Let there be no misunderstanding: this is a really interesting book, very elaborate and thoroughly researched, offering a pioneer study into Big History. I think it is original in this sense that, with the exception maybe of the Amsterdam researcher Fred Spier, David Christian was the first to offer a real bird-eye view of history, starting with the history of the universe (Big Bang and all that stuff), going to the formation of the earth, its climate and its many inhabitants, reaching out into the future, and to the probable end of the universe.
That’s quite something, of course, but in this case the strength of the book is also its weakness: because Christian takes the bird-eye view, the relevance of his broad approach remains very limited. What have I learned about the sense of life, and the sense of history in this book? Well, first and uttermost, there’s the very tiny role mankind plays in the history of the universe. Now, that is no original or revolutionary insight. More so, it is a bit contradictary that Christian in one of his final chapters has to take note that mankind, in his short time of existence has already been able to put his mark on the history and the condition of this tiny planet, even going so far as to threaten its existence.
Secondly: coincidence and luck are two very relevant factors in evolution and history. Christian goes at length to illustrate this, in a very interesting chapter on the evolution theory and the evolution of the species; now, in his account of human history, this insight is kept out of view; instead he describes how human societies have systematically evolved into ever more complex situations; on the micro-level this may seem very accidental, but on the macro-level you can’t deny the conclusion that the evolution to evermore complexity just is constant, and thereby inherent.
In the same way, Christion explicitly refrains from using the word ‘progress’, but as a reader you can simple feel that at times he was really struggling to keep the word out of his narrative; I can understand some of the reasons why he is doing this (most of all the danger of a teleological view on history), but there’s no sense in denying the sunlight.
Thirdly: Christian makes a circular movement in taking holism as the departing ground for his Big History, and he’s wright doing so; but it is a bridge too far in the next steps to come to the conclusion that everything is connected. I have my doubts about his multiple use of the word “Afro-Eurasian network” (just as with father and son McNeill): this suggests that experiences, knowledge and ideas circulated freely and evenly in the whole of this vast area, and people could, at any time, use this material to create something new and spectacular. It is obvious this was not so. Of course, Christian tries to correct our traditional view that civilizations flourished independently, and he is right doing so, but his pendulum is going just the other way.
In this view, his adjustement of the traditional view of the “Rise of the West” is just pathetic: according to Christian Western Europe around 1500 just had the luck it found itself geographically at the center of the newly created Atlantic network, and this, together with its commercial competitiveness should explain the supremacy it gained in the nineteenth Century. This is just too simple to be true.
Finally, I must agree with other critics, that Christian has gone way to far in his ambition to create a new, Modern Creation Myth, based on science and especially the Big History-view. This view is very useful to put some things into perspective, and to adjust traditional opinions on history and the place of man in it (and that's quite something). But it fails to offer a new Grand Vision on life and the sense of history (like the elder creation myths did). I agree with the reviewer that stated that “Christian offers no satisfying answers to the existential questions that lay nagging underneath his work, leaving the reader as cold and empty as the dead universe he describes” (Mike Hankins). Perhaps I'm too harsh on Christian; after all, he has done a tremendous effort, and - as you've noticed - the book is an enticing read, no matter what you think of it. So, I'll grant him that extra half star (rating 3.5 stars)