Humankind: A Hopeful History

The quote on the page before “Prologue” is by Anton Chekhov: “Man will become better when you show him what he is like”. Following this is the author's statement that this is a book about the idea, which the author termed a radical idea, that most people, deep down, are pretty decent.To expound this “radical” idea, the author presents a number of investigations of historical events that support it. These include the finding that the majority of soldiers in the two World Wars did not shoot, the rescue of Sanne and her toddler by bystanders, soldiers of both sides of the conflict came out of the trenches to celebrate Christmas in 1914, and the twin brothers Constand and Abraham Viljoen saved South Africa from the brink of Civil War and helped end apartheid in 1993. On the stories and experiments that purport to show human beings are basically bad, including the Stanford Experiment by Philip Zimbardo, Stanley Milgram and the Shock Machine, the death of Susan Genovese as reported by the news, the destruction of Easter Island, the broken-window theory, etc., the author went over the mega-analysis and study-over-studies that showed the fallacies of the assumptions in some of these experiments and the biased and selective reporting of the newspapers and magazines which tainted the results. Out of the experience of writing this book, the author offers the readers his ten rules to live by, which he believes will lead to a more hopeful world.While I am glad to learn of the many uplifting stories and believe that most people deep down are kind and decent, I have to admit that I do not feel more hopeful about the future of humankind after reading the book. Although it is heart-warming to learn that the majority of soldiers did not want to kill, it does not negate the fact that a large number of gun violence occurs in the United States, and it has been impossible for Congress, supposedly made up of highly educated and intelligent people, to pass any legislation on gun control. It was shocking that, in 2019, a former Governor told “the former guy” that he was God’s chosen one to lead the United States. In 2018, a US Senator, an avowed Christian and former preacher, told the former guy that “…you're living up to everything I thought you would. You're one heck of a leader and could turn out to be the greatest President”! It certainly does not bode well for legislation to combat climate change when a Senator believed there was sufficient evidence that global warming was a hoax since he could hold a snowball in his hand in February in Washington, D. C.The author seemed to have a low opinion of Machiavelli. However, it is difficult to refute Machiavelli‘s statement in “The Prince” that “Men are so simple of mind, and so much dominated by their immediate needs, that a deceitful man will always find plenty who are ready to be deceived.“ Examples abound: Nazi Germany; January 6, 2021; prison reform in the U.S. halted by the broken-window theory; network anchors spreading Covid misinformation etc.Two rather novel ideas are advanced by the author. One is that, in real democracy, there should not be various governing hierarchies such as mayors, governors and Congress. The power should be given back to the people, who somehow should be able to govern themselves. The other idea is that present-day school structures prohibit the development of students’ innate curiosity, creativity and the new school model should be one that let the kids learn and play by themselves. Examples are given in some towns in Holland and Europe as well as Alaska and successes are claimed. Such models may have shown to be successful on small scales, but I am somewhat skeptical that they work well in large cities, states or nations.In his ten rules to live by, the author finds the golden rule (Confucius) falling short and recommends the platinum rule instead. The platinum rule is attributed to George Bernard Shaw and is a variation of the golden rule. As someone whose native language is not English, I must admit that the platinum rule as quoted by the author is not as easy to understand as the golden rule:Golden rule: “Do not do unto others as you would not have them do unto you.”Platinum rule (as quoted in the book): “Do not do unto others as you would that they should do unto you”.Until I fully understand the Platinum rule, I’ll stick with the Golden rule.

This book reveals the evidence supporting a positive view of human nature, and it goes in depth into understanding the implications for improving the future of mankind.

Really enjoyed reading this book. Gives a very comprehensive look at all aspects of human behavior. Filled with very interesting and thought provoking insight.

