Pratica di Shadowing: Sapiens by Yuval Noah Harari | Read by Derek Perkins | Penguin Audiobooks - Impara a parlare inglese con i video

Brought to you by Penguin Sapiens,

a brief history of humankind by Yuval Noah Harari Read by Derek Perkins Part 1.

The Cognitive Revolution 1.

An Animal of No Significance About 13.5 billion years ago,

matter, energy, time, and space came into being in what is known as the Big Bang.

The story of these fundamental features of our universe is called physics.

About 300,000 years after their appearance, matter and energy started to coalesce into complex structures called atoms.

which then combined into molecules.

The story of atoms, molecules, and their interactions is called chemistry.

About 3.8 billion years ago, on a planet called Earth, certain molecules combined to form particularly large and intricate structures called organisms.

The story of organisms is called biology.

About 70,000 years ago, organisms belonging to the species Homo sapiens started to form even more elaborate structures called cultures.

The subsequent development of these human cultures is called history.

Three important revolutions shaped the course of history.

The Cognitive Revolution kick-started history about 70,000 years ago.

The Agricultural Revolution sped it up about 12,000 years ago.

The Scientific Revolution, which got underway only 500 years ago, may well end history and start something completely different.

This book tells the story of how these three revolutions have affected humans and their fellow organisms.

There were humans long before there was history.

Animals much like modern humans first appeared about 2.5 million years ago.

But for countless generations they did not stand out from the myriad other organisms with which they shared their habitats.

On a hike in East Africa two million years ago, you might well have encountered a familiar cast of human characters, anxious mothers cuddling their babies,

and clutches of carefree children playing in the mud, temperamental youths chafing against the dictates of society,

and weary elders who just wanted to be left in peace, chest-thumping machos trying to impress the local beauty,

and wise old matriarchs who had already seen it all.

These archaic humans loved, played, formed close relationships, and competed for status and power,

but so did chimpanzees, baboons, and elephants.

There was nothing special about humans.

Nobody, least of all humans themselves, had any inkling that their descendants would one day walk on the moon,

split the atom, fathom the genetic code, and write history books.

The most important thing to know about prehistoric humans is

that they were insignificant animals with no more impact on their environment than gorillas, fireflies, or jellyfish.

Biologists classify organisms into species.

Animals are said to belong to the same species if they tend to mate with each other, giving birth to fertile offspring.

Horses and donkeys have a recent common ancestor and share many physical traits, but they show little sexual interest in one another.

They will mate if induced to do so, but their offspring, called mules, are sterile.

Mutations in donkey DNA can therefore never cross over to horses or vice versa.

The two types of animals are consequently considered two distinct species, moving along separate evolutionary paths.

By contrast, a bulldog and a spaniel may look very different, but they are members of the same species, sharing the same DNA pool.

They will happily mate, and their puppies will grow up to pair off with other dogs and produce more puppies.

Species that evolved from a common ancestor are bunched together under the heading genus, plural genera.

Lions, tigers, leopards, and jaguars are different species within the genus panthera.

Biologists label organisms with a two-part Latin name, genus followed by species.

Lions, for example, are called panthera leo, the species leo of the genus panthera.

Presumably everyone listening to this book is a Homo sapiens, the species sapiens, wise, of the genus homo, man.

Genera in their turn are grouped into families, such as the cats, lions, cheetahs, housecats, the dogs, wolves,

foxes, jackals, and the elephants, elephants, mammoths, mastodons.

All members of a family trace their lineage back to a founding matriarch or patriarch.

All cats, for example, from the smallest house kitten to the most ferocious lion, share a common feline ancestor who lived about 25 million years ago.

Homo sapiens, too, belongs to a family.

This banal fact used to be one of history's most closely guarded secrets.

Homo sapiens long preferred to view itself as set apart from animals, an orphan bereft of family,

lacking siblings or cousins, and, most importantly, without parents.

But that's just not the case.

Like it or not, we are members of a large and particularly noisy family called the Great Apes.

Our closest living relatives include chimpanzees, gorillas, and orangutans.

The chimpanzees are the closest.

Just six million years ago, a single female ape had two daughters.

