God is not Great by Christopher Hitchens – Book Review

Afin de lire ce commentaire en français, cliquez ici

Publisher’s write-up:

‘In god is Not Great Hitchens turned his formidable eloquence and rhetorical energy to the most controversial issue in the world: God and religion. The result is a devastating critique of religious faith.

god Is Not Great is the ultimate case against religion. In a series of acute readings of the major religious texts, Christopher Hitchens demonstrates the ways in which religion is man-made, dangerously sexually repressive and distorts the very origins of the cosmos. Above all, Hitchens argues that the concept of an omniscient God has profoundly damaged humanity and proposes that the world might be a great deal better off without 'him'.’

For far too long, this book was in my ‘to read’ list. I had always enjoyed reading columns, speeches and debates of Christopher Hitchens and had actively followed his works even when he was alive and I find it hard to believe that it has been ten years since his death; such is the power of his rhetoric and writing considering the impact he has to this day. It was a matter of time before I started reading this book and would assess whether it was worth my wait.

The earlier UK publication had a caption attached to the title – a case against religion; and that is exactly what Hitchens builds during the course of this book, a case against organised religion. It is an indiscreet take on the role religion has historically had on the society and continues to have to this date, which in the author’s opinion is an influence that does more harm than good. A usual criticism of a fellow lead figure in the new atheism sphere, Richard Dawkins, is that most of his books focus on the Abrahamic religions (which is a criticism that I do not accept – to read why, click here to read my review on The god delusion by Richard Dawkins). However, Hitchens cannot be accused of that in this book as he has elaborate sections for Asian and native American religions – often with interesting personal anecdotes (from India, Iraq, etc.).

Hitchens’ primary arguments are as follows: how religion is a root for many obnoxious but normalised practices across the world, how there is no connection between morality and religion, how there is nothing to suggest that these books written centuries ago are not human inventions, and even if we take the books as is – there is very little morality to derive out of it unless you consciously exclude certain portions out of it (which most religious people do) and finally, debunking questions often posed to atheists (like Pascal’s wager).

The author played to his strengths in this book; he is known to be excellent at debates (having watched so many, I can vouch for that) and thus, he was effective in building this case. The other strength of his that was apparent was his ability with the words and how, a subject that could be considered boring and sometimes having to discuss very uncomfortable events / practices was put forth well. At first, I felt that the author was quoting multiple people and books without a footnote but towards the end, I found a very elaborate section for ‘References’; and in my Kindle edition, they were all hyperlinked and thus, if anyone wants to factcheck his claims made during the book, that is simple.  

There was a good contrast between reading Dawkins and Hitchens, where the former is a scientist – a lot of his arguments were centred around science and with the latter being a journalist, it had many anecdotes from history, news (much of it would seem like history now, but those are issues he actively reported on) and also references from his extensive travelling around the world. Hitchens’ arguments are quite powerful and as an atheist myself, I have often used arguments inspired from him – but that was sometimes the downside of the book for me personally because I had already read a lot his essays and listened to his speeches and debates; thus, a lot of contents here, seemed like a repetition to me (and could be true for anyone who has followed Hitchens before reading this book).

Of course, someone would always say that Hitchens has misinterpreted the scriptures and he is presenting a one-sided picture – but that is precisely the point; that you cannot be the absolute truth and be subject to interpretation at the same time. That is without mentioning the multiple contradictions within organised religions and how, their organisations have often justified and abetted the worst crimes against humanity. Even a single exception collapses the argument for religion being the source of morality and knowledge though in reality, there are multiple contradictions as elucidated by the author in this book.

One could always say that my endorsement of this book is arising out of a confirmation bias, but I would still be bold enough to hazard a guess that people with an open mind regardless of their religious affiliation will enjoy this book. It is a well written case against religion made by the author. While I do not believe in an afterlife, the closest we have to one has been enabled by great human inventions (writing, printing, internet, etc.) owing to which, thoughts of Hitchens resonate to this day. On that note, I would award the book a rating of nine on ten. Thus, it was certainly worth the wait.

Rating – 9/10

Have a nice day,
Andy

No One is too Small to Make a Difference by Greta Thunberg – Book Review +

Afin de lire ce commentaire en français, cliquez ici

Publisher’s write-up:

'No One Is Too Small to Make a Difference is Greta’s first book in English, collecting her speeches from climate rallies across Europe to audiences at UN, the World Economic Forum, and the British Parliament.’

