Humankind

Humankind Plot Summary

Introduction

For centuries, Western thought has been dominated by a pessimistic view of human nature - the belief that beneath a thin veneer of civilization, we are fundamentally selfish, competitive, and even violent creatures. This perspective, often called "veneer theory," has profoundly shaped our institutions, from competitive economic systems to punitive justice models, all designed to constrain our supposedly savage impulses. But what if this deeply entrenched view is fundamentally wrong? What if humans are actually predisposed toward cooperation, empathy, and moral concern? This question forms the foundation of a radical reassessment of human nature - one based not on wishful thinking but on rigorous examination of evidence from anthropology, psychology, evolutionary biology, and history. By challenging the dominant narrative of human selfishness, we can reimagine our social institutions to better align with our cooperative tendencies. The implications are profound: if cooperation rather than competition represents our natural inclination, then systems built around surveillance, punishment, and extrinsic motivation may actually suppress our better tendencies rather than enabling them. Through careful analysis of both scientific evidence and real-world examples, we can develop a more accurate understanding of human nature and discover more effective approaches to our most pressing social challenges.

Chapter 1: Veneer Theory: The Persistent Myth of Human Selfishness

The belief that civilization merely restrains our brutal nature has shaped Western thought for centuries. Thomas Hobbes famously described natural human life as "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short," arguing that without strong government, humans would descend into a "war of all against all." This pessimistic view gained scientific credibility in the 20th century through influential works like William Golding's Lord of the Flies, which portrayed children reverting to savagery when removed from civilization. The theory was further reinforced by interpretations of evolutionary theory emphasizing competition over cooperation and psychological experiments suggesting humans readily abandon morality when circumstances permit. This perspective has profoundly influenced how we design our institutions. Economic systems assume rational self-interest as the primary human motivation. Educational models emphasize competition and external rewards rather than intrinsic curiosity. Criminal justice systems focus on punishment rather than rehabilitation. Even charitable organizations often frame their appeals around guilt and obligation rather than our natural inclination to help others. These systems reflect and reinforce the belief that humans need external controls to behave properly. The persistence of veneer theory despite contradictory evidence reveals something important about human psychology: we have a negativity bias that makes us remember and emphasize bad news over good. Media coverage amplifies this tendency, focusing disproportionately on violence and conflict while treating cooperation as unremarkable. A single act of terrorism receives more attention than millions of daily acts of kindness. This skewed perception becomes self-reinforcing, as we come to expect the worst from others and design our institutions accordingly. The consequences of this misunderstanding extend beyond individual institutions to our collective ability to address global challenges. Climate change, inequality, and political polarization require coordinated action based on trust. If we continue to design systems around the worst in human nature, we'll struggle to activate the cooperation needed to solve these problems. Our cynical view functions as what psychologists call a "nocebo" - a negative expectation that creates negative outcomes. When we believe people can't be trusted, we create environments that bring out exactly those qualities. Dismantling veneer theory requires examining its historical roots and the evidence that contradicts it. The idea gained prominence during periods of colonial expansion and industrialization, when it helped justify exploitation of indigenous peoples and workers. By portraying cooperation as artificial and competition as natural, economic systems that produced extreme inequality could be presented as aligned with human nature rather than as political choices. This historical context helps explain why the theory persists despite mounting scientific evidence suggesting humans are naturally predisposed toward cooperation rather than conflict.

