Yuval Noah Harari, 21 Lessons for the 21st Century. New York: Spegel and Grau, 2018. 372 pages. (aff)
This book is different from the ones I normally read. Before you rush out and buy it, you may want to read this review carefully. Typically, I read books that interest me or that I know I’ll find helpful. I rarely purchase books I suspect will annoy me or with which I will vehemently disagree. So, why did I choose this one?
For one, it’s a New York Times bestseller. Bearing this label, of course, doesn’t mean a book is great. But it does mean it’s popular. Harari’s two previous books, Sapiens: A Brief History of Mankind (aff) and Homos Deus: A Brief History of Tomorrow (aff), have sold more than twelve million copies and been translated into 45 languages. This author has exerted an influence on current thought, and I like to be familiar with influencers in modern culture, regardless of whether I agree with them. Harari holds a Ph.D. in history from the University of Oxford and is a lecturer at the University of Jerusalem. I enjoy reading people’s takes on history. Such books prove that history is not merely an objective set of facts but a series of highly selected and interpreted facts.
I also read this book because my kids, Mike, Daniel, and Carrie, my son-in-law, Sam, and I belong to a book club. We choose a book to read and then meet to discuss and critique it over Chinese food. After Mike moved to Victoria, Canada, to plant a church, we started Facetiming him into our meetings, setting a laptop in the chair he occupied when he lived in Atlanta. All three of my kids have seminary degrees. My sons have Ph.D.’s in Apologetics. So, my suggestions for thousand-page biographies of eighteenth-century leaders are usually overruled, and we end up reading a book related to Apologetics. That’s what happened this time.
Harari is a non-Christian from Israel. He is also a homosexual who is married to a man. He grew up in Israel’s Jewish culture but has largely rejected the religion of his childhood. As you will see, he rejects Christianity wholesale. So, if you are easily angered when your faith is misrepresented and maligned, this book isn’t for you. If, however, you are curious about how unbelievers who write best-selling books view your faith, or if you wonder why someone who rejects Christianity is so popular in today’s society, this book might intrigue you. Nonetheless, in the following pages, I’ll highlight the basic thoughts he presents and offer my evaluation.
Harari is a compelling author who has quickly gained a widespread following. He begins this book with some interesting remarks. He states, “In a world deluged by irrelevant information, clarity is power. Unfortunately history does not give discounts. If the future of humanity is decided in your absence, because you were too busy feeding and clothing your kids, you and they will not be exempt from the consequences. This is unfair; but who said history was fair?” (xiii).
He also notes, “Terrorism works by pressing the fear button deep in our minds and hijacking the private imagination of millions of individuals” (xv). He adds, “. . . humankind can rise to the occasion if we keep our fears under control and be a bit more humble about our views” (xvii). Thus far, I’m with him! Then he begins the first major section of the book.
This book unpacks twenty-one of Harari’s thoughts about the future. The first section addresses technology and the challenges and opportunities it will create for the future. Harari raises an alarm, suggesting that millions of people will face a crisis. Of course, as with all books about the future, there’s no way of knowing how accurate his predictions are until the future arrives. Generally, future-focused books like this one overestimate technology’s influence and magnify the distress it will cause.
Harari notes that “Humans are always better at inventing tools than using them wisely” (7). He warns that with the growth of AI, the average person may feel increasingly redundant as AI does many activities more effectively and economically than humans can. Of course, this prediction has been the great fear since the dawn of the Industrial Revolution. Will machines replace people? They have certainly replaced people in some fields, such as manufacturing. Technology, however, always creates jobs even as it eliminates others. Some of this discussion seems overstated.
Harari clearly has Left-leaning sympathies. He often makes assertions without providing supporting evidence or any other form of argumentation. He wholesale dismisses religion and makes blanket statements in support of his views as if what he writes is self-evident. He comments, “Liberty is not worth much unless it is coupled with some kind of social safety net . . .. Starving children have no liberties” (11). Harari spends a large portion of the book addressing social needs he predicts will arise in his imagined future. He assumes that in the future, average people will not survive without the government providing numerous services for them. His belief is not proven, just assumed.