Note: My book is the May 2019 edition, and thus, I shall not refer to the speeches added in the expanded edition published in November 2019

Regardless of our position on her activism, most of us have an opinion on Greta Thunberg. Before I get into the review, I shall make it clear that considering the size of the book, this review would also be a mix of my views on the book and her activism (hence, the + on the title). For starters, she is another teenage activist who garners unusual amount of hate to be merely dismissed as media hype and followed up with endless conspiracy theories. All I saw was a repeat of what happened with another teenage activist during the decade, being Malala Yousafzai, the girl who was supposedly awarded the Nobel Peace Prize just for getting shot, completely ignoring the fact that she was shot because of her activism (click here to read the review of I am Malala).

This is a small book and takes less than an hour to read – it contains eleven of her speeches, delivered before May 2019. The central theme of her speeches is that we are running out of time in taking action against climate change to keep global warming below acceptable levels, how the politicians are not doing enough and an urge to listen to the scientists. There is also emphasis on how the current societal model which measures success by economic growth is not sustainable, much as sustainable development has been a term for years, they have just been empty words with very little intent to act on those plans.

It is a matter of surprise that in countries like the US (and several others, unfair to single out one), the debate is not over how to handle climate change but rather, on existence of climate change. Much as the consensus among scientists is well known, the lobbyists have been strong enough to propagate climate change, like ExxonMobil; a champion of climate change denial up until recent times, despite their own research suggesting otherwise (precisely the reason why they needed the propaganda).

The book contains her famous speeches such as ‘Our House is on Fire’ delivered at the World Economic Forum in Davos and ‘Can You Hear Me?’; where she emphasises how it is time the world recognises the problem as a crisis and treats it as one and the speech in House of Commons (being Can You Hear Me?), she brings up the creative accounting used by UK to show dramatic steps and achievements (having read several accounts about the Civil Service, I can easily imagine that coming from Whitehall).

She also explains much of the hate that she receives – as to how she is politically motivated, does not offer any solutions, etc. Especially regarding that latter, I have always felt that she never claimed that she had solutions and the crux of her speeches is urging politicians to listen to scientists. Much as she denies that she has any backing, it is very much possible that she does but I am not bothered by that so long as I am convinced about the cause that is being backed even if she is merely being used as a tool. I am satisfied that her activism regardless of our beliefs have got us to talk on this topic, across countries and that is what I consider as her success.

Of course, there are points I don’t agree with – where she points out that it is a black and white issue and there is no room for grey; while I agree with her on the issue part of it (need to reiterate my surprise at people still debating over the existence of climate change), it is not the same for solution and it is difficult to overhaul the system overnight. It is impossible to be completely in agreement with any person and Greta is no exception. The point that if the current rules do not permit the change, it is the rules that need a change, is a point that I agree with and has been emphasised well in all of her speeches.

My suggestion to the reader would be to not read all speeches at once as it might seem repetitive.

There were around a ten blank pages in my edition after the end of the book and it would have been much better if sources to the facts mentioned in her speeches were given; I do not challenge the factual accuracy as even her staunchest haters do not accuse her of factual inaccuracies, nonetheless, it would have been better to have the sources.

The book as such, I award it a rating of seven on ten.

Rating – 7/10

Have a nice day,
Andy

The Good Thief’s Guide to Amsterdam by Chris Ewan – Book Review

Publisher’s write-up:

‘In Amsterdam working on his latest novel, Charlie is approached by a mysterious American who asks him to steal two apparently worthless monkey figurines from two separate addresses on the same night. At first he says no. Then he changes his mind. Only later, kidnapped and bound to a chair, the American very dead and a spell in police custody behind him, does Charlie begin to realise how costly a mistake he might have made.

The police think he killed the American. Others think he knows the whereabouts of the elusive third monkey. But for Charlie only three things matter: Can he clear his name? Can he get away with the haul of a lifetime? And can he solve the briefcase-shaped plot-hole in his latest novel?’

In crime fiction, the protagonist is usually a detective (police or private) or a journalist, but this book features the lead character Charlie Howard who is a crime fiction writer and a part time thief. Charlie is from the UK and is currently living in Amsterdam, in the process of completing his next novel.

Charlie is approached by an American, Michael Park, who has a job for him – to steal two monkey figurines made of plaster for a fee of € 20,000. While Charlie has exact instructions on how to carry out the mission, the plan falls apart and Michael is fatally injured. It does not take long for the police to find Charlie and is a suspect for the attack on the American; while Charlie is no way an honourable character, this is certainly a crime that he did not commit. The rest of the plot revolves around his own investigations on why he was approached for the job and the importance of the seemingly worthless monkey figurines.

