True, the book is indeed about "future", so I of course accept that by definition there will be speculation. I'd be lying if I didn't find the book valuable. I think my gripe is about his not-so-strong solutions—but the author does admit upfront that he sees his role as a historian is to raise questions. So maybe my complaint was unfair :-)
My memory is fading, but I appreciate the three "key questions" he asks to think about at the end of the book (transcribing looking at the physical copy near me):
- Are organisms really just algorithms, and is life really just data processing?
- What's more valuable—intelligence or consciousness?
- What will happen to society, politics and daily life when non-conscious but highly intelligent algorithms know us better than we know ourselves?
Sapiens is about known history and analysis of the human struggle so far.
Homo Deus moves onward into unseen territory. Talking about the future always implies speculation. Even if it is just 1 minute ahead.
And people who enjoyed Sapiens should definitely give Bill Bryson's "A Short History of Nearly Everything" a try.