Υ$

Critiquing Harari’s Latest: A Developmental Perspective on Our Future

Leave a comment

Yuval Noah Harari’s Sapiens captivated millions, and his 10th-anniversary edition, featuring The End of Homo Sapiens and new Afternotes, prompts critical reflection. Having been invited by a colleague to weigh in on these latest insights, this analysis expands upon my initial feedback, contending that Harari’s vision for humanity’s future, while provocative, often overlooks crucial dimensions of human psychological development.

Harari’s assertion that humanity has reached its biological limits, necessitating a new species, is sharply challenged by developmental psychology. Experts like Clare W. Graves, whose research underpins much of my own work, illustrate that Homo Sapiens has remained biologically consistent for 200,000-300,000 years. During this vast period, Graves identifies eight stages of psychological evolution, suggesting that while our biological form endures, our psychological potential remains boundless. Far from ending, humanity, psychologically speaking, is merely emerging from its infancy, continuously activating latent brain capacity as we ascend to higher developmental stages.

Regarding natural selection versus intelligent design, Harari posits Darwinian evolution as the zenith of humanity’s journey. Yet, he appears to bypass compelling research from evolutionary biologists such as Bruce Lipton and David Sloan Wilson, who present cooperation, not competition, as the primary driver of evolution. Harari argues that our future lies in scientific intelligent design—not divinely ordained, but engineered through biological, cyborg, and inorganic means.

However, his examples for biological/genetic advancement often draw from simpler organisms, seemingly neglecting the complex interplay of environment and mind when applied to humans. Harari attributes our scientific stagnation to species limitations, yet this perspective might instead reflect the confines of a specific developmental stage of the mind—what I identify as stage 5, steeped in Newtonian science. The advanced scientific paradigms he envisions actually correspond to humanity’s stage 7 development, not a new species entirely.

Similarly, bionic intelligence, while beneficial as a supplement (e.g., prosthetics, hearing aids), receives a narrower interpretation. Harari’s characterization of computers and cellphones as bionic extensions overlooks their profound psychosocial impact, contributing to isolation, tribalization, and institutional fragmentation. Moreover, the concept of a “bionic collective brain” isn’t novel; philosophers like de Chardin (noosphere) and scientists like Howard Bloom (global brain) have long explored collective intelligence, often accessible through meditation, altered states, or expanded consciousness. These deeper forms of intelligence, within my developmental model, belong to stage 8, again pointing to an evolution of *Homo Sapiens*, not its replacement.

His third category, inorganic intelligence, is a focal point of my own critique, detailed in Second Sapiens. The notion of continuously learning machines, or AI, inherently carries significant risks. A minor data misinterpretation, seemingly innocuous in an AI’s first iteration, could amplify exponentially over thousands of cycles, leading to dangerous deviations without crucial human oversight and ethical checks. Fundamentally, AI is restricted to mining existing information. When tackling existential threats like climate change, where much of the underlying science is nascent, human-led research and hypothesis formulation remain indispensable. AI cannot “mine the future” or accurately predict it when the necessary foundational science for its programming and training is still being established.

While I concur with Harari’s observations on technological singularity and its potential to surpass current human states, I diverge on the implications. Such advancements, from a developmental standpoint, need not signify the end of our species but rather an accelerant to higher stages of psychosocial existence. The caveat, however, is that this technologically-driven evolution, moving at speeds far outstripping collective human and cultural learning, risks creating profoundly imbalanced higher states, disrupting the 200,000-year patterns of human emergence.

Harari’s Afterword on Frankenstein’s Prophecy reveals similar blind spots, portraying the scientific quest as an unstoppable force, seemingly absolved of responsibility for its discoveries. This stance, which assumes science is inherently benign, overlooks the potential for unchecked scientific pursuits—often fueled by modern technology—to inflict immense damage. My own work traces the ecological crisis to this very scientific mindset, one that has consistently ignored the unforeseen consequences lying beyond its immediate conscious awareness.

