology, genetics, cognitive behavioral science/economics, and history of the western world of 17th-18th century, this is a very good, easy-to-read, informative introductory book containing a treasure of well-informed, enlightening, and useful knowledge that are detrimental to our ignorance. For such readers, this book provides a firm basis of preliminary knowledge (in the areas I mentioned above) that interested readers can digest before going for more similar books to expand their intellectual horizon about life. The author covers comprehensive areas of history and science that are practically enriching and enabling for readers to gain realistic picture of relevant and useful facts of life.
When I read about queen Victoria's genetics legacy of haemophilia gene that brought down Russian empire, I somehow thought of this book I recently finished Fluke: Chance, Chaos, and Why Everything We Do Matters that offers the author's notion about a complex connection of life: We control nothing but we influence everything. It appears to me from these 2 books that the more influential position you are in, the more impact you can exert, knowingly or not.
One downside for me about this book is that I learned almost nothing new from this book and this may reflect the fact that I may have read too many books on evolutionary biology, genetics, cognitive behavioral science/economics, and history of the western world in the past 3 decades. I figure that the entire body of knowledge of these areas is quite limited to the point that new pop-science writers are running out of references for new knowledgeable narratives. For example, this is already the 4th or 5th book in which I read about such notions as gambler fallacy, hot hand fallacy, sunk cost fallacy, and such.
So, I hope that young readers or old ones who never read this kind of book read this book as it supplies real facts about life and helps kick start their interests in useful areas of history and science that will enrich their intellectual capacity.
For seasoned readers who, like me, want to avoid reading repetitive pop-science materials, I would say we should turn to specialist books (as opposed to generalist like this one) instead such as these samples: How to Grow a Human: Adventures in Who We Are and How We Are Made, The Immune Mind: The Hidden Dialogue Between Your Brain and Immune System, Bloom: From Food to Fuel, the Epic Story of How Algae Can Save Our World.
When I read about queen Victoria's genetics legacy of haemophilia gene that brought down Russian empire, I somehow thought of this book I recently finished Fluke: Chance, Chaos, and Why Everything We Do Matters that offers the author's notion about a complex connection of life: We control nothing but we influence everything. It appears to me from these 2 books that the more influential position you are in, the more impact you can exert, knowingly or not.
One downside for me about this book is that I learned almost nothing new from this book and this may reflect the fact that I may have read too many books on evolutionary biology, genetics, cognitive behavioral science/economics, and history of the western world in the past 3 decades. I figure that the entire body of knowledge of these areas is quite limited to the point that new pop-science writers are running out of references for new knowledgeable narratives. For example, this is already the 4th or 5th book in which I read about such notions as gambler fallacy, hot hand fallacy, sunk cost fallacy, and such.
So, I hope that young readers or old ones who never read this kind of book read this book as it supplies real facts about life and helps kick start their interests in useful areas of history and science that will enrich their intellectual capacity.
For seasoned readers who, like me, want to avoid reading repetitive pop-science materials, I would say we should turn to specialist books (as opposed to generalist like this one) instead such as these samples: How to Grow a Human: Adventures in Who We Are and How We Are Made, The Immune Mind: The Hidden Dialogue Between Your Brain and Immune System, Bloom: From Food to Fuel, the Epic Story of How Algae Can Save Our World.