The author got into the plot immediately and the city of Amsterdam was used well – be it the description of the canals, the cafes and the seventeenth century houses. It was interesting to read crime fiction from the perspective of a thief and why Charlie became a burglar also had a good background story. Apart from Charlie, I was also satisfied with the supporting characters, the barmaid Marieke who is acquainted to both Michael and Charlie and has a critical role throughout the plot, the investigating officer Buggrave; all of these characters have a past which becomes an important part of the plot and the way the past unfolded and connected to the present kept me gripped. The book had a good start, and I was satisfied with the conclusion and the way it unfolded as aforementioned, but the book seemed a drag in between (especially the segments where Charlie was trying to fix plot holes in his own upcoming book), which had significantly reduced my pace in reading the book.

Much as Charlie was interesting – a famous writer cum thief, I also found him to be vain, who is too proud of his achievements as a writer and also, his prowess in burglary (and his actions in the book made me seriously doubt both). There were aspects about his character that was not convincing, wherein, he is a famous writer, but nobody knows the real Charlie Howard to the extent that he does not use his own picture in his book cover, which neither the public nor anyone in the general public know about (hard to believe). There were times where I felt it was very evident that it was the author’s first novel – wherein, Charlie was surprised to learn that the monkey figurines probably had more value than being merely intrinsic to Michael; which was obvious to the reader from the very beginning (I am not revealing any more on their significance).

To be honest, I started reading this book with no expectations. The only reason I had this book in my Kindle was because, sometime around the end of 2017, the book was available for free. I did not bother reading the book till I had planned an Amsterdam trip myself (which is forthcoming on a date after the publishing of this review) and I do not regret the decision, the book has laid a good foundation, there were shortcomings like how I felt the narration and dialogues were a little too flat but I hope it improves in the series (the next book happens to be Charlie’s adventures in the city I live in at present, so, should be interesting for me).

To conclude, I would say that the book convinced me enough to continue with the series and I would award the book a rating of six on ten.

Rating – 6/10

Have a nice day,
Andy

Homo Deus: A Brief History of Tomorrow by Yuval Noah Harari – Book Review

Afin de lire ce commentaire en français, cliquez ici

Publisher’s write-up:

‘Sapiens shows us where we came from. Homo Deus shows us where we’re going.

Yuval Noah Harari envisions a near future in which we face a new set of challenges. Homo Deus explores the projects, dreams and nightmares that will shape the twenty-first century and beyond – from overcoming death to creating artificial life.

It asks the fundamental questions: how can we protect this fragile world from our own destructive power? And what does our future hold?’

Homo Deus is the sequel to Sapiens:A Brief History of Humankind (click for reading the review of Sapiens) from Professor Yuval Noah Harari. While Sapiens explains the events in human history up to the 21^st century, the author presents his prognosis on the future of the species – how are we going to deal with changing technology and artificial intelligence? Would we remain the same or would there be a fundamental change – the principal case the author built in the previous book was how our species managed to overcome several constraints without a fundamental change in the structure of our DNA. The author answers these questions in his book Homo Deus.

His coining of the term Homo Deus represents the species that would replace Homo Sapiens and the impact that genetic engineering and artificial intelligence is going to have. The author starts very well, explaining how we are living in the best time humanity has ever witnessed, that for the first time more people die of obesity related diseases than malnutrition, more people die of suicides than war and plague, inter alia. The book is split into three parts – the first explaining how homo sapiens conquered the world, moving on to explain how homo sapiens gave meaning to ‘their world’, and the final part explaining how we are losing control and the author’s prognosis on the future.

As mentioned earlier, the book started very well, giving out interesting facts and explaining how every human emotion is mere biochemical reactions; what if they could be recreated? That was a very good way to start the book which got us immediately into the book. Like his previous book, it dealt with a scientific topic and the author used layman’s language throughout the book. Owing to the similarity of the topic, this did not feel like a book different from Sapiens and in fact, in a lot of cases, it felt like the author was repeating the same contents as his previous book – during the second part, as to how humans rely on myth, how we need them for cooperation, etc. It seemed to me as a means to write a book very similar to the previous book including the size, whereas what the author wished to convey could have been done so in half the number of pages if we remove the redundancies.