One became the ancestor of all chimpanzees.

The other is our own grandmother.

Skeletons in the Closet Homo sapiens has kept hidden an even more disturbing secret.

Not only do we possess an abundance of uncivilized cousins, once upon a time we had quite a few brothers and sisters as well.

We are used to thinking about ourselves as the only humans, because for the last ten thousand years our species has indeed been the only human species around.

Yet the real meaning of the word human is an animal belonging to the genus Homo,

and there used to be many other species of this genus besides Homo sapiens.

Moreover, as we shall see in the last chapter of the book, in the not-so-distant future we might again have to contend with non-sapiens humans.

To clarify this point, I will often use the term sapiens to denote members of the species Homo sapiens,

while reserving the term human to refer to all extant members of the genus Homo.

Humans first evolved in East Africa about 2.5 million years ago from an earlier genus of apes called Australopithecus,

which means southern ape.

About two million years ago, some of these archaic men and women left their homeland to journey through and settle vast areas of North Africa,

Europe, and Asia.

Since survival in the snowy forests of northern Europe required different traits than those needed to stay alive in Indonesia's steaming jungles,

human populations evolved in different directions.

The result was several distinct species, to each of which scientists have assigned a pompous Latin name.

Humans in Europe and Western Asia evolved into Homo neanderthalensis, man from the Neander Valley,

popularly referred to simply as Neanderthals.

Neanderthals, bulkier and more muscular than us sapiens, were well adapted to the cold climate of Ice Age western Eurasia.

The more eastern regions of Asia were populated by Homo erectus, upright man, who survived there for close to two million years,

making it the most durable human species ever.

This record is unlikely to be broken even by our own species.

It is doubtful whether Homo sapiens will still be around a thousand years from now, so two million years is really out of our league.

On the island of Java in Indonesia lived Homo soloensis, man from the Solo Valley, who was suited to life in the tropics.

On another Indonesian island, the small island of Flores, archaic humans underwent a process of dwarfing.

Humans first reached Flores when the sea level was exceptionally low, and the island was easily accessible from the mainland.

When the seas rose again, some people were trapped on the island, which was poor in resources.

Big people, who need a lot of food, died first.

Smaller fellows survived much better.

Over the generations, the people of Flores became dwarves.

This unique species, known by scientists as Homo floresiensis, reached a maximum height of only 3.5 feet,

and weighed no more than 55 pounds.

They were nevertheless able to produce stone tools, and even managed occasionally to hunt down some of the island's elephants,

though, to be fair, the elephants were a dwarf species as well.

In 2010, another lost sibling was rescued from oblivion when scientists excavating the Denisova cave in Siberia discovered a fossilized finger bone.

Genetic analysis proved that the finger belonged to a previously unknown human species, which was named Homo denisova.

Who knows how many lost relatives of ours are waiting to be discovered in other caves, on other islands, and in other climes.

While these humans were evolving in Europe and Asia, evolution in East Africa did not stop.

The cradle of humanity continued to nurture numerous new species, such as Homo rudolfensis, man from Lake Rudolph,

Homo augaster, working man, and eventually our own species, which we've immodestly named Homo sapiens, wise man.

100

The members of some of these species were massive, and others were dwarves.

101

Some were fearsome hunters, and others meek plant-gatherers.

102

Some lived only on a single island, while many roamed over continents.

103

But all of them belonged to the genus Homo.

104

They were all human beings.

105

It's a common fallacy to envision these species as arranged in a straight line of descent,

106

with Augusta begetting Erectus, Erectus begetting the Neanderthals and the Neanderthals evolving into us.

107

This linear model gives the mistaken impression that at any particular moment only one type of human inhabited the earth,

108

and that all earlier species were merely older models of ourselves.

109

The truth is that from about two million years ago until around ten thousand years ago,

110

the world was home at one and the same time to several human species.

111

And why not?

112

Today there are many species of foxes, bears, and pigs.

113

The earth of a hundred millennia ago was walked by at least six different species of man.

114

It's our current exclusivity, not that multispecies past, that is peculiar, and perhaps incriminating.

115

As we will shortly see, we sapiens have good reasons to repress the memory of our siblings.