Harari criticizes the controlling “oligarchy” of western society. He notes that leaders such as Trump promote liberty at home while enacting “illiberal policies” toward foreigners (12). He adds, “By manufacturing a never-ending stream of crises, a corrupt oligarchy can prolong its rule indefinitely” (13). Harari supports a globalist perspective and asserts that protecting national interests is counter-productive for the future.
Harari’s Left-leaning sympathies come through numerous times, as do his anti-Trump biases. He challenges the idea that people can “make America great again.” He questions when in history America was “great,” and by that he means “perfect” (15). Of course, few who adopt those slogans mean to imply that America was perfect in the past as Harari assumes they do.
He notes that “For the first time in history, infectious diseases kill fewer people than old age, famine kills fewer people than obesity, and violence kills fewer people than accidents” (16). He then makes the provocative claim that maybe it’s time to give up liberty and equality as universal core values (17). He notes that ever since 2008, modern Liberalism has been in retreat, and nations have been rebuilding walls and trying to preserve what they have for their people (4-5).
Harari makes some interesting statements about AI. He notes that the two qualities that made people invaluable in the past were their connectivity and their adaptability (22). Now, however, AI is surpassing people in these areas. He notes that traffic accidents kill 1.5 million people annually (23). Most of these fatalities are due to human error. But in the future, self-driving cars will be interconnected. They will alert each other that they are both entering an intersection and make the necessary adjustments. This new system should save a million lives annually. Likewise, on December 7, 2017, a historic landmark was achieved. The reigning chess champion was Stockfish 8, a computer program that had been preloaded with thousands of chess games and strategies. It could calculate 70 million chess moves per second. But it was defeated by Google’s AlphaZero program, which did not have any preprogrammed chess strategies or games loaded on to it. But it could learn. And, within four hours, the program went from knowing nothing about chess to being able to beat the reigning world champion (31). Harari’s point is that AI will indeed revolutionize society in the future. He argues that just as Amazon learns what kind of music and clothes we like to purchase and then suggests those brands to us, AI will eventually be able to make better decisions for us than we can make for ourselves.
This troubling theme permeates this book. Harari urges readers to prepare for the future, but then he writes as if people will increasingly have less say over their lives as AI and a world government make those decisions on our behalf.
Interestingly, Harari suggests that AI will even be able to replace people as consumers. Even now, the key is not what we like but what the algorithm likes (36). Then Harari starts speculating. He suggests that with the rise of AI, fewer people will have full-time employment. He argues that a Universal Basic Income should be established in which the government taxes billionaires and corporations and pays individuals a generous stipend (37). This system would enable people to live at a comfortable level, and he suggests it will also protect the wealthy from “populist rage.” He adds that mothers should be paid for raising children, a salary obligation the government would presumably undertake. He argues that others may want to use the income to subsidize them as they take up painting or poetry. He concludes, “Losing our jobs to algorithms might actually turn out to be a blessing” (43).
Harari suggests that as an increasing number of people are unemployed due to AI, there are two options to care for them. One is to provide universal basic income, the other is to provide universal basic services (38). The problem, as he sees it, is that the greatest number of poor people may not live in the western industrialized nations. He ponders whether Americans would be content to have Google taxed and the proceeds sent to an impoverished African nation whose poor need the assistance more than the American poor do (40). He suggests a “United World Government” to oversee the wealth redistribution he assumes will be necessary (41).
Harari also suggests that the rise in AI will create even larger wealth discrepancies over time, as those who control the wealth will have greater access to biotech services. In theory, they will be able to upgrade their biology as well as that of their children until they create a race of superhumans (41). Ironically, he suggests that “When things improve, expectations balloon, and so even dramatic improvements in conditions might leave us as dissatisfied as ever” (42).
I don’t mind when futurists attempt to predict what could happen. But I get a little lost when he undergoes an extensive discussion about solving his hypothetical problems. He also demonstrates the flaws of such thinking. He assumes the government taxing the financially successful and giving it to the less successful is the obvious answer. But he readily acknowledges that there can never be equal outcomes, because people are not equal in ability, work ethic, or intelligence. If you cultivate an expectation that rewards should be equal, however, then it will not matter how much you give the less fortunate, they will continue to view themselves as victims who deserve more. Ironically, after laying forth his solution, Harari admits that due to the sinful human condition (not his words), it will be impossible to please everyone.
