This book started out alright for me. I enjoyed reading it at the start as something that looked at the past of humanity from the ape era. The book looks at what differentiated us from Neanderthals and Homo Erectus and then delves into our societal history coming from hunter gatherers into an agricultural and then industrial society. Great stuff.

The book then delves into a trio of influences that it claims to be interlocked: Empire, capitalism, and science. Empire meaning a large power influencing large amounts of people. Capitalism in the form of the Adam Smith type of capitalism. Science as the humility to say that we do not know everything there is to know in the world and that we should go out there to find out. The book argues that these three things worked together to create the “liberal” society that we have today. (The book refers to liberal as something very specific, implying a belief in the ability of an individual to make their own choices in life).

This was a little out there but I was okay with that. For the most part, I like these sorts of big picture thinking theories. But then the book veers into something that really struck me as something that I have thought about.

In it, the author claims that the world of humanity was set up in small families and communities. Each person in the family and the community had something to belong to. They did not have a lot of personal freedom but as long as they played by the rules then the family and community would take care of their illnesses, help look after their kids, and help mediate disputes.

Over time, things sprung up to replace these needs of the community. The free market of labor and goods freed people from having to rely on their parents or neighbors for food. The courts took care of their ability to mediate a case of justice, and so on. This allowed for more personal freedom for people but at the same time it disintegrated more of the original family and community that existed in the olden days. You might have more freedom to choose your family and friends, but they have the same choice too and they might choose not to be with you.

I found this a powerful and affecting thought. My entire life, I have felt disassociation from a family and community to which I can belong. I feel frustrated by my inability to make connections with other people who are similar to me. I feel like this partly helps to answer that question of why.

Reading this, I feel like I now more understand why Mark Zuckerberg wrote the following post about Building Global Community. Ben Thompson feels that the post is about politics and advocating for politics. He argues that Zuck should stick with generating profit. But I think Mark also sees this deterioration of small communities and feels that the best way Facebook can help end or reverse this trend is through the cultivation of its own community - a globalized community connected through the Internet.

The end of the book truly goes off the tracks - talking about genetic modification and artificial life. I cannot say that I really listened to the whole thing of it. For the most part I was like, “Okay boss” and moved on. However that little bit about happiness and community really hit me hard.