116

The Cost of Thinking Despite their many differences, all human species share several defining characteristics.

117

Most notably, humans have extraordinarily large brains compared to other animals.

118

Mammals weighing 130 pounds have an average brain size of 12 cubic inches.

119

The earliest men and women, 2.5 million years ago, had brains of about 36 cubic inches.

120

Modern sapiens sport a brain averaging 73 to 85 cubic inches.

121

Neanderthal brains were even bigger.

122

That evolution should select for larger brains may seem to us like, well, a no-brainer.

123

We are so enamored of our high intelligence that we assume that when it comes to cerebral power, more must be better.

124

But if that were the case, the feline family would also have produced cats who could do calculus.

125

and frogs would by now have launched their own space program.

126

Why are giant brains so rare in the animal kingdom?

127

The fact is that a jumbo brain is a jumbo drain on the body.

128

It's not easy to carry around, especially when encased inside a massive skull.

129

It's even harder to fuel.

130

In Homo sapiens, the brain accounts for about 2-3% of total body weight,

131

but it consumes 25% of the body's energy when the body is at rest.

132

By comparison, the brains of other apes require only 8% of rest-time energy.

133

Archaic humans paid for their large brains in two ways.

134

Firstly, they spent more time in search of food.

135

Secondly, their muscles atrophied.

136

Like a government diverting money from defense to education, humans diverted energy from biceps to neurons.

137

It's hardly a foregone conclusion that this is a good strategy for survival on the savannah.

138

A chimpanzee can't win an argument with the Homo sapiens, but the ape can rip the man apart like a rag doll.

139

Today our big brains pay off nicely, because we can produce cars and guns

140

that enable us to move much faster than chimps and shoot them from a safe distance instead of wrestling.

141

But cars and guns are a recent phenomenon.

142

For more than two million years, human neural networks kept growing and growing, but apart from some flint knives and pointed sticks,

143

humans had precious little to show for it.

144

What then drove forward the evolution of the massive human brain during those two million years?

145

Frankly, we don't know.

146

Another singular human trait is that we walk upright on two legs.

147

Standing up, it's easier to scan the savannah for game or enemies, and arms that are unnecessary for locomotion are freed for other purposes,

148

like throwing stones or signaling.

149

The more things these hands could do, the more successful their owners were,

150

so evolutionary pressure brought about an increasing concentration of nerves and finely tuned muscles in the palms and fingers.

151

As a result, humans can perform very intricate tasks with their hands.

152

In particular, they can produce and use sophisticated tools.

153

The first evidence for tool production dates from about 2.5 million years ago,

154

and the manufacture and use of tools are the criteria by which archaeologists recognize ancient humans.

155

Yet walking upright has its downside.

156

The skeleton of our primate ancestors

157

developed for millions of years to support a creature that walked on all fours and had a relatively small head.

158

Adjusting to an upright position was quite a challenge, especially when the scaffolding had to support an extra-large cranium.

159

Humankind paid for its lofty vision and industrious hands, with backaches and stiff necks.

160

Women paid extra.

161

An upright gait required narrower hips, constricting the birth canal, and this just when babies' heads were getting bigger and bigger.

162

Death in childbirth became a major hazard for human females.

163

Women who gave birth earlier, when the infant's brain and head were still relatively small and supple, fared better and lived to have more children.

164

Natural selection consequently favored earlier births, and indeed, compared to other animals,

165

humans are born prematurely, when many of their vital systems are still underdeveloped.

166

A colt can trot shortly after birth.

167

A kitten leaves its mother to forage on its own when it is just a few weeks old.

168

Human babies are helpless, dependent for many years on their elders for sustenance, protection, and education.

169

This fact has contributed greatly both to humankind's extraordinary social abilities and to its unique social problems.

170

Lone mothers could hardly forage enough food for their offspring and themselves with needy children in tow.

171

Raising children required constant help from other family members and neighbors.

172

It takes a tribe to raise a human.

173

Evolution thus favored those capable of forming strong social ties.

174

In addition, since humans are born underdeveloped, they can be educated and socialized to a far greater extent than any other animal.

175

Most mammals emerge from the womb like glazed earthenware emerging from a kiln.

