This blog post critically examines Yuval Noah Harari’s arguments about fiction and reality in ‘Homo Deus’.
The word “Deus” in the book’s title ‘Homo Deus’ means God. That is, the author, Yuval Noah Harari, argues through this book that humans aspire to transcend Homo sapiens and become gods. He states that due to rapid technological and scientific advancement, along with the emergence of the Fourth Industrial Revolution, humans are increasingly approaching actions once believed only possible for gods. Yuval Noah Harari asserts that humans will soon become gods. However, in this blog post, I aim to thoroughly examine the aspects of his various claims related to fiction and reality, refuting Yuval Noah Harari’s assertions.
Before diving in, I want to clarify that my goal isn’t to dismiss his arguments as pure nonsense. His ideas struck me as refreshingly shocking, and reading his book felt like awakening another dormant sense. His writing originated from novel ideas and was filled with original thoughts not found in other books. Yet, as I read, his expressions felt excessively strong, leading me into deep contemplation. Rather than accepting his claims as unconditionally correct, I believe it is crucial to recognize that they represent merely one person’s perspective and to contemplate them deeply. Therefore, the purpose of this essay is not to argue that Yuval Noah Harari’s claims are wrong. It is to convey that Yuval Noah Harari’s claims are just one perspective, and that other viewpoints exist. I encourage readers of ‘Homo Deus’ to explore multiple perspectives on a single topic, organize their own thoughts based on this, and develop their own subjectivity.
I wanted to address all the many points Yuval Noah Harari raised, but the volume is immense. Criticizing too many topics risks making the writing superficial, so I will focus on discussing in depth his arguments concerning fiction and reality. In the book’s third chapter, ‘The Human Spark’, Yuval Noah Harari first mentions fiction and reality. He then elaborates on this concept in the fourth chapter, ‘The Storytellers’.
Harari states that figures like Jesus Christ, the French Republic, and Apple—gods, nations, and corporations—occupy a crucial place in human history. Without money, religion, nation-states, or corporations, it would be difficult to call it human history. Yet these are not real entities; they are fictions created by humans. He argues that history does not unfold as humans themselves create it, but rather revolves around a web of fictions.
First, I want to address the content regarding the boundary between fiction and reality. Yuval Noah Harari cites examples like rating systems, the Bible, and money to illustrate how fictions reshape reality, arguing that while fictions are pointless, they are necessary. He asserts that fictions are indispensable for human society to function properly. However, he strongly contends that fictions must never cause harm to reality, and we must never lose our sense of what is real. Finally, he warns that forgetting the fictional nature of these constructs and losing our sense of reality leads us to pursue vast profits for corporations or start wars to protect national interests. The author concludes by asserting that the very things we created to help us end up sacrificing our lives.
First, I want to ask Yuval Noah Harari about the precise difference between the invisible fiction and reality. The book contained this passage: “How do you know what’s real and what isn’t?” It’s very simple. Just ask this question: “Can it feel pain?” Money, gods, nations, and corporations cannot feel pain, so they are fiction. But a soldier wounded in war, a starving farmer, or a mother cow who has lost her calf can feel pain, so they are real. This part felt a bit odd. Is the only way to distinguish fiction from reality checking whether something feels pain? The sudden introduction of the concept of pain while discussing fiction and reality confused me. Does this mean people belonging to a nation feel pain, but the nation itself does not? I think this isn’t because people are real and the nation is fiction, but because “nation” is a word encompassing the people belonging to it. In other words, this isn’t a difference between fiction and reality, but a difference in scope. We say we drove a ‘car,’ not a ‘vehicle.’ We say a ‘flower’ is beautiful, not an ‘organism.’ Therefore, introducing the concept of pain to divide fiction and reality is inappropriate. Furthermore, whether Zeus feels pain when his temple is burned or whether a nation feels pain when war breaks out is not something ‘Yuval Noah Harari’ can arbitrarily judge. If the people who believe in Zeus feel pain, and if the people belonging to the nation feel pain, then couldn’t we say that Zeus and the nation also feel pain? Introducing the concept of pain to validate an argument is highly subjective. If we call this common sense, then I believe we need a new definition of common sense.
