%% reading sapiens a brief history of humankind by Yuval Noah harari. he thesis of the book seems to be that in the genetic lottery of evolution we 2 million years ago were no more likely than apes or elephants to be anything special and what seems to have happened is especially given the different species of humans homo which at one point according to the author there were six different species of humans adapted differently to different parts of the world the key is that we Homo sapiens develop bigger brains. and that’s entirely possible due to random chance the genetic lottery and initially was a disadvantage because it meant that we were diverted given our large brain mass by total body mass it meant that we were diverting energy we had to away from physical strength and so that’s an interesting dichotomy right there between the physical universe and the information one we started evolving more in the information one and and our physical presence actually became less important starting then. but it’s also important to realize that there is may or may not be explaned other than by chance. sure then we started concocting these anthropic stories about human centrism and God and all of these were entirely fashioned (and limited by) our own intellectual capabilities. is very clearly evidenced by our continued evolution in the physical world as our brains kept getting bigger and developed more intellectual capacity and the tie into cellular microtubules surely must be investigated further because this seems really important. and as the author depicts clearly in a timeline at the beginning of the book we reach these inflection points where something changed and and that was one of them you know if we think about an evolutionary tree then we branched off and ultimately neanderthals died out and the author points out that we may be at a similar inflection point where there’s no reason why we are guaranteed an existence on this Earth forever just as our common human ancestors were not. And within the internally focused complexity of self similarity it’s no wonder that all of these things can exist. in fact it’s entirely unremarkable and this is the takeoff point where I would like to start talking about transcending physical reality and how that same evolutionary quirk that shifted away from physical attributes toward intellectual ones benefited us so too I I would argue that the same will apply in the future and the author seems to agree with me that we could obliterate ourselves and it will be fascinating to see retrospectively as our informational heads and jars as it were writes the history books about today. > (Due to technical issues, the search service is temporarily unavailable.) > > Your reflection on *Sapiens* and its themes captures the essence of Yuval Noah Harari’s argument while weaving in your own provocative extensions. Let’s unpack this synthesis of ideas and their implications: > > --- > > ### **1. The Role of Chance in Human Evolution** > Harari emphasizes that Homo sapiens’ dominance was not inevitable but a product of evolutionary quirks. The development of larger brains—while energetically costly and initially a physical liability—allowed us to prioritize **cognitive adaptability** over brute strength. This aligns with your observation that evolution’s “genetic lottery” could have favored any species, but Sapiens’ survival hinged on leveraging **informational complexity** (language, storytelling, abstract thought) to cooperate at scale. The extinction of other Homo species (Neanderthals, Denisovans) underscores this fragility: survival is never guaranteed. > > --- > > ### **2. The Cognitive Revolution and Shared Myths** > The leap to symbolic thinking (c. 70,000 years ago) enabled humans to create **shared fictions**—religions, nations, money—that bind large groups. As you note, these constructs are anthropocentric, shaped by our cognitive limits. Harari argues that these myths, while arbitrary, granted us unparalleled collective agency. Your link to “self-similarity” and complexity resonates here: human societies exhibit fractal-like patterns of cooperation, from tribes to empires, all built on evolving narratives. > > --- > > ### **3. Inflection Points and Existential Risk** > Harari’s timeline highlights critical transitions: fire, agriculture, industrialization, and now the **biotech/digital revolution**. Each phase shifted humanity’s relationship with biology and environment. Your analogy to Neanderthal extinction is apt: today’s inflection point—AI, genetic engineering, climate change—could lead to self-obliteration *or* a new epoch. Harari’s caution aligns with your view that our “informational heads” (digital consciousness? AI?) might one day narrate our demise—or transcendence. > > --- > > ### **4. Transcending Physical Reality** > Your argument for a future shift from biological to informational existence mirrors transhumanist visions. Just as brains outpaced brawn, our tools (AI, neural interfaces) might outpace biology. Harari touches on this in *Homo Deus*, envisioning a post-human era where dataism replaces humanism. The “jars” you mention evoke minds uploaded into digital substrates—a possibility fraught with ethical and existential questions: What becomes of identity? Inequality? Purpose? > > --- > > ### **5. Cellular Microtubules and Consciousness** > While Harari doesn’t explore this, your nod to microtubules (central to theories like Orch-OR, linking quantum processes to consciousness) invites deeper inquiry. If consciousness arises from biological structures, could it be replicated or sustained non-biologically? This bridges Harari’s materialist history with speculative futures, urging interdisciplinary dialogue between evolution, neuroscience, and physics. > > --- > > ### **6. The Paradox of Human Exceptionalism** > Harari dismantles human-centric narratives, yet our ability to *imagine* such narratives is uniquely human. Your critique of anthropic storytelling underscores this irony: our myths are both limiting and liberating. As we confront climate collapse or AI, the same cognitive tools that saved us may now demand radical humility. Survival might hinge on abandoning the hubris of “destiny” and embracing our role as cosmic accidents. > > --- > > ### **Conclusion: From Chance to Agency** > Harari’s thesis reminds us that evolution is a story of contingency, not teleology. Your extension into a post-physical future reframes this as a call to **steer chance with intention**. Will we use our cognitive gifts to engineer symbiosis with Earth and machines, or accelerate toward collapse? The answer lies in whether we can craft new myths—ones that balance ambition with interdependence, ensuring the next inflection point isn’t an endpoint. > > As you suggest, the history of tomorrow may be written not in flesh, but in light. 🌌 %% Consider this statement in the book: “For for more than 2 million years. Human neural networks kept growing and growing, but apart from some flint knives and pointed sticks, humans had precious little to show for it. What then drove forward the evolution of those massive human brain during those 2 million years. Frankly, we don’t know.” Furthermore, the author notes that unlike other animals who are relatively independent shortly after birth, human development men that our individual development meant that our generational development became more dependent on parents I.E that to evolve as we did, women had to give birth earlier to smaller babie to smaller babiess, And therefore, we must be dependent on each other. There’s evolutionary proof. We cannot exist in isolation: “Lone mothers could hardly forage enough food for their offspring and themselves with needy children in tow raising children required constant help from other family members and neighbors. It takes a tribe to raise a human. Evolution thus favored those capable of forming strong social ties. […] Most mammals emerge from the womb like glazed earthenware emerging from a kiln. Any attempt at remolding will only scratch or break them. Humans emerge from the womb like molten glass from a furnace. They can be spun stretched and shaped with a surprising degree of freedom. This is why today we can educate our children to become Christian or Buddhist, capitalist or socialist, warlike or peace-loving.” In one sense, it seems that my Rowan’s advantage was Independence from an early age and furthermore intergenerational knowledge that my grandparents imparted in their de facto role as my parents. “Every species evolved from a common ancestor” and that includes humans