176

Any attempt at remoulding will only scratch or break them.

177

Humans emerge from the womb like molten glass from a furnace.

178

They can be spun, stretched, and shaped with a surprising degree of freedom.

179

This is why today we can educate our children to become Christian or Buddhist, capitalist or socialist, warlike or peace-loving.

180

We assume that a large brain, the use of tools, superior learning abilities, and complex social structures are huge advantages.

181

It seems self-evident that these have made humankind the most powerful animal on earth.

182

But humans enjoyed all of these advantages for a full two million years, during which they remained weak and marginal creatures.

183

Thus, humans who lived a million years ago, despite their big brains and sharp stone tools, dwelt in constant fear of predators,

184

rarely hunted large game, and subsisted mainly by gathering plants, scooping up insects, stalking small animals,

185

and eating the carrion left behind by other, more powerful carnivores.

186

One of the most common uses of early stone tools was to crack open bones in order to get to the marrow.

187

Some researchers believe this was our original niche.

188

Just as woodpeckers specialize in extracting insects from the trunks of trees, the first humans specialized in extracting marrow from bones.

189

Why marrow?

190

Well, suppose you observe a pride of lions take down and devour a giraffe.

191

You wait patiently until they're done.

192

But it's still not your turn, because first the hyenas and jackals, and you don't dare interfere with them, scavenge the leftovers.

193

Only then would you and your band dare approach the carcass, look cautiously left and right, and dig into the edible tissue that remained.

194

This is a key to understanding our history and psychology.

195

Genus Homo's position in the food chain was, until quite recently, solidly in the middle.

196

For millions of years, humans hunted smaller creatures and gathered what they could, all the while being hunted by larger predators.

197

It was only 400,000 years ago that several species of man began to hunt large game on a regular basis, and only in the last 100,000 years,

198

with the rise of Homo sapiens, that man jumped to the top of the food chain.

199

That spectacular leap from the middle to the top had enormous consequences.

200

Other animals at the top of the pyramid, such as lions and sharks, evolved into that position very gradually over millions of years.

201

This enabled the ecosystem to develop checks and balances that prevent lions and sharks from wreaking too much havoc.

202

As lions became deadlier, so gazelles evolved to run faster, hyenas to cooperate better, and rhinoceroses to be more bad-tempered.

203

In contrast, humankind ascended to the top so quickly that the ecosystem was not given time to adjust.

204

Moreover, humans themselves failed to adjust.

205

Most top predators of the planet are majestic creatures.

206

Millions of years of dominion have filled them with self-confidence.

207

Sapiens, by contrast, is more like a banana republic dictator.

208

Having so recently been one of the underdogs of the savannah, we are full of fear and anxieties over our position, which makes us doubly cruel and dangerous.

209

Many historical calamities, from deadly wars to ecological catastrophes, have resulted from this over-hasty jump.

210

A Race of Cooks A significant step on the way to the top was the domestication of fire.

211

Some human species may have made occasional use of fire as early as 800,000 years ago.

212

By about 300,000 years ago, Homo erectus, Neanderthals, and the forefathers of Homo sapiens were using fire on a daily basis.

213

Humans now had a dependable source of light and warmth, and a deadly weapon against prowling lions.

214

Not long afterwards, humans may even have started deliberately to torch their neighborhoods.

215

A carefully managed fire could turn impassable barren thickets into prime grasslands teeming with game.

216

In addition, once the fire died down, Stone Age entrepreneurs could walk through the smoking remains and harvest charcoaled animals, nuts, and tubers.

217

But the best thing fire did was cook.

218

Foods that humans cannot digest in their natural forms, such as wheat, rice, and potatoes, became staples of our diet thanks to cooking.

219

Fire not only changed food's chemistry, it changed its biology as well.

220

Cooking killed germs and parasites that infested food.

221

Humans also had a far easier time chewing and digesting old favorites such as fruits, nuts, insects, and carrion if they were cooked

222

Whereas chimpanzees spend five hours a day chewing raw food a single hour suffices for people eating cooked food

223

The advent of cooking enabled humans to eat more kinds of food to devote less time to eating

224

and to make do with smaller teeth and shorter intestines

225

Some scholars believe there is a direct link between the advent of cooking, the shortening of the human intestinal tract, and the growth of the human brain.