This naturally leads to the thought: “Could fiction actually be real?” Money might be a fictional value assigned to the real entity of paper. But what if money is real? If that’s a bit difficult, consider a god. One might think God is also a fictional product created by believers’ faith. But what if God actually exists? This is one topic scientists and religious people constantly debate, yet because no one has proven it, this debate has persisted for thousands of years. The majority of religious people believe God actually exists. According to one report, 83.6% of the world’s population has a religion. Of course, not all religious people believe God actually exists, but it’s clear that an overwhelming number do. In other words, this book, which firmly states that God is not real, represents the viewpoint of just 16.4% of the world’s population. To be more precise, it’s merely the opinion of one person out of the world’s 8 billion who likes science and dislikes religion. Just as one might consider that God could actually exist, perhaps we should also ponder whether things like money, the state, and other entities that ‘Yuval Noah Harari’ called fictions could also be real.
Finally, is the act of sacrificing reality for fiction, as ‘Yuval Noah Harari’ suggests, truly pointless and futile? If you believe his argument is correct, consider whether the lives sacrificed by martyrs for their country were truly pointless. Were the actions of our ancestors—who gave up real lives, family ties, and everything else for the sake of the actual independence movement and democratic struggles, all for the sake of a fictional state—really pointless and foolish? I absolutely do not think so. I believe that sacrificing the real for the invisible fiction also holds precious value. Moreover, I believe the value gained through invisible fictions is just as precious and immense as the value gained through the tangible. Of course, the tangible is more important than the fictional. However, I disagree with Yuval Noah Harari’s claim that the fictional is merely a tool for human society to function well and is otherwise useless. I believe invisible fictions are not only essential for human society to function well, but they are also indistinguishable from the tangible, to the point where they are identical to it.
It’s regrettable that my arguments might feel too similar since they all stem from a single thought. However, if the essence of my thinking on the boundary between fiction and reality has been conveyed, I consider my purpose achieved. Next, I want to address the most representative conflict between fiction and reality: the opposition between science and religion.
Science and religion are inextricably linked. The relationship between science and religion is broadly categorized into three views: conflict theory, which asserts they inevitably clash; separation theory, which claims they are mutually unrelated; and harmony theory, which posits they are complementary. I wish to examine the conflict between science and religion, specifically the conflict theory perspective. This is because ‘Yuval Noah Harari’ adopts this position in his book. Science and religion have been at war for thousands of years. Examples include the religious trials that occurred in modern Europe and the legal disputes between evolution and creationism in the modern era. ‘Galileo Galilei’ discovered scientific facts that contradicted the geocentric model supported by the Christian church and strongly defended ‘Nicolaus Copernicus’’s heliocentric model. The Church deemed Nicolaus Copernicus’s cosmology a threat to Christian doctrine and issued an edict banning it. Supporters of the heliocentric theory were severely persecuted through religious trials. Furthermore, Protestant creationism and Charles Robert Darwin’s theory of evolution have also been in conflict for centuries, yet no resolution has been reached. Science and religion have developed through their mutual contention.
While reading the book, I found many weaknesses in Yuval Noah Harari’s argumentation process beyond the topics covered in this blog post. His strong expressions seemed intended to instill fear in people. Of course, the advancement of technology and science, the emergence of artificial intelligence, and the progress of the Fourth Industrial Revolution are extremely important developments in human history. I agree with the author’s view that this is a critical time requiring deep reflection from humanity. However, his expressions are excessively strong. Concerned that some might uncritically accept his arguments, I wrote this blog post. I hope readers of ‘Homo Deus’ won’t simply accept his ideas and assertions as novel and true, but instead view the same phenomena from multiple perspectives and form their own viewpoints. I urge readers to engage in thorough reflection.
