Paragraph 1

"Although one of the most contested concepts in political philosophy, human nature is something on which most people seem to agree."

Explanation: Even though philosophers debate the idea of human nature, most ordinary people seem to have a shared view about it.

"By and large, according to Rutger Bregman in his new book Humankind, we have a rather pessimistic view - not of ourselves exactly, but of everyone else."

Explanation: In Humankind, Bregman says people generally see others (not themselves) as selfish or dangerous.

"We see other people as selfish, untrustworthy and dangerous and therefore we behave towards them with defensiveness and suspicion."

Explanation: This negative perception makes us act cautiously and suspiciously towards others.

"This was how the 17th-century philosopher Thomas Hobbes conceived our natural state to be, believing that all that stood between us and violent anarchy was a strong state and firm leadership."

Explanation: Hobbes thought humans were naturally violent and needed strict governance to avoid chaos.

"But in following Hobbes, argues Bregman, we ensure that the negative view we have of human nature is reflected back at us."

Explanation: Bregman argues that believing in Hobbes' view makes us behave in ways that reinforce that negativity.

"He instead puts his faith in Jean-Jacques Rousseau, the 18th-century French thinker, who famously declared that man was born free and it was civilisation - with its coercive powers, social classes and restrictive laws - that put him in chains."

Explanation: Bregman prefers Rousseau’s view that humans were naturally good but became corrupted by civilization.

Paragraph 2

"Hobbes and Rousseau are seen as the two poles of the human nature argument and it’s no surprise that Bregman strongly sides with the Frenchman."

Explanation: Hobbes and Rousseau represent opposing views on human nature, and Bregman clearly supports Rousseau.

"He takes Rousseau’s intuition and paints a picture of a prelapsarian idyll in which, for the better part of 300,000 years, Homo sapiens lived a fulfilling life in harmony with nature . . . "

Explanation: Bregman imagines that for most of human history, people lived peacefully and happily with nature.

"Then we discovered agriculture and for the next 10,000 years it was all property, war, greed and injustice. . . ."

Explanation: The shift to farming, Bregman argues, brought conflict, inequality, and moral decline.

Paragraph 3

"It was abandoning our nomadic lifestyle and then domesticating animals, says Bregman, that brought about infectious diseases such as measles, smallpox, tuberculosis, syphilis, malaria, cholera and plague."

Explanation: Bregman claims that settling down and domesticating animals led to many deadly diseases.

"This may be true, but what Bregman never really seems to get to grips with is that pathogens were not the only things that grew with agriculture - so did the number of humans."

Explanation: While this may be accurate, the writer points out Bregman overlooks that agriculture also caused a population boom.

"It’s one thing to maintain friendly relations and a property-less mode of living when you’re 30 or 40 hunter-gatherers following the food."

Explanation: Living peacefully without property is easier in small, mobile groups.

"But life becomes a great deal more complex and knowledge far more extensive when there are settlements of many thousands."

Explanation: Larger, permanent communities require more rules, systems, and knowledge.

"‘Civilisation has become synonymous with peace and progress and wilderness with war and decline,’ writes Bregman. ‘In reality, for most of human existence, it was the other way around.’"

Explanation: Bregman argues that people mistakenly see civilization as peaceful and nature as violent, while history suggests the opposite.

"Whereas traditional history depicts the collapse of civilisations as ‘dark ages’ in which everything gets worse, modern scholars, he claims, see them more as a reprieve, in which the enslaved gain their freedom and culture flourishes."

Explanation: He adds that while collapse is usually seen as negative, some scholars now view it as liberating and culturally enriching.

"Like much else in this book, the truth is probably somewhere between the two stated positions."

Explanation: The narrator suggests a balanced view lies between Bregman's idealism and traditional pessimism.

Paragraph 4

"In any case, the fear of civilisational collapse, Bregman believes, is unfounded."

Explanation: Bregman thinks worries about the end of civilization are exaggerated.

"It’s the result of what the Dutch biologist Frans de Waal calls ‘veneer theory’ - the idea that just below the surface, our bestial nature is waiting to break out. . . ."

Explanation: This fear stems from the belief that humans are only superficially civilized and inherently savage.

"There’s a great deal of reassuring human decency to be taken from this bold and thought-provoking book and a wealth of evidence in support of the contention that the sense of who we are as a species has been deleteriously distorted."

Explanation: The book offers hope and supports the idea that our understanding of humanity has been wrongly skewed.

"But it seems equally misleading to offer the false choice of Rousseau and Hobbes when, clearly, humanity encompasses both."

Explanation: However, the writer concludes that both views—Rousseau’s and Hobbes’—reflect real aspects of human nature.

Paragraph 1 Summary

Bregman’s book Humankind argues that society wrongly assumes people are naturally selfish and dangerous, following Hobbes’ view. He advocates instead for Rousseau’s belief that civilization, not human nature, is the root of societal problems.

Paragraph 2 Summary

Bregman expands on Rousseau’s ideas, suggesting that humans lived peacefully before agriculture brought inequality and conflict. He sees this as a turning point away from natural harmony.

Paragraph 3 Summary

While Bregman blames agriculture for diseases and moral decline, the passage points out he underestimates the challenges of complex societies. His argument that civilization’s collapse might be beneficial is balanced with a recognition that the truth likely lies between extremes.

Paragraph 4 Summary

Bregman rejects the idea that civilization barely hides our violent instincts. His book offers a hopeful reevaluation of human nature, but the passage ends by suggesting that both Rousseau’s optimism and Hobbes’ pessimism are partially true.