Harari describes The Cognitive Revolution as a “biological arena” (Harari pg. 39). By this, he means to say that the entire cognitive revolution was simply the advancement of Sapiens brains over their more simple minded cousins/brothers Neanderthals. This is largely in part to Sapiens new found ability in the Human world to “invent fiction” (Harari pg. 39). Harari suggests that almost the entire reason that Sapiens became the dominant human species was because of their ability to create extremely large groups, bigger than perviously seen groups of only 150 or less, that all collectively believed in the same thing and allowed them to be one group without even knowing one another personally like was needed in the past thus allowing large scale cooperation. Conversely, Harari seems much more in doubt of the Agricultural Revolution being a good thing necessarily, saying that “…the Agricultural Revolution left farmers with lives generally more difficult and less satisfying than those of foragers” (Harari pg. 79). This revolution was the overall majority switch to the lifestyle of farming over the hunter gatherer style. Though this revolution did indeed lead to a steadier life overall, it also led to the ability of humans to pass on unwanted genes, such as diseases that would’ve killed a hunter gatherer and thus never made it into the bloodline. Thus, while the cognitive revolution was a wonderful transition for Sapiens, the Agricultural Revolution almost turned us right back and deleted the progress made by the first one.
Harari’s explanation for how Sapiens became the dominant ones is largely based on the Cognitive Revolution and I largely think the same. Mostly based on the new found ability to work in large groups which, when you think about it is true to these days even. After all, the person with the most votes wins and if Sapiens could outvote Neanderthals, then I would say that’s probably why they won.