January 18, 2025
這本書是要用人類演化的生理特徵來對應解釋人類文明的演化特徵為何如此演化。本書譯者就是哈拉瑞《人類大歷史》三部曲的譯者，也算是駕輕就熟。
這本書就介於科普+歷史小故事的一本書，他裡面推論邏輯有很多讓我不怎麼贊同的部分，但當作小故事休閒讀物也是不錯啦。
——
其實這本書我覺得還蠻有趣的概念，所以其實我也很想知道他怎麼論證的。
但由於他採用的是傳統的「文明」定義（農業定居後發展出「複雜」的社會和行政組織，專業分工、階級分明等的定義，但這個定義很有問題），以及對於採集狩獵部落的傳統看法（比方說也是放在黑猩猩和巴布諾猿之後，以及說遊群裡都是親緣組合，遊群裡的人很少遇到陌生人——《萬事揭曉》會跟你說研究告訴你大概遊群裡只有10%有親緣關係，而且很多採集狩獵社會裡，其實小遊群可能常常和其他遊群或部族互動，或者有季節性聚會），作者再從生物特徵談為何會（必然）有如此發展。
這個文明演化論算是主流論述，其實本來也沒有問題，但壞就壞在我看了《萬事揭曉》之後再也不相信這個主流論述了，結果造成我看第一章的內心吐槽小劇場瘋狂嗶嗶嗶嗶嗶響不停，所以我現在不知道要怎麼繼續看本書了XDDDD
第二章我是沒有《萬事揭曉》造成的嗶嗶嗶，但是內心小劇場仍然頻繁活動！
一開始講的是催產素，然後講到這會讓父母一起照顧小孩，以及四年後可能會離婚，所以七年之癢是真的。
然後就開始講家族，乃至於繼承，以及長子繼承制 vs 平均繼承。然後開始講到了哈布斯堡王朝 Haus Habsburg
首先，講到歐洲的繼承制，以大歷史角度來講的我就想要推一下 《The WEIRDest People in the World 西方文化的特立獨行如何形成繁榮世界》那本書，我覺得這一章完全沒有那本書精彩（那本書講到教會在婚家/繼承的影響非常精彩）。
再來，這本書不是講的是生物機制怎麼影響人類史嗎，講個催產素起個頭就沒有別的生物機制了，是否太沒有誠意了啊。要看哈布斯王朝到處都可以看啊XDDDD
然後等到他開始講到單偶/多偶制，我又想要跟他說可以參考一下上面那本 The WIERDest People in the World（我真的很愛推薦這本書，但每次都要抱怨中文出版商取名超沒誠意，這樣很難推書好不好），那本書真的關於婚家制度、單偶/多偶這個問題也是討論的超仔細。
等到他一講哈札人，我就開始進入《萬事揭曉》嗶嗶嗶。XDDDD
總之目前大概是：
談到人類學：《萬事揭曉〉嗶嗶嗶
談到歐洲史的成因：The WEIRDest People in the World 嗶嗶嗶
後來我發現我對這本書的定位錯誤！
他其實不是一本大歷史的書，應該當成歷史科普書！
其實這一章當成拿催產素當引子，介紹哈布斯堡王朝的歷史故事，就可以了嘛。
但，這本看第五章我又開始內心小劇場嗶嗶嗶了欸
他在這邊講到《拿破崙法典》因爲改革繼承法所以讓人想要少生一點所以走向小家庭
我為何有個印象就是《拿破崙法典》雖然名聲響亮，但基本上沒有怎麼真的施行
《槍炮、船艦與筆墨：戰爭及憲法所催生的現代世界》講到拿破崙和他的一大堆憲法。基本上他去了一個地方就頒布一個憲法。然後就把那裡原來舊有秩序都破壞了。
但也沒建立出什麼新的秩序。
看完了發現後面有講到認知偏誤的問題。
不過呢，總體上這本書就介於科普+歷史小故事的一本書，他裡面推論邏輯有很多讓我不怎麼贊同的部分，但當作小故事休閒讀物也是不錯啦。
這本書就介於科普+歷史小故事的一本書，他裡面推論邏輯有很多讓我不怎麼贊同的部分，但當作小故事休閒讀物也是不錯啦。
——
其實這本書我覺得還蠻有趣的概念，所以其實我也很想知道他怎麼論證的。
但由於他採用的是傳統的「文明」定義（農業定居後發展出「複雜」的社會和行政組織，專業分工、階級分明等的定義，但這個定義很有問題），以及對於採集狩獵部落的傳統看法（比方說也是放在黑猩猩和巴布諾猿之後，以及說遊群裡都是親緣組合，遊群裡的人很少遇到陌生人——《萬事揭曉》會跟你說研究告訴你大概遊群裡只有10%有親緣關係，而且很多採集狩獵社會裡，其實小遊群可能常常和其他遊群或部族互動，或者有季節性聚會），作者再從生物特徵談為何會（必然）有如此發展。
這個文明演化論算是主流論述，其實本來也沒有問題，但壞就壞在我看了《萬事揭曉》之後再也不相信這個主流論述了，結果造成我看第一章的內心吐槽小劇場瘋狂嗶嗶嗶嗶嗶響不停，所以我現在不知道要怎麼繼續看本書了XDDDD
第二章我是沒有《萬事揭曉》造成的嗶嗶嗶，但是內心小劇場仍然頻繁活動！
一開始講的是催產素，然後講到這會讓父母一起照顧小孩，以及四年後可能會離婚，所以七年之癢是真的。
然後就開始講家族，乃至於繼承，以及長子繼承制 vs 平均繼承。然後開始講到了哈布斯堡王朝 Haus Habsburg
首先，講到歐洲的繼承制，以大歷史角度來講的我就想要推一下 《The WEIRDest People in the World 西方文化的特立獨行如何形成繁榮世界》那本書，我覺得這一章完全沒有那本書精彩（那本書講到教會在婚家/繼承的影響非常精彩）。
再來，這本書不是講的是生物機制怎麼影響人類史嗎，講個催產素起個頭就沒有別的生物機制了，是否太沒有誠意了啊。要看哈布斯王朝到處都可以看啊XDDDD
然後等到他開始講到單偶/多偶制，我又想要跟他說可以參考一下上面那本 The WIERDest People in the World（我真的很愛推薦這本書，但每次都要抱怨中文出版商取名超沒誠意，這樣很難推書好不好），那本書真的關於婚家制度、單偶/多偶這個問題也是討論的超仔細。