226

Since long intestines and large brains are both massive energy consumers, it's hard to have both.

227

By shortening the intestines and decreasing their energy consumption, cooking inadvertently opened the way to the jumbo brains of Neanderthals and Sapiens.

228

Fire also opened the first significant gulf between man and the other animals.

229

The power of almost all animals depends on their bodies, the strength of their muscles, the size of their teeth, the breadth of their wings.

230

Though they may harness winds and currents, they are unable to control these natural forces and are always constrained by their physical design.

231

Eagles, for example, identify thermal columns rising from the ground, spread their giant wings, and allow the hot air to lift them upwards.

232

Yet eagles cannot control the location of the columns, and their maximum carrying capacity is strictly proportional to their wingspan.

233

When humans domesticated fire, they gained control of an obedient and potentially limitless force.

234

Unlike eagles, humans could choose when and where to ignite a flame, and they were able to exploit fire for any number of tasks.

235

Most importantly, the power of fire was not limited by the form, structure, or strength of the human body.

236

A single woman with a flint or fire stick could burn down an entire forest in a matter of hours.

237

The domestication of fire was a sign of things to come.

238

Our Brothers Keepers Despite the benefits of fire, 150,000 years ago, humans were still marginal creatures.

239

They could now scare away lions, warm themselves during cold nights, and burn down the occasional forest.

240

Yet, counting all species together, there were still no more than perhaps a million humans living between the Indonesian archipelago and the Iberian Peninsula,

241

a mere blip on the ecological radar.

242

Our own species, Homo sapiens, was already present on the world stage, but so far it was just minding its own business in a corner of Africa.

243

We don't know exactly where and when animals

244

that can be classified as Homo sapiens first evolved from some earlier type of humans, but most scientists agree that by 150,000 years ago,

245

East Africa was populated by sapiens that looked just like us.

246

If one of them turned up in a modern morgue, the local pathologist would notice nothing peculiar.

247

Thanks to the blessings of fire, they had smaller teeth and jaws than their ancestors, whereas they had massive brains, equal in size to ours.

248

Scientists also agree that about 70,000 years ago, sapiens from East Africa spread into the Arabian Peninsula,

249

and from there they quickly overran the entire Eurasian landmass.

250

When Homo sapiens landed in Arabia, most of Eurasia was already settled by other humans.

251

What happened to them?

252

There are two conflicting theories.

253

The interbreeding theory tells a story of attraction, sex, and mingling.

254

As the African immigrants spread around the world, they bred with other human populations, and people today are the outcome of this interbreeding.

255

For example, when sapiens reached the Middle Eastern Europe, they encountered the Neanderthals.

256

These humans were more muscular than sapiens, had larger brains, and were better adapted to cold climes.

257

They used tools and fire, were good hunters, and apparently took care of their sick and infirm.

258

Archaeologists have discovered the bones of of Neanderthals who lived for many years with severe physical handicaps, evidence that they were cared for by their relatives.

259

Neanderthals are often depicted in caricatures as the archetypical brutish and stupid cave people,

260

but recent evidence has changed their image.

261

According to the interbreeding theory, when sapiens spread into Neanderthal lands,

262

sapiens bred with Neanderthals until the two populations merged.

263

If this is the case, then today's Eurasians are not pure sapiens, they are a mixture of sapiens and Neanderthals.

264

Similarly, when sapiens reached East Asia, they interbred with the local erectus, so the Chinese and Koreans are a mixture of sapiens and erectus.

265

The opposing view, called the replacement theory, tells a very different story,

266

one of incompatibility, revulsion, and perhaps even genocide.

267

According to this theory, sapiens and other humans had different anatomies, and most likely different mating habits, and even body odors.

268

They would have had little sexual interest in one another.

269

And even if a Neanderthal Romeo and a sapiens Juliet fell in love, they could not produce fertile children,

270

because the genetic gulf separating the two populations was already unbridgeable.

271

The two populations remained completely distinct, and when the Neanderthals died out or were killed off, their genes died with them.

