Sapiens' primary goal was to narrate in an accessible way the history of humankind. My rating is made from 4★ for actually making it an entertaining read, and 2★ for whatever was going on with the content.

The author nails the narrative part. So much that its verging from history to story. And that's very dangerous to people looking for it because it's easier to understand, because they're more likely to not notice it. 

Sapiens is incredibly written, but the meaning behind its words is often questionable. 

This book is filled with oversimplifications, assumptions, and known false theories, all for the sake of making it more narratively appealing. And yet the author rarely mentions that what he's saying is speculation. 

To get from point A to point B in history there's obviously a complex chain of events, many of which are still unknown. In Sapiens, the author sews the two together with a single and simple thread, making, yes a tight and coherent storyline for the reader, but incorrect. 

His arguments are based in things like saying pre-agricultural people were happier (impossible to prove), that colonialism might not be cool but it was the only (!!!) thing that allowed scientific progress, that destruction of habitat and exploration was intended (no, the mega fauna died because of the end of the ice age), and that thanks to capitalism resources are now infinite because they're immaterial (????). There's also many other assumptions based on social/ideological stances presented as universal truths. (what is religion, why did we develop gender roles, scientific progress, etc). 

Overall, Yuval seemed to be trying to prove that cruelty is inherent to the human kind, and therefore the ultimate terrible fate looming over us isn't really our fault. Which is a valid philosophical point of view but has no place in a book aiming for historical accuracy. 

A title I'd be happy with: "Sapiens: historical musings about the humankind".