等到他一講哈札人，我就開始進入《萬事揭曉》嗶嗶嗶。XDDDD
總之目前大概是：
談到人類學：《萬事揭曉〉嗶嗶嗶
談到歐洲史的成因：The WEIRDest People in the World 嗶嗶嗶
後來我發現我對這本書的定位錯誤！
他其實不是一本大歷史的書，應該當成歷史科普書！
其實這一章當成拿催產素當引子，介紹哈布斯堡王朝的歷史故事，就可以了嘛。
但，這本看第五章我又開始內心小劇場嗶嗶嗶了欸
他在這邊講到《拿破崙法典》因爲改革繼承法所以讓人想要少生一點所以走向小家庭
我為何有個印象就是《拿破崙法典》雖然名聲響亮，但基本上沒有怎麼真的施行
《槍炮、船艦與筆墨：戰爭及憲法所催生的現代世界》講到拿破崙和他的一大堆憲法。基本上他去了一個地方就頒布一個憲法。然後就把那裡原來舊有秩序都破壞了。
但也沒建立出什麼新的秩序。
看完了發現後面有講到認知偏誤的問題。
不過呢，總體上這本書就介於科普+歷史小故事的一本書，他裡面推論邏輯有很多讓我不怎麼贊同的部分，但當作小故事休閒讀物也是不錯啦。
August 8, 2023
I might be a history teacher but I just like learning, especially about all the quirks and mishaps in our evolution. So I liked the idea of combining the two. I was a bit skeptical because many books like this sometimes use tenuous connections to grab readers' attention, but no, it's exactly what it says on the tin.
I may like learning but I also genuinely enjoyed reading this book. The author has a factual and personable writing style. Even while discussing how certain chemicals affect our neurochemistry, it's easy to follow, incorporate, and repeat. In fact, I would like to apologize to anybody near me while reading this book, because every new fact I learned I immediately wanted to share, and since school is on break my friends got the brunt of it. I will certainly be picking up the other two books in this series, in the future.
In summation, if you're interested in history and how our biology has impacted and changed how we interact with ourselves, each other, and the natural world in a style that is easy to get into, then I would highly recommend this book.
I may like learning but I also genuinely enjoyed reading this book. The author has a factual and personable writing style. Even while discussing how certain chemicals affect our neurochemistry, it's easy to follow, incorporate, and repeat. In fact, I would like to apologize to anybody near me while reading this book, because every new fact I learned I immediately wanted to share, and since school is on break my friends got the brunt of it. I will certainly be picking up the other two books in this series, in the future.
In summation, if you're interested in history and how our biology has impacted and changed how we interact with ourselves, each other, and the natural world in a style that is easy to get into, then I would highly recommend this book.