I also observed the same flaws that I noticed in Sapiens, where the author seems to misunderstand the word 'religion' – going on to explain how ‘humanism’ and ‘liberalism’ are religions and what would be the religion of the future. Sure, there are some similarities between religion and the above-mentioned ideologies; to start with, they are ideologies, and both are myths that a lot of humans believe in, to create a stable society. But the similarities end there – religion is associated with the divine and there is usually a creator (which is the reason why theologians debate whether Buddhism could be considered a religion) and pretends to hold answers for every question and surely, the above mentioned laws do not (nobody would ask a humanist philosopher to explain how the universe came into being). This logic is the same as 'My dog has a tail. A cat also has a tail. Therefore, my dog is a cat'. These aspects of the book made me cringe.

It also needs to be mentioned as to how the author mentioned certain obvious facts as findings; to quote an example, tried to prove how human beings are not different from any other animals and there is no proof over existence of a soul. I have never come across even the staunchest users and believers in the concept argue that it is a scientific / medical concept. There was a similar argument over mind. Much as it was surprising and thus interesting to note that scientists conducted experiments to confirm the lack of it, it did not add any value to the book, nor add any knowledge to the reader.

To conclude, I would say that this book may be read for the sake of continuity and it has its high points and some interesting facts, but certainly not as informative as Sapiens. A relatively minor issue that kept bothering me is that the very title ‘history of tomorrow’ is a contradiction in terms. This book is a classic case of ruining a good start – the book dealt very little with the author’s prognosis. However, I would admit that if I evaluate the content ignoring all the redundant parts of the book, I would say it was fairly informative. That saves the author’s reputation in my books to read his next work, but not the rating of this book, I award the book a rating of four on ten.

Rating – 4/10

Have a nice day,
Andy

The Man in the High Castle by Philip K. Dick – Book Review

Afin de lire ce commentaire en français, cliquez ici

Synopsis (from Amazon):

‘America, fifteen years after the end of the Second World War. The winning Axis powers have divided their spoils: the Nazis control New York, while California is ruled by the Japanese. But between these two states - locked in a cold war - lies a neutal buffer zone in which legendary author Hawthorne Abendsen is rumoured to live. Abendsen lives in fear of his life for he has written a book in which World War Two was won by the Allies. . .’

Disclaimer: I have watched all four seasons of the Amazon web series based on the book. However, there would not be any comparisons between the series and the book and references if any, would not be made unless unavoidable.

It is a frightening thought – what if the fascists had their way in the Second World War? The book from Philip K. Dick explores the question in a hypothetical scenario of the Axis Powers winning the war leading to the division of world between technologically advanced Germans and the empire that focuses more on spirituality, Japan.

The book revolves around five principal characters – Robert Childan, an American artefacts dealer in San Francisco, Pacific States of America (vassal state of Japan), Frank Frink – a craftsman in San Francisco, Juliana Frink – his ex-wife who now lives in the neutral zone in Colorado working as a judo instructor and Nobusuke Tagomi – a high ranking Japanese official in San Francisco. Chancellor of Germany, Martin Bormann is ill which starts a succession battle in the Nazi party, that could well determine the future of Japan and the world at large. There is a famous book, banned by the Nazis – The Grasshopper Lies Heavy which explores the hypothetical situation of the Allies having won the war – which is of interest to the characters, particularly in the sub-plot involving Childan and Juliana.

I liked the tangled web that the author weaved, by writing novel which presents an alternate history in which there is a novel in that plot which presents an alternative history in the world of the author which is in fact the real world of the reader. Another interesting aspect is the way in which he brought out the fascist takeover and the reaction of the people – where there is no significant resistance movement and people seem to have accepted it (or those who did not probably were eliminated during the course of the fifteen years). The only interesting character in the book was Childan, who is a very proud American and has poor opinions on blacks, the Japanese, though the latter is a bit paradoxical where there are often situations where he can’t help but admire them.

With that said, I would say that this book was four different plots weaved into one with there being only a loose connection between the storylines of each of the characters. Much as the author is known for science fiction work, this seemed more of a fantasy novel with the characters relying more on the Chinese oracle – I Ching than any technological advancement. It took me nearly 70% of the novel to realise that I was more than halfway through and there was still, barely anything that resembled a plot, with each character having a different objective. I liked the discussions between Juliana and her Italian boyfriend – Joe Cinnadella, a former soldier who had fought in North Africa, but I found it very unusual why an Italian would have the name ‘Joe’ (I have no idea about the diminutive of Giuseppe but I am sure in a world where Allies lost the war, anglicising names would not have been trend). I do not normally nit-pick on names and I ignore it if the plot is good, but this book does not deserve the leeway. In fact, the book ‘The Grasshopper Lies Heavy’ within the plot does not even resemble the world as it was in the period in which the author claims to base this plot on.