Chapter 2: Evidence from Anthropology: Our Evolutionary Predisposition to Cooperate

Recent scientific discoveries have fundamentally challenged our understanding of human evolution. For decades, the dominant narrative suggested that humans rose to dominance through aggression and competition - that we were essentially "killer apes" whose success came from being more ruthless than our evolutionary cousins. However, a growing body of evidence points in the opposite direction: we thrived not because we were the most aggressive species, but because we were the most cooperative. This insight emerged partly through comparative studies of human and great ape behavior. While chimpanzees engage in violent territorial disputes and strict dominance hierarchies, humans developed unprecedented capacities for sharing, teaching, and collaborating with non-kin. Anthropologist Sarah Hrdy argues that humans evolved as "cooperative breeders" where childcare was shared among group members, creating selection pressures for mutual understanding and coordination. This cooperative childcare system required abilities to read others' intentions and coordinate actions - precisely the cognitive capacities that distinguish humans from other primates. Archaeological evidence supports this view of human evolution. Studies of hunter-gatherer societies - our dominant lifestyle for roughly 95% of human history - reveal that these groups were remarkably egalitarian. They developed sophisticated mechanisms to prevent individuals from becoming too powerful, using humor, ridicule, and social pressure to maintain equality. Far from being constantly at war, most nomadic groups had extensive social networks spanning hundreds of individuals across wide geographic areas. When conflicts arose, they typically had elaborate conflict resolution systems rather than resorting immediately to violence. The transition to agriculture and settled societies around 10,000 years ago marked a significant shift. With permanent settlements came private property, social hierarchies, and increased conflict. Contrary to popular belief, this wasn't progress for most people - early agricultural societies experienced more disease, malnutrition, and violence than their hunter-gatherer predecessors. The "curse of civilization" brought with it slavery, warfare, and extreme inequality that would persist for millennia. This historical pattern suggests that many behaviors we consider "natural" may actually be products of relatively recent social arrangements rather than expressions of innate human tendencies. Biological evidence further supports our cooperative nature. Humans have unusually white sclera (eye whites) that make it easier to see where others are looking, facilitating coordination. We also have higher levels of oxytocin - often called the "love hormone" - which promotes bonding and trust. Even our facial structure has evolved to be more juvenile and less threatening compared to our ancestors. These physical traits align with what biologists call "self-domestication" - a process similar to how wolves evolved into dogs, where selection favored less aggressive, more cooperative individuals. Perhaps most striking is research on human infants. Studies show that even before cultural socialization, babies as young as six months prefer helpful characters over harmful ones. By their second year, toddlers spontaneously help strangers without prompting or reward. This suggests that our moral instincts emerge naturally rather than being imposed by civilization - directly contradicting veneer theory's core assumption. Our default setting appears to be cooperation and concern for others, with selfishness emerging as a response to specific environmental conditions rather than expressing our fundamental nature.

Chapter 3: Disasters Reveal Our Better Nature, Not Our Worst

When disaster strikes, conventional wisdom suggests that social order quickly collapses as people panic, loot, and prioritize self-preservation over helping others. This expectation is so deeply ingrained that it shapes emergency planning, media coverage, and even our personal fears about how we and others would behave in crisis. However, decades of disaster research reveal a starkly different pattern: when catastrophe hits, cooperation and altruism typically emerge as the dominant responses, not selfishness and violence. Sociologist Enrico Quarantelli studied hundreds of disasters worldwide over a sixty-year career and found remarkably consistent patterns of prosocial behavior. Rather than panicking, people generally remain calm and help those around them. Rather than fleeing blindly, they assist the vulnerable and coordinate evacuations. Rather than descending into lawlessness, communities typically develop spontaneous systems of resource sharing, search and rescue, and care for the injured. These findings have been replicated across diverse cultures and disaster types, from earthquakes and hurricanes to terrorist attacks and industrial accidents. The contrast between disaster myths and reality became particularly evident after Hurricane Katrina struck New Orleans in 2005. Media reports painted a picture of anarchy - widespread looting, sexual assaults in the Superdome, and roving gangs firing at rescue helicopters. These sensationalized accounts shaped public perception and even influenced emergency response decisions. Yet subsequent investigations revealed that most of these stories were fabrications or gross exaggerations. While some looting did occur, it was primarily for survival necessities, and the vast majority of New Orleans residents demonstrated remarkable solidarity despite government abandonment. This pattern repeats across disasters worldwide. During the 2011 Japanese tsunami and nuclear crisis, international media expressed amazement at the orderly, cooperative response of Japanese citizens. Yet disaster researchers weren't surprised - they recognized the same prosocial patterns observed in disasters globally. After the 9/11 attacks, the evacuation of Manhattan proceeded with remarkable calm and mutual assistance. During the London Blitz in World War II, expected mass panic never materialized; instead, communities developed sophisticated mutual aid systems despite nightly bombing. What makes this evidence particularly compelling is that disasters create precisely the conditions where veneer theory predicts civilization should break down. When formal authority is absent, infrastructure damaged, and resources scarce, our supposedly thin veneer of sociality should crumble, revealing our selfish core. The consistent emergence of cooperation instead of chaos directly contradicts this fundamental assumption about human nature. As disaster researcher Rebecca Solnit observes, these moments reveal an "extraordinary communities" that typically lies dormant in ordinary times. The persistence of disaster myths despite contradictory evidence reveals how deeply veneer theory has shaped our cultural imagination. Movies, novels, and news coverage consistently portray disaster scenarios where social breakdown leads to violence and exploitation. These fictional scenarios influence our expectations about human behavior more powerfully than actual disaster research. The gap between disaster myths and reality demonstrates how cultural narratives can override empirical evidence when they align with deeply held assumptions about human nature.