In The Animal that Became God, Harari again demonstrates a lack of awareness regarding developmental stages. He frames “Homo Sapiens as God” as the pinnacle of our journey, a representation of the 5th stage of mental development—driven by objective analysis and scientific discovery, placing humanity atop the evolutionary ladder. His justification for needing a new species to “save us” stems from this constrained view. Physics, however, progresses beyond Newtonian models (stage 5) to relativity and quantum theory (stage 6), then to systems thinking and complex adaptive systems (stage 7), culminating in complex adaptive systems of life (stage 8). These are all evolutions *within* Homo Sapiens, propelled by higher purpose and consciousness, transcending the reductive “Newtonian god” that Harari implicitly presents as humanity’s ultimate state.

Harari’s concluding remarks in the tenth edition, acknowledging global challenges since Sapiens’ 2014 publication, parallel the opening of my own book, Second Sapiens. Both works identify a systemic failure among leaders to address existential planetary issues. However, where Harari’s Homo Deus (2017) envisions a transition to a data-centric society, placing ultimate power in AI—a manifestation of the 5th stage’s scientific/algorithmic mind—I see information run amok. Driven by profit, this path risks derailing human progress as much as it promises advancement.

Ultimately, Harari’s historical and species contextualization often lacks an informed perspective on the psychosocial and spiritual dimensions of human existence. He tends to conflate organized religion with our inherent spiritual nature, thereby dismissing a foundational aspect of what it means to be human. He exemplifies a “human exceptionalism” paradigm that positions stage 5 Sapiens as the evolutionary apex, precluding the recognition of higher psycho-socio-spiritual expressions. His scientific arguments, advocating for a data-centric god over human-centric life, lack the nuanced understanding derived from extensive studies of the human mind and ongoing brain research.

Harari appears to relegate consciousness and evolutionary thought to laboratory study or machine replication. While he excels as a synthesizer of history, philosophy, religion, and science, his approach to these fields, as integral philosopher Ken Wilber notes, reflects the “narrow sciences” of fifth-stage human development. The world now demands “sciences of higher order,” transcending the material and reductive frameworks of the past five centuries. My hope is that Harari, with sufficient faith in our species, will explore these higher stages of Sapiens’ development in his future writings.

Like!
1

Beyond the Holocene Limits of Spiral Dynamics & Integral Theory;

Leave a comment

The Clarion Call for Second Sapiens Consciousness.

First published on Substack on June 16, 2025.

As someone who has been deeply immersed in the realms of Spiral Dynamics integral, I’ve dedicated a significant portion of my intellectual life to understanding the complexities of human consciousness and cultural evolution. I’ve seen how this model can illuminate the diverse values and perspectives that shape our world, providing valuable insights into everything from organizational dynamics to societal trends. However, recent experiences and deeper reflection have led me to a critical realization: as powerful as both, Spiral Dynamics and Integral Theory are, they currently lack the necessary frameworks to adequately address the scale and urgency of planetary collapse. We need to evolve; to move beyond the limits of our current understanding and embrace a new form of human intelligence I call Second Sapiens consciousness. This is the new developmental roadmap that will help us navigate the Anthropocene. It involves the transcendence of what planetary system scientists call the Human Exceptionalism Paradigm and the embrace of a New Ecological Paradigm that is far more inclusive in its wholeness.

For those less familiar, Spiral Dynamics, building on Clare W. Graves’s work, outlines a series of stages of development that individuals and societies progress through, each building upon the previous one. Integral Theory, spearheaded by Ken Wilber, offers a comprehensive framework that seeks to integrate different perspectives, including science, philosophy, art, and spirituality. Both models emphasize the importance of understanding and integrating different levels of consciousness for personal and collective growth.

But here’s the core issue: both Spiral Dynamics and Integral Theory, in their prevailing interpretations, were largely developed during a period of relative environmental stability – the Holocene. While they acknowledge the importance of ecological considerations, they tend to treat them as just one factor among many, rather than the defining context for all other aspects of human existence. We’ve been applying frameworks built for a relatively stable world to a world that is rapidly destabilizing. It’s like trying to use a map of a calm lake to navigate a turbulent ocean.

Think about it. Spiral Dynamics and Integral Theory identify stages of development, each with its own strengths and limitations. The “Green” stage, for example, values equality, community, and ecological awareness. But even a well-developed Green perspective can fall short when confronted with the sheer scale and complexity of planetary collapse. Green values can be undermined by a lack of systems thinking, a tendency to focus on local solutions without addressing the systemic drivers of environmental destruction. More importantly, Green is prone to the clever manipulation of the Orange system that has mastered the skill of giving it a bone (greenwashing is a good example), to keep it from realizing its full potential.