The story might have been interesting if the author had chosen to focus on one plot, but instead, had four different sub-plots, with little to no connection of consequence. My disappointment may also be contributed by the fact that I enjoyed the series that my expectations on the book were rather high.

To make matters worse, the foreword from Eric Brown in my Kindle edition even contained spoilers to the book and so, if you plan to read the book, avoid the foreword.

To conclude, you are often told never judge a book by its movie (I have a lot of bookmarks with similar quotes). However, this is the first time I am encountering a reverse situation where I enjoyed the series but not the book. To those who have followed the series but have not read the book, you have not missed anything. I would award this book a rating of two on ten.

Rating – 2/10

Have a nice day,
Andy

The Stranger (L’étranger) by Albert Camus – Book Review

Afin de lire ce commentaire en français, cliquez ici

Publisher’s write-up (translated / paraphrased as necessary):

‘When the bell rang again, when the door opened, the silence in the room approaching towards me, the silence, and this strange feeling I had when I notice the young journalist before turning my eyes away. I didn’t look towards Marie. I did not have the time because the president had told me in a strange way that my head would be guillotined in a public place on behalf of the French people…’

Note: I read the book in French

I had come to know that The Stranger is a classic in French from Albert Camus from the owner of a bookstore in a lovely small town in Côte d’Azur where I bought this book. Unfortunately, I had never heard of this book or the writer but I found the subject and the plot to be interesting when I had heard it.

Our society has a lot of rules, some of them unwritten and very often, a person ends up on the wrong side of the society if these rules are not followed. The plot concerns Meursault, a person who is very different from the average person in the society. This did not affect his life till the day he needed to face the law.

The story starts with the death of his mother who is in an asylum. However, what concerned Meursault more than his mother’s death was whether it would be appropriate to smoke a cigarette in front of his mother’s corpse and was simply annoyed that most guests around were old. He returned to normalcy immediately after the funeral, be it his work, his relationship with his new girlfriend, etc. He then accepts to be a witness to testify against an Arab girlfriend of his neighbour Raymond following a discord between the two. Following these events, Meursault eventually ends up committing a murder, and problems over his attitude and indifference in general start to become a problem in front of the judge.

The author has created an interesting character in Meursault, who is an anti-hero with whom the reader does not share much sympathies from the outset. Even if he is not like the other people in the society (for example, he doesn’t cry for his mother’s death), one can only think if it is a reason good enough to be condemned, especially where a lot of people think that his indifference is an even bigger issue than the murder he had committed. The author made me think on this aspect, and of course, I did find the attitude of Meursault bizarre but at the same time, not following a societal convention the violation of which harms nobody else should not lead to condemnation – and I found it very interesting that these aspects made me regain sympathy for Meursault during the course of the plot which he had lost immediately after the start.

I liked the manner in which the author brought out how Meursault’s detached himself from every dire situation, and what had in fact helped was his indifference with people and the world at large. He remained complex as much as he was indifferent, he was not someone who could be termed a misanthrope either. Much as he was a character very well created by the author, he was also the only character and no other character in the book had even a reasonable level of depth.

The plot took place in Algeria, before its independence and even though the Arabs have a rather important role in the plot, I did not like the manner in which the author had dehumanised them – none of the Arab characters had names, no witness was an Arab (which I found to be odd), etc. One could argue that perhaps that was not the intention of the author, considering the second part was narrated by Meursault, it merely brings about the divide between the native population and the French settlers. However, I struggle to arrive at giving a benefit of doubt to the author in this case. I understand that there is a novel from Kamel Daoud – ‘The Meursault Investigation’ – where the author has given a character to each of the Arabs in the plot of The Stranger and retells the plot, and right now, I am inclined to try out this novel. Coming back to the location of the plot, much as it was in the city of Algiers, whether it was Algiers or any other city in the world, there would have hardly been a difference to the plot as the author hardly used any facets of the city in his plot.

To conclude, it is a deep and interesting novel, I am sure that a person with an excellent level of French (unlike the pidgin French I muster) might enjoy Meursault’s defence of his positions and views better. I hope it is not lost in translation in the English edition. On that note, I award the book a rating of seven on ten.