Chapter 4: How Institutions Can Nurture or Suppress Our Cooperative Instincts

Our social institutions - from schools and workplaces to prisons and welfare systems - are typically designed around preventing the worst in human behavior rather than encouraging the best. They assume people are fundamentally lazy, dishonest, and self-interested unless controlled through elaborate systems of rewards and punishments. This approach not only fails to bring out our potential for cooperation and creativity, but actively undermines it by creating the very behaviors it aims to prevent. Education provides a striking example of this dynamic. Conventional schools emphasize external motivation through grades, tests, and credentials. Students learn to ask "Will this be on the test?" rather than pursuing genuine curiosity. This approach produces graduates who view learning as a transaction rather than an intrinsic good. Alternative models like those at Agora in the Netherlands demonstrate that when students are given autonomy within a supportive community, intrinsic motivation flourishes. These schools don't abandon structure but rather provide a different kind that respects children's natural sociability and curiosity. Workplace design follows similar patterns. Traditional management theory, influenced by Frederick Taylor's scientific management, treats workers as essentially lazy and in need of constant supervision. This creates disengagement, with worldwide surveys showing over 80% of employees feel unmotivated at work. Companies that reject this model - giving workers autonomy, purpose, and opportunities for mastery - typically see higher productivity, innovation, and satisfaction. When Buurtzorg, a Dutch healthcare organization, eliminated managers and allowed nurses to self-organize in teams, they achieved better patient outcomes at lower costs while dramatically reducing staff turnover. Even our approach to poverty and social welfare reflects these assumptions. Many programs are designed around preventing fraud and abuse rather than effectively helping people. The resulting bureaucracy creates humiliating experiences for recipients while wasting resources on administration rather than assistance. Experiments with unconditional cash transfers show that when people are trusted with resources, they typically use them responsibly to improve their lives. A study in Kenya found that giving poor households direct cash transfers led to increased earnings, assets, and psychological well-being, with minimal spending on alcohol or tobacco. Criminal justice systems perhaps most clearly demonstrate how institutional design shapes behavior. Punitive approaches based on surveillance and harsh penalties often increase rather than reduce crime. Norway's humane prison approach, which treats inmates with dignity and focuses on rehabilitation, has produced recidivism rates less than half those of more punitive systems. When prisoners are trusted with responsibilities and treated as capable of change, many live up to those expectations. This doesn't mean abandoning accountability but rather implementing it in ways that recognize and nurture human potential. What makes trust-based institutions particularly effective is how they create virtuous cycles. When people are trusted, they experience a sense of responsibility that motivates them to prove themselves worthy of that trust. This triggers the release of oxytocin, which increases willingness to cooperate further. The initial act of trust creates the very trustworthiness it assumed. Conversely, surveillance and control signal distrust, which tends to produce exactly the disengagement they seek to prevent, creating a self-fulfilling prophecy that seems to confirm the need for more control.