December 30, 2024
Cartea Evoluția omului de Lewis Dartnell mi s-a părut foarte interesantă și educativă. Autorul explică într-un mod clar și ușor de înțeles cum mediul înconjurător și schimbările climatice au influențat dezvoltarea speciei umane. Am aflat lucruri fascinante despre legătura dintre geologie, biologie și evoluție, dar și cum ne-au modelat toate acestea de-a lungul timpului.
Mi-a plăcut că Dartnell nu folosește un limbaj complicat, ci reușește să facă subiecte științifice complexe accesibile. Cartea te face să privești lucrurile dintr-o perspectivă diferită și să înțelegi mai bine cum am ajuns să fim cine suntem astăzi. E genul de lectură care îți deschide mintea și îți oferă o mulțime de informații pe care nu le-ai fi luat în calcul.
Recomand această carte celor care vor să afle mai multe despre istoria și evoluția noastră ca specie, dar și cum natura și Pământul ne-au influențat existența. Este o lectură care îți stârnește curiozitatea și îți rămâne în minte mult timp după ce o termini.
Mi-a plăcut că Dartnell nu folosește un limbaj complicat, ci reușește să facă subiecte științifice complexe accesibile. Cartea te face să privești lucrurile dintr-o perspectivă diferită și să înțelegi mai bine cum am ajuns să fim cine suntem astăzi. E genul de lectură care îți deschide mintea și îți oferă o mulțime de informații pe care nu le-ai fi luat în calcul.
Recomand această carte celor care vor să afle mai multe despre istoria și evoluția noastră ca specie, dar și cum natura și Pământul ne-au influențat existența. Este o lectură care îți stârnește curiozitatea și îți rămâne în minte mult timp după ce o termini.
September 30, 2023
Hoewel het boek anders was dan ik had verwacht, ( het volgt wat de lijn van Bv Harari of de wereld in 8 plagen met veel wetenswaardigheden over mindere en meer recentere gebeurtenissen )
Ik had gedacht dat het boek veel meer over het menselijk lichaam zou beschrijven, Bv waarom onze oren niet aan onze knieën hangen , waarom we 2 ogen hebben en 1 mond wat praten en eten combineren moeilijker maakt , wat met onze hartslagen , frequentie en intentie, of psychologisch neurologisch waarom we zo gek onnozel doen als we doen , ( hoewel dit thema wat aan bod komt bij de consumptie tabak, koffie, enz . ). Ik miste wel wat de wisselwerking, avonturen die we met eventuele andere organismen beleefd hebben , dieren , planten en hoe we daarmee hebben omgegaan, kwestie van hoe we onze omgevingen ( proberen) in te richten ,
4 sterren , boeiende verhalen wel niet veel over het menselijk lichaam ,
Ik had gedacht dat het boek veel meer over het menselijk lichaam zou beschrijven, Bv waarom onze oren niet aan onze knieën hangen , waarom we 2 ogen hebben en 1 mond wat praten en eten combineren moeilijker maakt , wat met onze hartslagen , frequentie en intentie, of psychologisch neurologisch waarom we zo gek onnozel doen als we doen , ( hoewel dit thema wat aan bod komt bij de consumptie tabak, koffie, enz . ). Ik miste wel wat de wisselwerking, avonturen die we met eventuele andere organismen beleefd hebben , dieren , planten en hoe we daarmee hebben omgegaan, kwestie van hoe we onze omgevingen ( proberen) in te richten ,
