An Open Letter to Yuval Noah Harari:
Some time ago I went with my six-year-old nephew Matan to hunt for Pokémon. As we walked down the street, Matan kept looking at his smartphone, which enabled him to spot Pokémon all around us. I didn’t see any Pokémon at all, because I didn’t carry a smartphone. Then we saw two others kids on the street who were hunting the same Pokémon, and we almost got into a fight with them. It struck me how similar the situation was to the conflict between Jews and Muslims about the holy city of Jerusalem. When you look at the objective reality of Jerusalem, all you see are stones and buildings. There is no holiness anywhere. But when you look through the medium of smartbooks (such as the Bible and the Qur’an), you see holy places and angels everywhere. -You, in an article published on theguardian.com
 |
| David and Goliath |
I find your writing deeply disturbing. I have read a handful of your articles and am currently making my way through Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind, and your ideas have only become offensive the further I go along.
At least you acknowledge this in Sapiens, after dismissing the notion of human rights.
“It’s likely that more than a few readers squirmed in their chairs while reading the preceding paragraphs.”
Clearly, you empathize with how--
“Most of us today are educated to react in such a way.”
Professor Harari, many contemporary authors demand a level of open-mindedness or even participation from their readers. You, however, repeatedly reach beyond this, bluntly forcing your readers to question and reject ideas central to their identities if they want to successfully move forward in your work. It is heartless, arrogant…
And yet there is a notable absence of something in your writing. You do not attempt to rebuild the bridges you demolish in “the right way.” What makes you more kind and constructive than any other author is that you refrain from preaching. You delineate the mechanics of our world and then leave the readers with full agency for what to do with your information.
Contrast this with Neal Shusterman, whose new novel Thunderhead I am reading in tandem with Sapiens. Although the post-work, AI-governed world of Thunderhead (coincidentally also the topic of your Pokemon article) tries to deal in shades of grey, Shusterman forces clear ethical messages into the plot: all human governments become corrupt, and anyone who enjoys killing is evil.
Why does this matter? Thunderhead is certainly a more entertaining read--and less likely to incite violent arguments--than Sapiens. Moreover, it is not necessarily damaging for a person to read only books that preach, as long as the lessons vary from author to author.
The issue is that authors who preach clearly want their work to influence others. In fact, the aim of most writing, whether informational or fictional, is to communicate a message. Unfortunately for these authors, Sapiens highlights an important truth: messages by themselves do not lead to change. A human being will not change her beliefs unless she is first open to the idea that she may not know everything.
Professor Harari, your callous dismissal of all religion is invaluable because you open up your reader to the idea that her worldview is incomplete. You are not forcing a message down her throat; you are forcing her to think. As I read Sapiens, I regularly have to stop and decide whether I agree or disagree with your beliefs, because you simply state them as objective facts, present the evidence, and run with them. I am required to come up with arguments just to make it through a chapter.
The intense level of participation and lack of preaching present in Sapiens make it one of the only books capable of creating both personal and societal change, no matter how hard Thunderhead and its companions may try. Consequently, although your writing sickens me, I must thank you. Your bold choices have the potential to create an educated and enlightened public, which is all any society really needs to fix its problems.
Sincerely,
Jonah