Similarly, Integral Theory emphasizes the importance of “waking up,” “growing up,” “cleaning up,” and “showing up” – attending to our inner lives, developing our cognitive capacities, healing our psychological wounds, and engaging in meaningful action in the world. But what if the very ground beneath our feet is shifting? What if the “world” we’re showing up to is on the verge of collapse? Integral Theory, in its current form, doesn’t adequately address the existential threat of planetary breakdown. Having just heard Wilber emphasize the importance of the 4 “ups” at the Integral European Conference, I’d like to add another up: “looking up”. Borrowing from the 2021 political satire movie Don’t Look Up, because doing so will make us see the deep shit we’re in. This is how Graves captured the deficiencies inherent in our exclusive focus on the inner quadrants to the exclusion of our existential reality. He describes it as the ceiling caving in on our heads as we sit in our meditative states contemplating our navel. The “ceiling caving in” are the planetary issues he identified as early as 1974.

This isn’t to say that these two models are irrelevant. Far from it. They provide essential tools for understanding the diverse values and perspectives that shape our responses to the environmental crisis. They can help us identify the limitations of different approaches, from the materialistic worldview of Orange to the traditionalism of Blue and the destructive behavior of Red. But we need to go further. We need to evolve beyond the limits of our current understanding and embrace a new level of consciousness – what I’m calling Second Sapiens consciousness.

Second Sapiens consciousness, as I envision it, is characterized by several key features:

  1. Planetary Awareness: First and foremost, it’s a deep and visceral understanding of the interconnectedness of all life on Earth and the fragility of the Earth’s systems. It’s not just an intellectual understanding, but a gut-level awareness that our actions have profound consequences for the entire planet. It’s what Joanna Macy calls “ecological self” – a sense of identity that extends beyond our individual selves to encompass the entire Earth community.
  2. Systems Thinking: Of life that is. Second Sapiens consciousness requires a capacity for complex systems thinking. We need to move beyond linear cause-and-effect thinking and embrace a more holistic understanding of how different systems interact and influence each other in a dance that seeks ecological and planetary balance. We need to be able to see the feedback loops, the tipping points, and the emergent properties that characterize what I call the Gaian sciences defined by the totality of the complex adaptive systems of life.
  3. Natural Intelligence: It’s about learning how to listen to and learn from the wisdom of nature. This involves recognizing the inherent value of all life forms, not just those that are useful to humans. It also involves embracing indigenous knowledge and traditional ecological practices that have sustained communities for centuries.
  4. Existential Courage: It’s about having the courage to face the enormity of the challenges we face without succumbing to despair or denial. It’s about acknowledging the possibility of collapse, while also holding onto the hope that we can still create a more sustainable future. It also means finding the resilience to keep acting in the face of uncertainty and setbacks.
  5. Ethical Responsibility: Second Sapiens consciousness implies a deep sense of ethical responsibility to future generations and to all life on Earth. It’s about recognizing that we are not the owners of the planet, but rather its custodians. We have a moral obligation to leave the Earth in a better condition than we found it.
  6. Transcending Anthropocentrism: Ultimately, Second Sapiens consciousness requires a transcendence of anthropocentrism – the belief that humans are the center of the universe and that all other life forms exist solely for our benefit. It’s about recognizing that we are just one species among millions, and that our fate is inextricably linked to the fate of all other species.

So, how do we cultivate Second Sapiens consciousness within the frameworks of Spiral Dynamics and Integral Theory? I believe it requires a deliberate effort to expand the scope and deepen the understanding of these two models. Beyond Spiral Dynamicsintegral, lies Spiral Dynamics Gaian, and here are some specific steps that will get us there:

  1. Integrating Planetary Boundaries: We need to explicitly integrate the concept of planetary boundaries into Spiral Dynamics and Integral Theory. This means recognizing that crossing these boundaries poses an existential threat to human civilization and that all human development models, not just these two, must be nested in this larger holonic structure without which life itself is not possible.
  2. Nesting the Green Stage in Gaian intelligence: The Green stage needs to be expanded to incorporate a more sophisticated understanding of ecological systems and the systemic drivers of environmental destruction. We need to move beyond the labeling of the stage as the “mean green meme” that equates to deconstructionism and surface reactions and recognize that without empowering its healthy more complex manifestation, our movement to Second Sapiens consciousness will be greatly impaired.
  3. Re-evaluating the Yellow Stage: This stage, which emphasizes systems thinking and holistic integration, holds the key for fostering Second Sapiens consciousness. However, we need to ensure that a new Yellow perspective is grounded in a deep understanding of the much higher holonic structure of planetary realities and ethical responsibilities.
  4. Integrating Indigenous Wisdom: Indigenous knowledge and traditional ecological practices offer invaluable insights into sustainable living and ecological harmony. This is the re-embrace of the simplicity that existed in the Purple stage while using best practices and lessons learned in our journey from the Red to Green stages of our First Sapiens existence. It is what I call the brain-heart-soul syndicate that defines the models on the other side of the Holocene.
  5. Embracing the Dark Side: Spiral Dynamics and Integral Theory tend to focus on positive development and integration. We are swimming in positive psychology that ignores everything negative. Second Sapiens must acknowledge the shadow side of human consciousness and the destructive tendencies that have led us to the brink of planetary collapse. This involves facing our collective traumas and working to heal the wounds that have driven us to exploit and dominate the natural world.
  6. Cultivating Existential Resilience: As we confront the challenges of the Anthropocene, we need to cultivate existential resilience – the capacity to face the possibility of collapse without losing hope or succumbing to despair. This involves developing practices that foster inner strength, connection to community, and a sense of meaning and purpose in the face of uncertainty. The approach is that of humility that acknowledges our misuse of the world and its precious resources as we embarked on a self-aggrandizing, insatiable First Sapiens journey that placed at the mercy of Mother Nature that has become far less merciful towards our species.

It won’t be easy to evolve to Second Sapiens consciousness, because change can hurt. It requires a willingness to challenge our deeply held beliefs, to confront uncomfortable truths, and to embrace new ways of thinking and acting. But it’s not an option; it’s a necessity. If we are to have any hope of creating a sustainable future for ourselves and future generations, we must move beyond the limits of our current models and embrace a new level of consciousness – a consciousness that recognizes our interconnectedness with all life on Earth and our responsibility to protect the planet that sustains us. I am dedicating my work now, and in the future, to doing just that. Welcome to Spiral Dynamics Gaian and Second Sapiens consciousness.

Like!
5

Ex Machina ad Naturam; 

Leave a comment

First Sapiens and the Anthropocene 

The First Sapiens is us. The ones whose history came to a quite end in November 2022. This is according to anthropologists and historian Yuval Noah Harari. The basis for his argument was that history, all of history as we know it has become quantifiable and digitizable, storable somewhere in the vast ecosystem of AI clouds, never to be challenged for its voluminous content and its meticulous accuracy. So, if he is right and history has ended, what are we left with? The now? Yes. The future? Yes! Can AI mine that future? No. Can it be trained to do so with its learning algorithms and billions of iterations? NO! Is the future different than the past? Yes. Exponentially so.  

Let me explain.   

We are heading into an era of human existence where a new form of intelligence will be needed, one that is far higher than anything homo sapiens has known. It’s the only form of intelligence that will save us and what remains of life on the planet. Unlike the minds that drove the First sapiens to built better weapons, better shelter and better living conditions, the new intelligence examines the ethos of these historic endeavors to determine if and how they have diminished our planet’s resilience and her ability to ensure the continuity of life. This is Gaian science, an entirely different level of scientific exploration which has remained in a dormant state that still hasn’t been defined, vetted, or validated. It is exponential in nature and it defies all existing scientific methods. It is a new form of planetary science that must examine the degree to which the First sapiens and his insatiable appetite for the modern life has damaged our planet’s ecology. It is the study of ecological collapse at the planetary level that moves at exponential speed and no algorithm or AI model created by the minds of First sapiens has the capacity to understand.       