He points out, “But in the lives of all people, the quest for meaning and community might eclipse the quest for a job” (43). In moments like this one, Harari struggles against his evolutionary, atheistic premises. He recognizes that people seek more than a job; they desire meaning. Even a universal government cannot provide that.
At times, this book seems dark and hopeless. He discusses the Brexit Referendum. He notes, “Referendums and elections are always about human feelings, not about human rationality. If democracy were a matter of rational decision-making, there would be absolutely no reason to give all people equal voting rights—or perhaps any voting rights at all” (45). He acknowledges that people do not generally make rational decisions; they make decisions based on feelings.
He confesses, “This reliance on the heart might prove to be the Achilles’ heel of liberal democracy” (46). He goes on to declare that “Feelings aren’t based on intuition, inspiration, or freedom—they are based on calculation” (47). Harari struggles at this point with his evolutionary convictions, because if people have been hardwired for hundreds of thousands of years to think in a particular way, what we think are independent decisions based on beliefs and feelings are really just our evolutionary predisposition. He therefore talks about the “illusion” of free will (48). He suggests that with the confluence of biotech and infotech, AI will be able to make better decisions on our behalf than we can make for ourselves. So, for example, if biotech chips measure our senses and brain data, they will be able to tell Amazon what type of music or movies would make us most happy and order them for us. In time, we’ll come to realize that AI makes far fewer decision-making mistakes than we do. This is a dark, gloomy view of society’s future.
Harari notes that at the age of 21 he realized he was gay (50). He uses this anecdote to illustrate the fact that he did not know himself very well. AI will ultimately know us better than we know ourselves, he argues. He concludes, “While science fiction thrillers are drawn to dramatic apocalypses of fire and smoke, in reality we might be facing a banal apocalypse by clicking” (71).
Harari clearly has little patience for religion. I am not sure what experiences he had growing up Jewish in Israel, but he is clearly reacting harshly against his religious past. It is when discussing religion, particularly Christianity, that he makes some of his most unsubstantiated claims. He notes, “Humankind lived for millions of years without religions and without nations; they can probably live happily without them in the twenty-first century too” (90). For someone who claims to value facts, science, and the pursuit of truth, the fact that he makes broad statements such as these without any supporting data is bewildering. Which civilization is he referencing that did not have a religion? And for millions of years? The facts suggest just the opposite. Historians are hard pressed (to put it mildly) to find any civilization that did not have some form of religion.
He also makes comments such as, “Christian leaders such as Barack Obama” (98). Without trying to be a hairsplitter here, few people I know view Obama as a Christian leader. With no offense to Obama, such statements merely illustrate Harari’s ignorance of the subject.
When discussing religion, he seems to lose some of his objectivity. He claims that “Religion is largely irrelevant to technical and policy problems—but extremely relevant to identity problems” (128). In viewing the world’s problems in three major categories, he immediately dismisses religion’s relevance to two of them, and he makes some claims that show an extreme bias. For example, he states, “It goes without saying that evangelicals will object to any cap on carbon emissions” (133). He also says, “From this perspective, religion doesn’t really have much to contribute to the great policy debates of our time” (133). He goes on to say, “Unfortunately, all of this makes traditional religion part of humanity’s problem, not part of the remedy” (138). He calls religion “handmaidens of modern nationalism.” When he makes statements like these, he can hardly claim scientific objectivity! He grossly misrepresents religion and then claims his straw man is irrelevant to modern society.
Harari makes numerous eye-raising statements throughout the book. I won’t take all of those on in this review. He addresses immigration. On the one hand, he views nationalism as a modern evil, yet he comes close at times to admitting that some cultures appear better at producing prosperity, liberty, and equality than others. He is loath to suggest that nations are justified in screening refugees that refuse to assimilate.
He also discusses terrorism. He suggests that terrorists long for publicity and for ruling powers to overplay their hand in response. He appears critical of George Bush’s and Israel’s harsh response to terror but acknowledges that he cannot say if it prevented more terror or not, since there has not been another 9/11 to date (170).