272

According to this view, sapiens replaced all the previous human populations without merging with them.

273

If that is the case,

274

the lineages of all contemporary humans can be traced back exclusively to East Africa, 70,000 years ago.

275

We are all pure sapiens.

276

A lot hinges on this debate.

277

From an evolutionary perspective, 70,000 years is a relatively short interval.

278

If the replacement theory is correct, all living humans have roughly the same genetic baggage,

279

and racial distinctions among them are negligible.

280

But if the interbreeding theory is right, there might well be genetic differences between Africans,

281

Europeans, and Asians that go back hundreds of thousands of years.

282

This is political dynamite, which could provide material for explosive racial theories.

283

In recent decades, the replacement theory has been the common wisdom in the field.

284

It had firmer archaeological backing and was more politically correct.

285

Scientists had no desire to open up the Pandora's box of racism by claiming significant genetic diversity among modern human populations.

286

But that ended in 2010, when the results of a four-year effort to map the Neanderthal genome were published.

287

Geneticists were able to collect enough intact Neanderthal DNA from fossils to make a broad comparison between it

288

and the DNA of contemporary humans.

289

The results stunned the scientific community.

290

It turned out

291

that 1 to 4% of the unique human DNA of modern populations in the Middle East and Europe is Neanderthal DNA.

292

That's not a huge amount, but it's significant.

293

A second shock came several months later, when DNA extracted from the fossilized finger from Denisovir was mapped.

294

The results proved that up to 6% of the unique human DNA of modern Melanesians and Aboriginal Australians is Denisovan DNA.

295

If these results are valid, and it's important to keep in mind that further research is underway and may either reinforce or modify these conclusions,

296

the interbreeders got at least some things right.

297

But that doesn't mean that the replacement theory is completely wrong.

298

Since Neanderthals and Denisovans contributed only a small amount of DNA to our present-day genome,

299

it is possible to speak of a merger between sapiens and other human species.

300

Although differences between them were not large enough to completely prevent fertile intercourse, they were sufficient to make such contacts very rare.

301

How then should we understand the biological relatedness of sapiens, Neanderthals, and Denisovans?

302

Clearly, they were not completely different species, like horses and donkeys.

303

On the other hand, they were not just different populations of the same species, like bulldogs and spaniels.

304

Biological reality is not black and white.

305

There are also important gray areas.

306

Every two species that evolved from a common ancestor, such as horses and donkeys, were at one time just two populations of the same species,

307

like bulldogs and spaniels.

308

There must have been a point when the two populations were already quite different from one another, but still capable on rare occasions of having sex and producing fertile offspring.

309

Then another mutation severed this last connecting thread, and they went their separate evolutionary ways.

310

It seems that about 50,000 years ago, Sapiens, Neanderthals, and Denisovans were at that borderline point.

311

They were almost, but not quite, entirely separate species.

312

As we shall hear in the next chapter, sapiens were already very different from Neanderthals and Denisovans, not only in their genetic code and physical traits,

313

but also in their cognitive and social abilities.

314

Yet it appears it was still just possible, on rare occasions, for a sapiens and a Neanderthal to produce a fertile offspring.

315

So the populations did not merge, but a few lucky Neanderthal genes did hitch a ride on the Sapiens Express.

316

It is unsettling, and perhaps thrilling,

317

to think that we Sapiens could at one time have sex with an animal from a different species and produce children together.

318

But if the Neanderthals, Denisovans, and other human species didn't merge with Sapiens, why did they vanish?

319

One possibility is that Homo sapiens drove them to extinction.

320

Imagine a sapiens band reaching a Balkan valley where Neanderthals had lived for hundreds of thousands of years.

321

The newcomers began to hunt the deer and gather the nuts and berries that were the Neanderthals' traditional staples.

322

Sapiens were more proficient hunters and gatherers, thanks to better technology and superior social skills, so they multiplied and spread.

323

The less resourceful Neanderthals found it increasingly difficult to feed themselves.

324

Their population dwindled and they slowly died out, except perhaps for one or two members who joined their sapiens neighbors.

325

Another possibility is that competition for resources flared up into violence and genocide.