“What if propaganda not only sows discord, but can also bring people back together...”This line from the book defines the core of what I grasped from Brugman’s writing style. The underlying intent of the book is to make us aware that yes, in a certain sense, he is writing a "propaganda piece"; he is spinning the narrative to promote his new realism. He is speaking of alternate facts to well-known truisms about human nature (we are always one small step away from lie, kill, cheat, steal). He is claiming that its time to get real: by seeing our fellow humans as friendly, helpful, kind, and peaceful, and, by spreading this news to others in real-time, we can shape a new reality though what he calls new realism. "The war is over, if you want it." But it won't end until we actively participate in forming such a reality.What is this new realism? If you have read his Utopia for Realists you might be familiar with proposals for a shorter workweek; basic income; open borders. In Humankind, he opens up our personal borders and allows us to let others in. There is very little sentimental writing or empathetic reasoning. His is a new realism, yes. And this realism is so surprisingly realistic that it can easily seem idealistic. And he backs up his words with deep research.He provides ample evidence that it can work and does work. His alternate facts are such that debunk others’ spun facts (see the original version vs Brugman's version of prison experiments, Lord of the Flies, Kitty Genovese). Bregman even calls out historians such as Harari and Diamond for weak research points. Where they seem to take for granted certain historical accounts, Bregman gracefully calls out where stories are born and he rewrites these myths. And they seem all the more realistic as he provides ample evidence for his case.This is one of Harari’s central tropes: that we tell ourselves stories. We heard it on the news, we saw it on YouTube and ... even if we don't believe it is true... we are still right in the midst of it. The stories we tell ourselves created money, society, religions. Bregman says its time to tune out from the stories others form for us, to tune out from the harmful news and online activity and tune into what is right in front of us. And, as Harari (though still vegan and trim and stoic) and kin grow larger in fame…certain storylines will be formed just as a canal is formed; some will be true and some will form into myth. Bregman is a tributary of these recent giants in intuitive-intellectual presentation and has this reader/reviewer interested in the streaming waters of this newly dug out waterbed. Thinking of making my home in his waters. The great thing about all of these streams is that they are all headed in the right direction. They swim against the waters, struggling to get upstream…once there, they reach new islands that promote a better vision. Bregman’s stories may also become mythic once he rises in popularity, and he is not without critics. But in a cosmos of cluttered, divisive thought, his hopeful history is a welcome one.This life stance of trusting others, seeing innocence before guilt, avoiding sensationalist news, personal gain…this has been my point of view throughout my life. Yes, at times I have been dominated, cheated, left behind, left bereft. But it has always felt true to me…it just seems realistic. “to believe people are hardwired to be kind isn’t sentimental or naive. ..it’s courageous and realistic to believe in peace and forgiveness.” I have been afraid to speak this point of view, fearful that this realism is too idealistic for our times. Brugman has helped me to internally articulate this position of “new realism” …now it’s time to let others know too.

This is an uplifting and hopeful book which has arrived at just the right time to lift spirits and to increase solidarity. It picks interesting and varied case studies to make its points, arguing the central thesis that even in what appear to be the worse situations, humans kind nature always bobs to the surface. I am enjoying reading it, however it is not really an academic text, more a text written for the popular market. It is painted in broad brushstrokes and there is a lack of nuance. Each case study seems to follow the same story arc of an incident of human cruelty being subverted to reveal an underlying human kindness in quite an artificial way in places. For instance in introducing the horror of the German concentration camps it asks how this could have happened in one of the most wealthy and advanced countries of the world. This is inaccurate though. Germany immediately before the war was in the grip of a worldwide depression and poor through paying war reparations in the aftermath of WW1. This was part of the socio-economic situation that allowed the National Socialists to rise to power. Rutger is a great storty-teller, though not a historian. A good book, though not wholly as nuanced as it could be.

An interesting read but the author didn't convince me of mankind's goodness. My own experience tells me that Homo puppy (author's terminology) is anything but. He also left out of his book the sorry tale of the mutineers of the Bounty who sailed to Pitcairn island. Within a few years half of the men had been murdered by the other half, the remainder murdered by the women who sailed to Pitcairn with them, only one of the mutineers survived. And yes, this remaining mutineer did influence in a positive way the children of the mutineers born on the island who by all accounts were found living peacefully with each other 17 years after the mutineers landed there. But the mutineers did not revert to 'homo puppy' there, despite no longer being 'under the lash', no pooling resources, no co-operation, just suspicion, hatred and jealousy and finally murder most foul.Perhaps they were just a bad lot and they are the exception to the rule as espoused by the author but my experience of 70 years of other peoples selfish nature is at odds with his research.

I was drawn to this book by the hype. I eagerly read the first few chapters and was impressed by the positive story of the lost boys, and agree that Lord of the Flies is actually unrealistic, in contrast to received opinion. After that, there were lots of clever anecdotes all proving the point that humans are predisposed to be positive to each other. I really liked it when Rutger took Steven Pinker down. I read Pinker's 'Better Angels' book in 2012 and was completely taken in by it. I still think Pinker is right about modern society because there are lots of reliable data to prove that crime rates are falling, despite the news media's exaggerations. However, I agree when Rutger points out that Pinker was on flimsy ground about prehistoric homicide rates.But as I read this, I kept asking "When is Rutger going to acknowledge 'Sex at Dawn' by Calcida Jetha & Christopher Ryan?", but he never did.Sex at Dawn does an even more comprehensive job of counteracting Pinker. Calcida & Chris say that violence was low among prehistoric hunter-gatherers because (i) they had no fixed private property to fight over (ii) sexual freedom contributed to lower stress levels in society and (iii) plenty of room for nomadic groups to spread out and avoid resource conflicts.However, I do like Rutger's observation that when hunter-gatherer groups met, friendliness was the norm, not rivalry, and that people probably switched groups, and so had a much wider social circle.I'd be interested to know why Rutger didn't acknowledge this important book. (I did find one reference to "Sex at Dawn", but it was not relevant to the point I make above).

This is a wonderful book, blasting out of the water some of the biased and badly run psychological trials which claim to show humans are nasty.However it doesn't deal with the functioning psychopaths who tend to lie and cheat their way to the top and are responsible for much of global heating. They are one in four of the European population and cause a disproportionate amount of trouble.

Arrived today. I've only read three chapters and its a joy. Humanity really is good, its lovely to read it in black and white! Obviously I need to finish this ASAP and complete the review however, go buy it, you won't regret it. Cogent, powerful argument backed up with meticulous research. Best buy this year.