Chapter 5: Trust-Based Systems Outperform Control-Based Alternatives

Trust functions as a self-fulfilling prophecy. When we design systems based on the assumption that people are fundamentally selfish and untrustworthy, we create environments that bring out exactly those qualities. Conversely, when we design systems that assume the best in people, we often elicit their most cooperative, creative, and generous behaviors. This dynamic plays out across diverse contexts, from education and healthcare to business and governance. In educational settings, the contrast between trust-based and control-based approaches reveals striking differences in outcomes. Traditional schools rely heavily on external motivators - grades, rewards, punishments, and constant monitoring - to ensure student compliance and performance. This approach often produces short-term obedience but undermines intrinsic motivation and creativity. By contrast, schools like Sudbury Valley in Massachusetts give students remarkable freedom to direct their own learning. Critics predicted chaos, but decades of results show graduates who are unusually self-directed, creative, and successful in diverse fields. These schools don't abandon structure entirely but rather provide a different kind of structure that supports autonomy within a community of mutual respect. Similar patterns emerge in workplaces. Companies like Netflix and Patagonia have eliminated vacation policies, expense report systems, and rigid work hours. Rather than abusing this freedom, employees typically take appropriate time off, spend company money responsibly, and work more effectively. These organizations recognize that intrinsic motivation - the desire to do meaningful work well - is far more powerful than external carrots and sticks. When Morning Star, a tomato processing company, eliminated managers and allowed workers to negotiate responsibilities directly with colleagues, they achieved industry-leading productivity and innovation while maintaining remarkably low turnover. Healthcare provides particularly compelling evidence for trust-based approaches. The Dutch healthcare organization Buurtzorg eliminated middle management entirely, allowing self-organizing teams of nurses to coordinate their own work. The results have been remarkable: higher patient satisfaction, better outcomes, lower costs, and greater nurse wellbeing. By trusting professional judgment rather than imposing standardized protocols, Buurtzorg achieved what elaborate management systems could not. Similar approaches in mental health care, where patients participate as partners in treatment decisions rather than passive recipients of expert directives, consistently show better recovery rates. Even in addressing social problems like homelessness, trust-based approaches often outperform control-based alternatives. Traditional homeless services typically impose numerous conditions - sobriety, curfews, mandatory programs - before providing housing. "Housing First" approaches reverse this logic, providing permanent housing with minimal conditions and then offering support services. Studies show this approach not only houses people more quickly but also leads to higher long-term stability, improved mental health, and reduced substance abuse - all while costing less than traditional approaches. By trusting homeless individuals with housing rather than making it contingent on "earning" it, these programs achieve better outcomes. What makes trust so powerful is how it aligns with fundamental human needs for autonomy, competence, and relatedness. Control-based systems typically thwart these needs, creating resistance and disengagement. Trust-based systems satisfy them, unleashing intrinsic motivation and cooperation. This doesn't mean abandoning all structure or accountability. Effective trust-based systems still maintain boundaries and consequences for those who violate community norms. The key difference is that these systems assume cooperation is the default rather than the exception, and they recognize that most rule-breaking stems from environmental factors that can be addressed rather than inherent selfishness that must be controlled.