Rating – 7/10

Have a nice day,
Andy

Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind by Yuval Noah Harari – Book Review

Afin de lire ce commentaire en français, cliquez ici

Publisher’s write-up:

‘100,000 years ago, at least six human species inhabited the earth. Today there is just one. Us. Homo sapiens.

How did our species succeed in the battle for dominance? Why did our foraging ancestors come together to create cities and kingdoms? How did we come to believe in gods, nations and human rights; to trust money, books and laws; and to be enslaved by bureaucracy, timetables and consumerism? And what will our world be like in the millennia to come?

In Sapiens, Dr Yuval Noah Harari spans the whole of human history, from the very first humans to walk the earth to the radical – and sometimes devastating – breakthroughs of the Cognitive, Agricultural and Scientific Revolutions. Drawing on insights from biology, anthropology, palaeontology and economics, he explores how the currents of history have shaped our human societies, the animals and plants around us, and even our personalities. Have we become happier as history has unfolded? Can we ever free our behaviour from the heritage of our ancestors? And what, if anything, can we do to influence the course of the centuries to come?

Bold, wide-ranging and provocative, Sapiens challenges everything we thought we knew about being human: our thoughts, our actions, our power ... and our future.’

Based on the material I have read so far (Richard Dawkins in particular), the human species is around 200,000 years old. However, we have very little data the history of our species beyond 10,000 years (which is a very generous estimate). In this book, Yuval Noah Harari, a historian and professor tries to explain the history of our species – from the time homo sapiens coexisted with other human species till the era as we know today.

The book is split into four parts – the cognitive revolution, the agricultural revolution, the unification of humankind, the scientific revolution and a conclusion with the author’s insights into the future. Through these phases, the author explores how the species evolved, how we learned to cooperate, and more importantly, how they learnt to adapt to different conditions and scale up our abilities without any significant modifications to the DNA structure. The author challenges several traditionally held views – such as ‘agriculture being the greatest invention of humanity’, how myths are essential for the survival of the society as it is today (eg – for instance, we all believe that a piece of paper printed by an authority has a value, the moment people stop dissociating themselves with the myth, the society as of today would collapse), inter alia.

Much as this is a book discussing a scientific topic, the author has not used technical terms and has written in simple language. I took a week to complete this book (with most of my reading being during transits from home to work and vice versa) and that is perhaps that’s a personal record for me when it comes to completing a non-fiction work of this size (almost 500 pages). I liked the fact that the author strictly maintained the sequence and at several points – regardless of whether you’re a conservative or a liberal, religious or an atheist, the validity of your firmly held convictions would be strongly challenged by the author. It was interesting as to how I was initially shocked at some of the statements but when we think of it deeply, it was true; and still we come to the conclusion that these are very necessary inventions. I’d quote one such instance which challenges some of my strong convictions on equality and human rights

‘Advocates of quality and human rights may be outraged by this line of reason. Their response is likely to be “we know that people are not equal in biologically! But if we believe that we are all equal in essence, it will enable us to create a stable and prosperous society’. I have no argument with that. This is exactly what I mean by by “imagined order”. We believe in a particular order not because it is objectively true, but because believing in it enables us to cooperate effectively and forge a better society.’

-          Page 123

With that said, there were also instances where I felt his arguments were a little shallow, where he argues how a lot of principles we have today, be it equality or respecting individual freedoms is a revamped version of monotheist conventions (that all are equal before god) (page 258); which seems an extreme conclusion to infer. This is arising from the idea that individuals cannot arrive at the same idea independently; and it contradicts with one of the very findings of the author’s – where he explained how different communities developed similar agricultural societies without ever contacting each other. Just to quote my own example, much as I hold strong views on equality, I am an atheist and was neither raised nor been associated with any monotheistic religion in anyway.

The other highlights of the book included how the author established differences between humans and other animals – especially since the cognitive revolution. He also makes the case as to how our ancestors were in peace with nature to be a myth and in fact, what we have today is one of the best times in the history of humankind (contradicting the ‘good old days of our ancestors’ argument).

I cannot comment on the technical aspects of the book and from what I understand, most academicians do not have a very positive view on the book, but as always, if you can either satisfy the scholars or the public at large but impossible to satisfy all at once. On that note, I would award the book a rating of eight on ten. It is a book that would make you think, and thus, one could say that the author's manner of narration is the greatest highlight of the book. 

Rating – 8/10

Have a nice day,
Andy