Technology solutionists today believe that the refinement of their innovations will help us revolutionize our future. That is the view of the optimistic, brilliant, yet limited mind of the First sapiens. Second Sapiens, those who have a planetary-systems view of the future remain skeptical about how much digital technologies in their current form and content can contribute to stabilizing a world defined by mega-scale systems and exponential change. Nothing explains the binary nature of First sapiens better than the digital universe it has created. Information, which is the bloodline of the digital age in its elemental form, is binary. Computers store and process data using bits and bytes that can only be in two states: 0 or 1. The binary system has no innate intelligence; it merely allows for efficient manipulation and transmission of information that makes all digital devices from smartphones to supercomputers operate the way they do. Algorithms that run the world—from the largest supply chain spanning the globe to the world’s biggest financial trading platforms handling billions of dollars’ worth of transactions a day—are all encoded using binary sequences.

The digital age that has disrupted so much of our lives, for better or for worse, is fundamentally built on binary information storage and processing. It is the different combinatorials and iterations, the creative sequential and algorithmic programming, that give us the rich complexity of the world and its ever-expanding technology ecosystem as we know and experience it today. But what happens when the most advanced form of AI perceives patterns or objects that are nonexistent and altogether inaccurate? What happens when the computer models designed to help navigate the Anthropocene must do so with insufficient data from the higher-complexity science that is proprietary to that stage of development? Why do computer models still fail accurately to predict the annual rate of the rise of global temperature and of ecological collapse and how quickly polar ice is melting?

Based on past experience, there is little doubt that we can work out the bugs in the current systems of knowledge. We will find AI-based cures for all types of diseases by expediting the processing of genomic data and creating tailored treatment plans unique to each individual. But how do we know what the bugs are in a system in which its data is of a completely different order and remains emergent, changing unpredictably in real time? It took scientists over twenty years to map out the human genome, which makes it possible for AI to mine that data in a fraction of the time it took researchers to uncover it. What Earth-systems knowledge base can programmers use to establish reliable patterns that AI can mine so we can predict our future within reason? Unlike the current ways AI gathers data, will programmers be able to train their models to gather data from the future—data that doesn’t yet exist? AI could not create those tailored treatments derived from the genomic knowledge base if it weren’t for the extraordinary worldwide commitment to fund and support the Human Genome Project for over two decades. Similarly, AI’s role in helping us resolve problems in the Anthropocene epoch must be proceeded by investments and long-term commitments intended to quantify the nature of Anthropogenic ­– Gaian sciences. 

Much of this new science is yet to be uncovered, and, due to its complex and highly interdisciplinary and collaborative nature, patterns of its emergence remain greatly unpredictable. This becomes a challenge to computer programmers attempting to train their data models to follow identifiable patterns when the science that creates patterns has remained beyond quantification and far beyond the linear and binary grasp of First-sapiens intelligence. Due to what remains unknown in the Anthropocene, would computers hallucinate answers the way ChatGPT and other AI generative models do today, and would such hallucinations create more chaos and misinformation that would derail the upward progress we’ve made in moving the needle on the Gain sciences learning curve? If we acknowledge this as our new reality, then the question for technology solutionists becomes, How can we build predictive training models in the form of machine learning that help address Anthropocene issues from a knowledge base that has been greatly shaped, defined, and constrained by the deficient motivations of the First sapiens?  

I found two possible answers to that question in the work of two individuals who are not technology solutionists but think in systems. The first was from Harari who was quick to qualify what he meant by the end of human history based on his own perception of the evolutionary stages of Homo sapiens. In his 2017 book, Homo Deus: A Brief History of Tomorrow, Harari argues that we have sidelined deo-centrism, the worship of an outer god, in favor of homo-centrism, the worship of ourselves, and that the next stage of evolution would sideline homo-centrism in favor of data-centrism. In interviews and lectures he has given since the release of the different large language models, Harari defends his views on the end of human history by claiming that the operating system of human culture is language. It is from language that we have created human narratives such as myth, law, art, and science, and these are the things that build civilizations. By gaining mastery of language, Harari believes that AI has acquired the master code to human civilization. In some sense, this development could represent what has long been feared and debated: a concept known as the technological singularity in which machine intelligence surpasses human intelligence and forever changes the trajectory of our future. 