Interestingly, Harari goes to great lengths to debunk the view that Judaism is one of the three great religions or that the Jewish people have played any major role in history (187). He argues that Judaism was largely racist, misogynist, and homophobic (188). He also claims that Judaism was the first religion that included genocide as a religious mandate (193). He also challenges the claim that Judaism was the first religion to offer a broad ethic or morality (190). In fact, he suggests that “From an ethical perspective, monotheism was arguably one of the worst ideas in human history” (194). He claims monotheistic religions are largely intolerant of others. This statement reflects a shallow understanding of ethical systems. Most critics would view monotheism as creating a unified system, one that wasn’t hijacked by every rival god that came along. With many gods came many competing values. With one God came one unchanging standard.
At times Harari expresses his full venom toward God. He suggests, “. . . we give our ignorance the grand name of God” (200). Of the Bible, he states, “They are just stories invented by our ancestors in order to legitimize social norms and political structures” (202). These statements, too, are fallacious. Much of the Bible, including the prophets and the Gospels, are filled with condemnations of the current social norms. Jesus’ rejection of societal norms was what ultimately turned the establishment against Him. Harari also makes the grudging concession that Christianity “sometimes had positive consequences” (203). He quickly bypasses most of the early schools, orphanages, hospitals, food kitchens, homeless shelters, etc., that Christian organizations started. He would be hard pressed to uphold purely secular organizations that have contributed anything on the scale that Christian organizations have.
What is interesting is when Harari stops firing bullets at religion and attempts to offer a secular alternative. Concerning ethics, he suggests, “Morality doesn’t mean ‘following divine commandments.’ It means ‘reducing suffering.’ Therefore, in order to act morally, you don’t need to believe in any myth or story. You just need to develop a deep appreciation of suffering” (204). He discounts any objective standard for ethics and then presents his own standard for ethics. Where does he get his definition? Do ethics primarily concern suffering? Apparently so.
He goes on to declare, “Secularism can provide us with all the values we need” (206). In spelling out his view of secularism, he states, “The most important secular commitment is to the truth, which is based on observation and evidence rather than on mere faith.” (208). According to Harari, secularism’s other chief commitment is to compassion. “Secular ethics relies not on obeying the edicts of this or that god, but rather on a deep appreciation of suffering” (209). In light of this adherence to compassion, he concludes that rape is wrong, not because it is inherently evil, but because it causes suffering, while homosexuality is not wrong because it doesn’t cause harm to anyone (according to him) (210). He claims that secularism also values equality and responsibility. He concludes that “The secular world judges people on the basis of their behavior rather than their favorite clothes and ceremonies” (213). Again, one wonders where he gets his data on Christian ethics. I know of no Christian ethic built around valuing people’s clothes or ceremonies.
I find such presentations ironic. He pulls these qualities seemingly out of the air. Where is the secular creed housed? Who is their prophet? He claims to revere truth, yet he misrepresents Christianity multiple times in this book alone. In discussing education, he notes, “For similar reasons, secular education does not mean a negative indoctrination that teaches kids not to believe in God . . . rather, secular education teaches children to distinguish between truth from belief” (213). This statement is humorous. Throughout this discussion, Harari has denigrated religion as a man-made system invented to uphold the status quo, but then he assures the reader that secularism is not against anything, simply in favor of truth. Anyone who has sent a child to a public secular school recently knows that their child’s faith is frequently under assault. Harari claims that secular educators will not disparage a child’s faith, they will simply demonstrate that the child’s faith is not based on fact but on mere faith.
Harari has to sidestep a potential landmine when addressing Stalin. Because, of course, there are numerous examples of secular world leaders who were not characterized by compassion or the pursuit of truth. In fact, one can argue that secularists, not Christians, have committed the worst atrocities in human history. He admits that when using the narrow definition of secularist in which the person rejects God, Stalin was indeed a secularist, as was Hitler, Mao, and many other of history’s worst butchers. But he states, “If we use a positive definition—‘secular people reject all unscientific dogmas and are committed to truth, compassion, and freedom,’” Stalin would not qualify (214). Of course, how many positive examples of world leaders could we find who met that criteria? Harari claims that, unlike many religious people, secularists are not afraid to admit their shadow (217). Yet Harari goes to considerable lengths to avoid including Stalin in his camp.
