Yuval Noah Harari’s Nexus: A Brief History of Information Networks from the Stone Age to AI bills itself as a sweeping chronicle of humanity’s ascent through the power of information. It seeks to answer grand questions: How have humans evolved from hunter-gatherers to builders of global empires? How have we leveraged stories, systems, and technologies to shape our societies? And why, despite our vast knowledge, do we still stumble into crises that threaten our survival? Lets take a look at Nexus Book Review.
It’s an ambitious undertaking. Harari is at his best when painting history with bold, provocative strokes. His insights into the role of myths, bureaucracy, and technology as the scaffolding of human progress are undeniably valuable. However, the book’s overreach, coupled with glaring omissions and an overly deterministic view of artificial intelligence (AI), leaves it feeling less like an authoritative history and more like a narrow and alarmist account that leans too hard on its own agenda.
The Triumphs of Harari’s Framework
First, credit where it is due. Harari’s exploration of myths as the glue of human cooperation is insightful and well-articulated. He argues that shared stories—about gods, nations, or ideologies—are the bedrock of human networks. Without these collective fictions, vast societies could not function. His ability to draw parallels between ancient religious myths and modern political ideologies offers an engaging lens through which to view the forces shaping history.
Harari also astutely highlights the paradox of technology: tools like the printing press and social media amplify human capabilities but simultaneously magnify our flaws, spreading misinformation as easily as truth. His critique of delusional networks—such as the Nazi propaganda machine or modern conspiracy theories—is another strong point. Such systems, Harari explains, can achieve tremendous power but often crumble under the weight of their own lies.
Yet these moments of clarity are overshadowed by fundamental flaws in the book’s narrative and execution. Nexus aspires to be a history of information, but it is plagued by significant omissions, a narrow Eurocentric focus, and a tendency to present speculative fears about AI as inevitable truths.
A History That Forgets History
The most glaring oversight in Nexus is its complete neglect of the Indian subcontinent, a region that pioneered sophisticated information systems when Europe was still fumbling in the dark. While Harari extols the role of myths and bureaucracy in human progress, he inexplicably overlooks India’s contributions, where oral traditions and linguistic brilliance shaped one of the most enduring civilizations.
Take the Vedic oral tradition, for example. Long before writing became commonplace, Indian scholars developed mnemonic techniques to preserve and transmit vast bodies of knowledge, such as the Vedas, with astonishing precision. Panini’s Ashtadhyayi, a 5th-century BCE treatise on Sanskrit grammar, remains a marvel of linguistic engineering that influenced not only Indian culture but also the development of computational linguistics in the modern era.
Similarly, institutions like Nalanda and Takshashila were hubs of intellectual exchange, where knowledge flowed freely across Asia. These centers embodied a system of information that was far ahead of their time, blending oral, written, and visual forms of learning. Harari’s silence on these contributions is deafening and indicative of a broader Eurocentric bias. To frame the story of human information networks without India is like telling the story of modern physics without Einstein—it’s incomplete at best, misleading at worst.
(Also read: 20 Awesome Books Under 200 pages )
The AI Apocalypse: A Narrow, Alarmist Lens
In its second part, Nexus shifts its gaze to the modern age, where AI looms large as the harbinger of both progress and peril. Harari’s account here feels less like a balanced analysis and more like a manifesto of fear. He argues that AI is the first technology capable of making decisions and generating ideas independently of human control, framing it as an agent that could overthrow our systems or enslave humanity.
While these concerns are not without merit, Harari’s vision of AI is alarmingly deterministic. He presents a future where humans are powerless to influence the course of technology, as though it exists in a vacuum. This view is not only reductive but also misleading. AI is a tool shaped by the societies that create it. Its development, deployment, and impact are contingent on human choices—on regulations, ethical frameworks, and the economic systems that govern its use.
Moreover, Harari’s dire predictions overlook the resilience and adaptability that have defined humanity’s relationship with technology throughout history. The printing press disrupted religious hierarchies, but it also democratized knowledge. Social media has amplified polarization, but it has also empowered grassroots movements and marginalized voices. Harari’s failure to engage with these nuances makes his portrayal of AI feel one-dimensional.
Self-Correction: An Overidealized Mechanism
Harari lauds self-correcting mechanisms, such as peer-reviewed science and democratic feedback loops, as the cornerstone of successful networks. He contrasts these with rigid systems, like the Catholic Church, which he argues failed to adapt because of weak self-correction. Yet this argument is both historically and practically flawed.
For one, institutions like the Catholic Church have thrived for centuries precisely because of their rigidity. Their ability to control narratives, rather than correct them, allowed them to maintain stability and influence. Similarly, autocratic systems—such as the Ottoman Empire or Imperial China—survived for centuries without the kind of feedback loops Harari idealizes. History suggests that self-correction is neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition for resilience.
Even within systems that champion self-correction, such as science, the process is far from perfect. The replication crisis in psychology, the influence of corporate funding on research, and systemic biases in peer review all illustrate that self-correcting mechanisms are often compromised. Harari’s romanticized view of these systems ignores their flaws and oversimplifies the dynamics of institutional success.
The Myth of Rational Networks
Another weakness in Nexus is its implicit assumption that information networks ought to prioritize truth and rationality. Harari critiques myths as inherently delusional, failing to appreciate their role in inspiring progress and fostering unity. The myth of human rights, for instance, is not empirically “true” in the scientific sense, but it has driven profound social change. By focusing on myths’ flaws, Harari misses their transformative potential.
This bias extends to his treatment of conspiracy theories and misinformation, which he views as symptoms of failing networks. While these phenomena are undeniably harmful, they are also evidence of humanity’s creativity and adaptability. The same networks that propagate lies also allow for self-expression and collective action. Harari’s dismissal of this complexity reflects a broader tendency to favor neat narratives over messy realities.
A Narrow View of the Future
In the end, Nexus is less a history of information than a reflection of Harari’s anxieties about the present. His alarmist take on AI and his deterministic view of technological progress reveal a constricted perspective that underestimates humanity’s capacity for resilience and reinvention. The book’s omissions—most notably its Eurocentric focus and neglect of the Indian subcontinent—further diminish its credibility as a global narrative.
While Harari’s warnings about AI may turn out to be prescient, they are presented with a fatalism that leaves little room for alternative futures. Nexus feels like an old man’s scared account of a world he no longer recognizes. It is engaging and educational, but its insights are too often overshadowed by its biases and flaws. For a book about the power of information, Nexus could have benefited from a broader and more balanced view of the world it seeks to explain.