Chapter 6: Designing Social Structures That Align With Human Nature

Most modern institutions were designed during the industrial era, when hierarchy, standardization, and control were seen as the most efficient organizational principles. Schools were modeled after factories, with rigid schedules, standardized curricula, and batch processing of students. Workplaces adopted similar structures, with elaborate management hierarchies monitoring employee compliance with detailed procedures. These designs reflected both technological limitations of the time and assumptions about human nature that emphasized our supposedly selfish, lazy tendencies that required external control. Today, both our technological capabilities and our understanding of human motivation have evolved dramatically, yet many of our institutions remain trapped in industrial-era paradigms. Redesigning these systems to align with our cooperative nature requires fundamental shifts in how we structure authority, measure success, and distribute resources. The most promising innovations share several key principles: they distribute power rather than concentrating it, they emphasize intrinsic rather than extrinsic motivation, and they create conditions for trust to flourish rather than defaulting to control. Democratic governance offers a compelling example of this redesign challenge. Traditional representative democracy, while an improvement over autocracy, still keeps citizens at arm's length from actual governance, treating them as occasional voters rather than active participants. Innovations in participatory democracy show alternatives. In cities practicing participatory budgeting, citizens directly allocate significant portions of municipal spending through deliberative processes. The results challenge assumptions about ordinary people's capacity for governance - participants typically make thoughtful, forward-looking decisions that balance immediate needs with long-term considerations. These approaches address the democratic deficit that fuels populism by treating citizens as capable partners rather than passive consumers of political marketing. Economic institutions similarly benefit from aligning with our cooperative tendencies. Worker-owned cooperatives like Spain's Mondragon Corporation demonstrate that businesses can thrive while distributing power and profits more equitably. With over 80,000 employee-owners and annual revenues exceeding $12 billion, Mondragon proves that cooperation can scale effectively. During economic downturns, these cooperatives typically preserve jobs through shared sacrifice rather than layoffs, maintaining community wellbeing while conventional firms shed workers. This approach recognizes that humans are motivated not just by individual gain but by contributing to collective prosperity. Even our approach to managing shared resources can be transformed through designs that align with human nature. Economist Elinor Ostrom, who won the Nobel Prize for her research on commons governance, documented thousands of cases where communities successfully managed shared resources - from irrigation systems and fisheries to forests and grazing lands - without relying exclusively on either market mechanisms or state control. These systems work because they build on our capacity for communication, norm enforcement, and long-term thinking rather than assuming inevitable resource depletion through selfish behavior. Perhaps most fundamentally, redesigning our institutions requires rethinking how we measure success. Current metrics emphasize economic growth, standardized test scores, and other quantifiable outputs while neglecting the quality of relationships, psychological wellbeing, and ecological sustainability. Alternative frameworks like Bhutan's Gross National Happiness index or the capabilities approach developed by philosophers Amartya Sen and Martha Nussbaum offer more holistic measures that better align with what actually contributes to human flourishing. By changing what we measure, we change what we value and ultimately how we design our systems. This institutional redesign isn't merely idealistic - it's pragmatic. Systems aligned with human nature require less enforcement, generate less resistance, and produce more sustainable outcomes than those that work against our cooperative tendencies. The most successful innovations don't abandon structure or accountability but rather implement them in ways that nurture rather than suppress our better nature. By designing environments that assume and support the best in us rather than expecting the worst, we may discover capacities for collaboration and care that have been suppressed rather than absent.

