Here is Sapolsky’s deal: He calls the book Determined, suckering us in to believing he is selling LaPlace’s Demon version (everything determined irrevocably from the beginning, which is true), but what Sapolsky really means is the absence of freedom of choice, contending that none of our choices are free, but are rather determined by things which happened before. Consequential Determinism. One second before, one hour before, years, decades, centuries. Neuronal activation, upbringing, uterine environment, genes, evolution all of which are choice-less and hence remove the “freedom” from free choice. Sapolsky’s main concern is accountability. None of us is admirable for accomplishments nor are any of us condemnable for misbehavior. Pride and guilt are meritless states of mind. No one can point to the neuron which first, and without preceding factors, started us toward pulling the trigger or pulling the all-nighter which led to our physics PhD. He is a great writer and makes a compelling argument, but why bother when LaPlace got it in one? We need only accept this concept - Identical situations evolve identically. The early universe proceeded quark by quark to the present, everything determined by the thing before. Predictability is not an important requirement of determinism. The lack of predictability (Quantum Mechanics, for instance) has nothing to do with determinism and lots to do with our ignorance. Throwing a die will come up the same every time if the circumstances of each throw are identical. The argument that exactly duplicating the starting circumstances cannot be done has nothing to do with determinism and everything to do with our inability to describe a valid experiment. Sapolsky should have swung for the fence, linked arms with LaPlace and strolled off to have the drink that was determined for them from the instant of the Big Bang.

One of the most radical, thought-provoking, moving, poignant, and viscerally haunting books about the human condition I've ever read. I don't know if Sapolsky is correct that humans have no free will whatsoever--it's his philosophical interpretation of scientific facts and he admits philosophy is not his strong suit--but he makes a damn strong and formidable case not only for no free will but for the abolition of the criminal justice system, discarding the very notions of blame and praise, etc. and what might replace that. I think this book will make anyone a more compassionate and less judgemental person just having had to wrestle with Sapolsky's arguments and all the scientific facts gathered (and he says most of the studies he cites are from the past 5 years, and he cites a lot). For some, it will probably induce an existential crisis and challenge core beliefs that many people take for granted. Sapolsky himself approaches this with humor trying not to be too depressing and heavy, but also seriousness, he admits where he thinks he could be wrong and he struggles to wrestle with all he's learned and come to believe about the nature of the universe and our place in it in his many years as a scientist and professor (and before), and the book gets very emotional near the end with Sapolsky talking about his family members killed in the Holocaust, struggling with his own feelings of hate, experiences working with defense attorneys and their clients, etc. The book is chock-full of science but at its core it's a professor, seeing himself as nothing more or less than another cog in a vast machine, but with a heart that cries out for humans to be more understanding of one another and society to be more just, even if that seems impossible. He himself is aware of the paradox in that and ponders it. And he's both cynical and very hopeful and optimistic. We used to burn witches, now we don't. We used to think people with schizophrenia and epilepsy were possessed by demons, now we don't. Each time subtracting responsibility and focusing on addressing root causes of behavior made society kinder. It's very political, and I suspect for a long time it's going to be hard to think about politics again without thinking about this book. That all said, my only major critique is that I feel like looking at the objective facts of "all we are and do is heavily influenced by all that came before and we are built of components that work like machines" and concluding "there's no room for humans to have any control or agency whatsoever" is a philosophical jump that's unwarranted. Sapolsky makes a good and sincere case for why he thinks it is warranted, but I think he's not taking seriously enough what the role of consciousness might be. It seems to me if we have any agency or control consciousness would absolutely be key to that. Ironically, I feel like reading this book gave me more agency, in that knowing all the science and arguments within about constraints on human behavior enables me to make better choices (not to judge someone, to be more patient with them, to be more understanding, for example). I'm "agnostic" on this topic (and about to read Kevin Mitchell's book arguing the opposite), but it seems to me that humans may still have some small level of control. Like, maybe "free will" is more akin to us being on a raft hastily made by people who had no idea it was supposed to last a lifetime... And we may only have one arm, but we also have a little paddle to change our trajectory ever so slightly and pew pew gun to shoot any monsters that may pop out and menace us along the way. Food for thought! But this book is a clear 5-stars. Any disagreement shouldn't take away from that. Worth reading and owning.