Unlike past narratives depicted in science-fiction movies, large language models are not violent machines that subjugate human civilization through blood and gore. Rather, they do it through soft skills that affect the mind. They do it by telling alternative stories generated by their algorithms that first and foremost seek to maximize profits and valuations for the companies that create them. The end of human history based on this data-centric narrative is far more dystopian than science fiction can imagine. It will be brought about by us, disintegrating from within. Generative AI, like its younger kin, social media, will continue to exploit our weaknesses, our biases, and our addictions. It will continue to assemble language that vastly expands our social and political polarization, undermines our mental health, and unravels our democracies. Without wise regulatory structures that see through the mirage of technology and learn how to transcend and use it wisely, human history could end the way Harari defines it. 

In my work in human and social development, a humanity that is data-centric, in a free-market economy that monetizes data, is nothing more than an extension of free market ethos operating without government supervision. Before large language models, language spoke to different people and different cultures at all stages of development. We fought against the dark forces of the unhealthy side of these stages to unshackle ourselves and move up to higher levels of psychological freedom. This is the nature of the evolutionary process that enables our spirit, our never-ending quest to continue. It does not signify the end of human history; it is the transcendence of First sapiens, more specifically, stage five in First sapiens development that seeks to manipulate the world its reductive sciences and algorithmic modeling.  

In order for us to tap into Second sapiens intelligence, there needs to be a global ecology of wise governance that is in tune with our environmental and digital challenges, and not beholden to the values of the industrial age and neoliberal economics. The ideal candidates for this crucial transition will be those who see the simplicity beyond the algorithmic complexity. Tristan Harris and Aza Raskin, the cofounders of the Center for Humane Technologies, along with the 1,100 technologists who in March 2023 asked our government to place a moratorium on AI development, will be ideal candidates that fill the technology regulation part of that form of governance. Becoming part of that complex adaptive system can transform the end of human history into informational units that serve the Anthropocene. 

Harari’s narrative on the evolutionary sequence of Homo sapiens led me to search the unpublished archives of Clare Graves, the academic behind the model I use in my work. I wanted to explore his views on technology and the role it plays in our psychosocial, evolutionary process. That is where I found the second answer to my question of how we can build predictive training models in the form of machine learning from a knowledge base constrained by the deficiencies of the First sapiens. Unlike Harari, Graves was very cautious in predicting the precise details of our future, especially when that future entails our ascendence into GaianSecond-sapiens intelligence known for its exponentially higher degrees of neurological and psychological activation. Here is the place where we  must examine the failures inherent in the reductive First sapiens sciences that have contributed to ecological collapse.

  

Graves believed that while human development in stage seven in the table above, will represent an exponential growth in intelligence, technology will only be a quantitative extension of the lower stages of development. He made that prediction in the late 1970s.  In examining how his hypothesis has withstood the test of time, one might think that advancements in artificial intelligence and machine learning that were beyond Graves’s grasp at the time would have rendered his thinking obsolete, but that may not be the case. As complex as the digital world is today, with all its complicated iterations and the various creative programming that gives it form, the best it can do is mine knowledge of our human experience that is part of our present and our past. Even with its predictive powers, it cannot give us a reliable, nonlinear representation of the future, especially if that future represents a partial reversal of the past and is defined by an exponentially higher level of psychosocial intelligence that seeks to preserve what remains of planetary life. 

Generative AI and other forms of machine learning will continue to expand our intellectual rigor and raise our cognitive intelligence. They will even help us articulate some Second-sapiens concepts, but these improvements are quantitative and will come at a high cost; that is, the more machine learning we rely on, the more we will lose our uniquely human qualities. Virtues such as emotional and spiritual intelligence become diluted in an ecosystem designed for a data-centric society. We are becoming less and less equipped to handle uniquely human problems at a time when we most need to do so. Ultimately, when the time comes to transcend the ideology of data-centrism, we will realize that the idea of technological singularity in which machine intelligence surpasses human intelligence is a fallacy and that AI will reveal to us what Homo sapiens is by revealing the things it cannot do. 

The more our Anthropogenic reality comes into focus, the more it will become necessary for us to reverse the corrosive aspects of our present and past and create new ways of being and thinking. The intelligence that defines those virtues is just beginning to emerge and will eventually serve as the new reservoir of knowledge in which machine intelligence is recognized for what it is—a utility subordinate to the human wisdom that helps all life forms on the planet survive and thrive.   

Like!
1