In the end, Harari is hard pressed to come up with a positive view of the future. He confesses, “The bitter truth is that the world has simply become too complicated for our hunter gatherer brains” (232). He adds, “Even if we truly want to, most of us are no longer capable of understanding the major moral problems of the world” (233). Yet he continues to fire broadsides at religion. He claims, “religious and ideological dogmas are still highly attractive in our scientific age precisely because they offer us a safe haven from the frustrating complexity of reality” (235). He adds, “. . . remind yourself that centuries ago millions of Christians locked themselves inside a self-reinforcing mythological bubble, never daring to question the factual veracity of the Bible . . .” (235). This assumption, of course, ignores the fact that many of the significant discoveries in history were performed by Christians. Harari’s language demonstrates that he is not open to the truth of religion or any of its contributions. He goes on to ask why children continue to embrace the religious myths their parents teach them (286). He argues that by the time their brain fully develops, it is easier to reinforce what they have already learned than to question it. He continues to rant, “Consider the Christian story. It has the flimsiest of foundations” (286). He concludes, “It is our own human fingers that wrote the Bible, the Quran, and the Vedas, and it is our minds that gave their stories power” (302).
Harari is ultimately a determinist. His evolutionary beliefs force him into that corner. He asserts, “To the best of our scientific understanding, there is no magic behind our choices and creations. They are the product of billions of neurons exchanging biochemical signals and even if you liberate humans from the yoke of the Catholic Church and the Soviet Union, their choices will be dictated by biochemical algorithms as ruthless as the Inquisition and the KGB” (304). He goes on to declare that the “self” is a fictional story (305). He adds, “The first thing you need to know about yourself is that you are not a story” (306). This declaration certainly does not offer much hope as the reader reaches the end of the book!
He states that there are three basic realities of the universe: 1. Everything is constantly changing; 2. Nothing has any enduring essence; 3. Nothing is completely satisfying (307). Again, not quite the edifying qualities of, say, the Sermon on the Mount.
He concludes by asking, “The big question facing humans isn’t ‘what is the meaning of life?’ but rather, ‘how do we stop suffering?’ When you give up all fictional stories, you can observe reality with far greater clarity than before” (311). He goes on to promote the practice of meditation. With such a dismal worldview and the belief that our minds are already pre-programed, however, one wonders if meditation has any value. He concludes, “. . . the realest thing in the universe is suffering” (311). And finally, “Yet in truth, consciousness is the greatest mystery in the universe” (321).
This review is long, but it is a lengthy book. Obviously, I disagree with a lot of what Harari writes. I did not react negatively to this book merely because the author is an atheist. I often gain value from books written by people who do not share my worldview. But, like so many atheists, Harari seems to have an axe to grind, which colors his judgment. He professes to be objectively searching for truth, yet he continually misrepresents and criticizes Christianity and Judaism. He also rejects the basis of truth and ethics grounded in scripture and an unchanging God, but then he flails about in an attempt to base his ethic on anything beyond wishful thinking. He accuses Christians of being out of touch with reality and then presents secularists as if they could rival Mother Theresa in saintliness.
Perhaps what’s most alarming is that his books are extremely popular today, which indicates that society has an appetite for them and his views. Christians ought to be aware that we are being perceived far differently by a segment of society than we would like.
I don’t enjoy reading books like this one, especially if I feel they misrepresent my beliefs. I am certainly open to rational argument in which the other side doesn’t rely on strawmen. Books like this one reveal the thinking of those whose books are being gobbled up by the millions. As my son has argued, “The Church keeps offering answers to questions no one is asking.” So, I feel we as Christians ought to find out what questions people are asking about Christianity so we can properly answer them.
I wouldn’t recommend reading this book unless you want to know what a popular atheist thinks of Christianity. I’m not sure I would even purchase this book to get a possible glimpse into the future, as I don’t know how accurate his prognostications are. Perhaps this review might just save you a few dollars the next time you are browsing the bestseller section.
Rating: 1
