Harari's first two powerhouses: Sapiens and Homo Deus were two books I thoroughly enjoyed. This one, at least to me, missed the mark a little - although I'm struggling to find out why. Sapiens was almost an archetypal story, which is where it gained its power and prominence. Homo Deus, as I stated in my review of it, fell a little flat in the early portions but made up in the discussions of a post-liberal democracy technological future.

Where did 21 lessons go wrong? Why was it wrong? Well. Much of it was perhaps talking about things that are obvious, but could not be considered archetypal. Thus I was not hit in the face with the realisations and acceptance of every page turn like Sapiens. It was more of an "I know this, we struggle with this, because this is fundamentally a Value, and it's not a thing we can 'solve'" situation. Is it therefore that Harari's perceptions of these value questions were not as enlightening as the eye opening reflections he has on the subconscious portions of humanity a la Sapiens? Or, is this book a bunch of off cuts that didn't make it into the previous two master works? Since I couldn't differentiate these possibilities through inference, it made me feel that this was more and more a coattails product, however masterfully written & edited.

In addition, I strongly recommend you read Bill Gate's review here on Goodreads. His expertise with global problems and how to approach them, not just theoretically, but practically is certainly up there with the best we have. Some of his critiques resonate with my struggles with this book, and I'm not as qualified as he to tell you about them.