326

Tolerance is not a sapiens trademark.

327

In modern times, a small difference in skin color, dialect, or religion has been enough to prompt one group of sapiens to set about exterminating another group.

328

Would ancient sapiens have been more tolerant towards an entirely different human species?

329

It may well be that when sapiens encountered Neanderthals, the result was the first and most significant ethnic cleansing campaign in history.

330

Whichever way it happened, the Neanderthals and the other human species pose one of history's great what-ifs.

331

Imagine how things might have turned out had the Neanderthals or Denisovans survived alongside Homo sapiens.

332

What kind of cultures, societies, and political structures would have emerged in a world where several different human species coexisted?

333

How, for example, would religious faiths have unfolded?

334

Would the book of Genesis have declared that Neanderthals descend from Adam and Eve?

335

Would Jesus have died for the sins of the Denisovans?

336

and would the Koran have reserved seats in heaven for all righteous humans, whatever their species?

337

Would Neanderthals have been able to serve in the Roman legions, or in the sprawling bureaucracy of imperial China?

338

Would the American Declaration of Independence hold as a self-evident truth that all members of the genus Homo are created equal?

339

Would Karl Marx have urged workers of all species to unite?

340

Over the past 10,000 years, Homo sapiens has grown so accustomed to being the only human species

341

that it's hard for us to conceive of any other possibility.

342

Our lack of brothers and sisters makes it easier to imagine that we are the epitome of creation,

343

and that a chasm separates us from the rest of the animal kingdom.

344

When Charles Darwin indicated that Homo sapiens was just another kind of animal, people were outraged.

345

Even today, many refuse to believe it.

346

Had the Neanderthals survived, would we still imagine ourselves to be a creature apart?

347

Perhaps this is exactly why our ancestors wiped out the Neanderthals.

348

They were too familiar to ignore, but too different to tolerate.

349

Whether sapiens are to blame or not, no sooner had they arrived at a new location than the native population became extinct.

350

The last remains of Homo soloensis are dated to about 50,000 years ago.

351

Homo denisover disappeared shortly thereafter.

352

Neanderthals made their exit roughly 30,000 years ago.

353

The last dwarf-like humans vanished from Flores Island about 12,000 years ago.

354

They left behind some bones, stone tools, a few genes in our DNA, and a lot of unanswered questions.

355

They also left behind us, Homo sapiens, the last human species.

356

What was the sapiens' secret of success?

357

How did we manage to settle so rapidly in so many distant and ecologically different habitats?

358

How did we push all other human species into oblivion?

359

Why couldn't even the strong, brainy, cold-proof Neanderthals survive our onslaught?

360

The debate continues to rage.

361

The most likely answer is the very thing that makes the debate possible.

362

Homo sapiens conquered the world thanks above all to its unique language.

363

for more audiobook samples and videos with your favorite authors.

364

See you next time.

Cos'è la tecnica dello Shadowing?

Shadowing è una tecnica di apprendimento delle lingue supportata da studi scientifici, originariamente sviluppata per la formazione dei traduttori professionisti e resa popolare dal poliglotta Dr. Alexander Arguelles. Il metodo è semplice ma potente: ascolti un audio in inglese di madrelingua e lo ripeti immediatamente ad alta voce — come un'ombra che segue il parlante con un ritardo di solo 1–2 secondi. A differenza dell'ascolto passivo o degli esercizi di grammatica, lo shadowing costringe il tuo cervello e i muscoli della bocca a elaborare e riprodurre simultaneamente i modelli di discorso reale. La ricerca dimostra che migliora significativamente la precisione della pronuncia, l'intonazione, il ritmo, il discorso connesso, la comprensione dell'ascolto e la fluidità del parlato — rendendolo uno dei metodi più efficaci per la preparazione alla prova di speaking dell'IELTS e per la comunicazione reale in inglese.

Pratica di Shadowing: Sapiens by Yuval Noah Harari | Read by Derek Perkins | Penguin Audiobooks - Impara a parlare inglese con i video

Perché esercitarti a parlare con questo video?

Grammatica e espressioni nel contesto

Trappole di pronuncia comuni

Cos'è la tecnica dello Shadowing?