A few years ago it occurred to me that the only thing really holding society together is habit and that money is just a concept. It scared me to think that society was so fragile. The author of Sapiens describes this much better than I. And, he made me feel better since, although learned, social structures are relatively resilient. In fact, he describes why some forms are more resilient than others.This book is full of issues that we should all be thinking about. It is more of a history of social structures than a history book in the classical sense. It describes how the structures of human societies have changed, from when we were just another animal, through hunter gatherers, through agriculture, through science and industry, and finally our future (or replacement) based on tinkering with our own genetic code.Although Sapiens is well thought-out and well presented, I don't agree with everything the author says. But, I think that is ok. The main idea is to describe the changes in sociology of humans, and present various theories about why things happened as they did. Most of my disagreement seem like semantics, but when I was reading the book I thought the distinctions were important.Here are a couple examples of my disagreements:The author uses the word "fictions" to describe things that are not concrete: things that can be perceived in people's minds but not in the physical world. Examples in the book are corporations and money. These specific things would not exist if people did not think of them in their minds. And, it is true for most of the sociological concepts presented in the book. But, I think the author is too general. I would prefer the term "abstract" rather than "fiction." Fiction implies unreal. I believe that some abstract things are real. The classical example is Plato's view that perfect abstract concepts are actually more real than the concrete representation. Such as, a drawing of a circle on a piece of paper is merely an imperfect attempt to represent the concept of a perfect abstract circle. But, Plato would claim that the abstract concept of a perfect circle would still exist even if no one was around to think about it. And, I basically agree with him. And, I think there are many other abstract concepts like that. Humans have many abstract concepts, some were created by people, some were discovered by people. Only the former are "fictions."Another disagreement is the notion of what is the "true" part of a religion. His definition of the true part of a religion is its moral code and a social structure. I understand why he does this, so he can use humanism and liberalism (and others) in the same way as Christianity and Buddhism (and others). And, from the point of view of this specific book, this makes sense, since Sapiens is about describing how social structures have changed. But, to me that is not true religion. At best moral codes and social structures are the product of the true religion, at worst they are a distraction from the true religion. To me, the true part of a religion is the part that is about getting to know God.So, read this book. Keep an open mind. Stop once in while to think about what is written. Then the main questions at the end is "Where do we go from here? And, why?" That is something we should be asking even if we never read this book.