Chapter 7: From Cynicism to Hope: Practical Implications of Human Goodness

Cynicism about human nature has become a marker of sophistication and intelligence in modern culture. To express optimism about humanity's potential for cooperation and goodness is to risk being labeled naive or idealistic. Yet this reflexive pessimism isn't just inaccurate - it's actively harmful to addressing our greatest challenges. A more realistic assessment of human capabilities offers practical advantages across multiple domains, from personal wellbeing to collective problem-solving. Climate change illustrates this dynamic perfectly. Many environmental campaigns adopt apocalyptic messaging, assuming that fear and guilt will motivate action. This approach often backfires, producing paralysis rather than engagement. When people believe a problem is overwhelming and others won't cooperate to solve it, they typically disengage to avoid feeling helpless. By contrast, movements that emphasize collective efficacy and highlight successful community initiatives generate more sustained participation. The Transition Town movement, which helps communities develop local responses to environmental challenges, demonstrates how focusing on cooperative potential rather than impending doom creates more effective engagement. People need to believe their actions matter and that others will cooperate too. Political polarization similarly feeds on cynicism. When we assume the worst about those with different views - that they're stupid, evil, or brainwashed - we shut down the possibility of finding common ground. Research shows that most people across the political spectrum share similar core values but differ in how they prioritize them. Recognizing this common humanity doesn't guarantee agreement, but it creates space for productive dialogue rather than demonization. Organizations like Braver Angels that bring together Americans from across the political spectrum have found that when people engage face-to-face with those they disagree with, stereotypes diminish and mutual understanding grows. This doesn't eliminate disagreement but transforms how it's expressed and navigated. Economic inequality persists partly because we've accepted cynical assumptions about motivation. The belief that people only work hard when threatened with poverty justifies massive disparities in compensation. Yet evidence from behavioral economics consistently shows that intrinsic motivation - the desire to do meaningful work well - is more powerful than financial incentives for all but the most routine tasks. Societies with more equality typically show greater innovation and productivity, not less. Companies that distribute rewards more equitably and give workers voice in decision-making often outperform those with extreme pay disparities and concentrated authority. Even our personal happiness connects to our view of human nature. Cynicism correlates strongly with depression, anxiety, and loneliness. Those who trust others report greater life satisfaction and build stronger relationships. This isn't surprising given our deeply social nature - we evolved to connect with others, and isolation causes genuine suffering. Practices that cultivate trust and connection, from community engagement to acts of kindness, consistently increase subjective wellbeing. By recognizing our cooperative nature, we can prioritize the relationships and contributions that actually fulfill us rather than pursuing materialistic goals that research shows provide little lasting satisfaction. None of this requires denying humanity's capacity for selfishness or cruelty. A realistic optimism acknowledges our full range of possibilities while recognizing that our cooperative tendencies are just as natural as our competitive ones. The question isn't whether humans are inherently good or evil, but which aspects of our nature our social systems bring to the surface. By designing environments that assume and nurture the best in us rather than expecting the worst, we may discover capacities for collaboration and care that have been suppressed rather than absent.

Summary

The evidence assembled across multiple disciplines suggests that veneer theory fundamentally mischaracterizes human nature. Rather than being naturally selfish creatures barely restrained by civilization, humans appear to be inherently predisposed toward cooperation, with selfishness often emerging as a response to specific environmental conditions rather than expressing our default state. This insight carries profound implications for how we organize our societies. If cooperation rather than competition represents our natural inclination, then institutions designed around surveillance, punishment, and extrinsic motivation may actually suppress our better tendencies rather than enabling them. The alternative is to design systems that align with our cooperative nature - schools that nurture intrinsic curiosity, workplaces that foster autonomy and purpose, justice systems focused on restoration rather than retribution, and democratic processes that engage citizens as capable partners rather than subjects to be managed. These approaches aren't merely more humane; they're often more effective at achieving their stated goals. By recognizing the systematic biases in how information about human behavior is collected, interpreted, and disseminated, we can begin to see ourselves more clearly and design institutions that bring out the best rather than the worst in human nature. This clearer vision offers not just a more accurate understanding of who we are, but expanded possibilities for addressing our most pressing collective challenges through cooperation rather than competition.

About Author

Loading...

Rutger Bregman

Rutger Bregman (born April 26, 1988) is a Dutch historian and author. His books Humankind: A Hopeful History (2020) and Utopia for Realists: How We Can Build the Ideal World (2017) were both Sunday Times and New York Times Best Sellers and have been translated in 46 languages.In 2024, he co-founded The School for Moral Ambition, a non-profit organization inspired by his latest book Moral Ambition (2025) that wants to help as many people as possible to take the step towards a job with a positive impact.

Read more