4 sterren , boeiende verhalen wel niet veel over het menselijk lichaam ,
September 12, 2025
達奈爾（Lewis Dartnell）絕對算不上多產作家，但他探討問題的切入點往往相當特別，帶領讀者進入思考的處女地，從嶄新角度思考問題。
因應當前的全球暖化，幾乎所有作家都在提倡環保，愛護地球的時候，達奈爾卻在《最後一個知識人》裡，提出一個發人深省的問題：若文明的覆滅是必然的話，那麼我們這代人該傳什麼知識給後人，讓他們快速從建文明？
我手上這本《人類文明：生物機制如何塑造世界史》是他的最新力作，主題是生物學如何在人類社會中扮演著幕後的操盤人，影響著我們的歷史。
為何人類能夠大規模地廣泛合作？為何保持皇室血統的純粹，正是促成王朝覆滅的原因？為何在征服新世界的時候，舊世界的病菌可以如此摧枯拉朽，將原住民殺得死翹翹，而不是反過來？這些有趣又有哏的問題，都可在書中找到答案。達奈爾還是個說故事的高手，說到西班牙哈布斯堡王朝為保政治權力而不惜讓後人近親聯婚，近交系數竟推高到超過單一世代的親代近交（0.25），不禁讓人怵然而驚，為何有人竟可以戀棧權力到這個地步？說到血友病竟然就是俄國赤化的隱形推手，又讓人不禁莞爾；歷史的黑色玩笑，其實不過是始於那條帶有凝血缺陷的X染色體而已。
類似的故事，在書中多不勝數，簡單易讀，像享受一頓知識盛宴。事實上，類似的書的結構都比較零碎，資料極多卻又毫無重點；但《人類文明：生物機制如何塑造世界史》卻沒有這個通病；除了是作者對個別議題了解深入的原因之外，他始終沒有貪多騖得，聚焦在幾個關鍵議題的有趣故事裡作深入討論，而不是著一盤議題多多，卻又讓人食之無味的牛雜。
生物學與歷史看似是風馬牛不相及，但它們的碰撞，就如粒子對撞機中互撞的粒子一樣，只要有一流的知識嚮導，就能豐富我們對世界的理解，了解看似無關之事的交互作用。知識的「融通」，就是這麼的一回事。
因應當前的全球暖化，幾乎所有作家都在提倡環保，愛護地球的時候，達奈爾卻在《最後一個知識人》裡，提出一個發人深省的問題：若文明的覆滅是必然的話，那麼我們這代人該傳什麼知識給後人，讓他們快速從建文明？
我手上這本《人類文明：生物機制如何塑造世界史》是他的最新力作，主題是生物學如何在人類社會中扮演著幕後的操盤人，影響著我們的歷史。
為何人類能夠大規模地廣泛合作？為何保持皇室血統的純粹，正是促成王朝覆滅的原因？為何在征服新世界的時候，舊世界的病菌可以如此摧枯拉朽，將原住民殺得死翹翹，而不是反過來？這些有趣又有哏的問題，都可在書中找到答案。達奈爾還是個說故事的高手，說到西班牙哈布斯堡王朝為保政治權力而不惜讓後人近親聯婚，近交系數竟推高到超過單一世代的親代近交（0.25），不禁讓人怵然而驚，為何有人竟可以戀棧權力到這個地步？說到血友病竟然就是俄國赤化的隱形推手，又讓人不禁莞爾；歷史的黑色玩笑，其實不過是始於那條帶有凝血缺陷的X染色體而已。
類似的故事，在書中多不勝數，簡單易讀，像享受一頓知識盛宴。事實上，類似的書的結構都比較零碎，資料極多卻又毫無重點；但《人類文明：生物機制如何塑造世界史》卻沒有這個通病；除了是作者對個別議題了解深入的原因之外，他始終沒有貪多騖得，聚焦在幾個關鍵議題的有趣故事裡作深入討論，而不是著一盤議題多多，卻又讓人食之無味的牛雜。
生物學與歷史看似是風馬牛不相及，但它們的碰撞，就如粒子對撞機中互撞的粒子一樣，只要有一流的知識嚮導，就能豐富我們對世界的理解，了解看似無關之事的交互作用。知識的「融通」，就是這麼的一回事。
August 22, 2023
It was an interesting book showing the interaction of our biology and historical events. I found the first chapter (software for Civilization) lengthy and a lot less interesting than the rest of the book which discusses families and their impact on history, diseases, demographics, mind altering substances such as alcohol, caffeine, nicotine and opium, coding errors I.e genetic diseases triggered by historic decisions like reigning families marrying within the family to increase power but resulting e.g in haemophilia, etc..Worth reading even if the first chapter seems boring and out of place in a book on history.
December 18, 2024
A spirited canter through the ways our biology has inescapably affected world history in ways large and small. Learn how cognitive biases led to the disaster of the Charge of the Light Brigade and why we call chilis ‘peppers’; how inbreeding and genetic diseases led to war; how a mosquito was ultimately responsible the union of England and Scotland; and many more nuggets that’ll open your eyes and stretch your mind. DISCLAIMER: I was sent a pre-publication copy for endorsement.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 53 reviews