-
Chris Anderson: Hello. So welcome
to this TED dialogue.
-
It's the first of a series that's
really going to be done
-
in response to the current
political upheaval.
-
I don't know about you.
-
I've become quite concerned about
the growing divisiveness in this country
-
and in the world.
-
No one's listening to each other. Right?
-
They aren't.
-
And it feels like we need
-
a different kind of conversation,
-
one that's based on, I don't know,
-
on reason, listening, on understanding,
-
on a broader context.
-
That's at least what we're going to try
-
in these TED Dialogues starting today,
-
and we couldn't have anyone with us
-
who I'd be more excited to kick this off.
-
This is a mind right here that thinks
-
pretty much like no one else on the planet
-
I would say, because I'm serious.
-
I'm serious.
-
He synthesizes history
-
with underlying ideas in a way
-
that kind of takes your breath away.
-
So some of you will know this book,
-
"Sapiens."
-
Has anyone here read "Sapiens?"
-
(Applause)
-
I mean, I could not put it down.
-
The way that he tells
the story of mankind
-
through big ideas that really make you
think differently, though,
-
it's kind of amazing.
-
And here's the follow-up, which I think
is being published in the U.S. next week.
-
Yuval Noah Harari: Yeah, next week.
CA: "Homo Deus."
-
Now this is the history
of the next hundred years.
-
I've had a chance to read it.
-
It's extremely dramatic,
-
and I daresay for some people
-
quite alarming.
-
It's a must-read,
-
and honestly, we couldn't have
someone better to help
-
make sense of what on Earth
is happening in the world right now.
-
So a warm welcome, please,
to Yuval Noah Harari.
-
(Applause)
-
It's great to be joined by our friends
on Facebook and around the web.
-
Hello, Facebook.
-
And all of you, as I start
asking questions of Yuval,
-
come up with your own questions,
-
and not necessarily about
the political scandal du jour
-
but about the broader understanding
of where are we heading?
-
You ready? Okay, we're going to go.
-
So here we are, Yuval, New York City,
-
2017, there's a new president in power,
-
and shockwaves rippling around the world.
-
What on Earth is happening?
-
YNH: I think the basic thing that happens
-
is that we have lost our story.
-
Humans think in stories,
-
and we try to make sense of the world
-
by telling stories,
-
and for the last few decades,
-
we had a very simple
and very attractive story
-
about what's happening in the world,
-
and the story said that, oh,
what's happening is
-
that the economy is being globalized,
-
politics is being liberalized,
-
and the combination of the two
will create paradise on Earth,
-
and we just need to keep on
globalizing the economy
-
and liberalizing the political system,
-
and everything will be wonderful.
-
And 2016 is the moment
-
when a very large segment,
-
even of the Western world,
-
stopped believing in this story.
-
For good or bad reasons doesn't matter.
-
People stopped believing in the story,
-
and when you don't have a story,
-
you don't understand what's happening.
-
CA: Part of you believes that that story
was actually a very effective story.
-
It worked.
-
YNH: To some extent, yes.
-
According to some measurements,
-
we are now in the best time ever
-
for humankind.
-
Today, for the first time in history,
-
more people die from eating too much
-
than from eating too little,
-
which is an amazing achievement.
-
(Laughter)
-
Also for the first time in history,
-
more people die from old age
-
than from infectious diseases,
-
and violence is also down.
-
For the first time in history,
-
more people commit suicide
-
than are killed by crime and terrorism
-
and war put together.
-
Statistically, you are
your own worst enemy.
-
At least, of all the people in the world,
-
you are most likely
to be killed by yourself,
-
which is again very good news
-
compared to the level of violence
-
that we saw in previous eras.
-
CA: But this process
of connecting the world
-
ended up with a large group of people
kind of feeling left out,
-
and they've reacted, and so we have
this bombshell that's sort of ripping
-
through the whole system.
-
I mean, what do you make
of what's happened?
-
It feels like the old way
that people thought of politics,
-
the left-right divide,
has been blown up and replaced.
-
How should we think of this?
-
YNH: Yeah, the old 20th century
-
political model of left versus right
-
is now largely irrelevant,
-
and the real divide today
-
is in global and national,
-
global or local.
-
And you see it again all over the world
-
that this is now the main struggle.
-
We probably need completely
new political models
-
and completely new ways of thinking
-
about politics.
-
In essence what you can say
-
is that we now have global ecology,
-
we have a global economy,
-
but we have national politics,
-
and this doesn't work together.
-
This makes the political
system ineffective
-
because it has no control
over the forces that shape our life.
-
And you have basically two solutions
-
to this imbalance.
-
Either deglobalize the economy
-
and turn it back into a national economy,
-
or globalize the political system.
-
CA: So some, I guess
many liberals out there
-
view Trump and his government
-
as kind of irredeemably bad,
-
just awful in every way.
-
Do you see any underlying
-
narrative or political philosophy in there
-
that is at least worth understanding?
-
How would you articulate that philosophy?
-
Is it just the philosophy of nationalism?
-
YNH: I think the underlying
feeling or idea
-
is that the political system,
something is broken there.
-
It doesn't empower
-
the ordinary person anymore.
-
It doesn't care so much
about the ordinary person anymore,
-
and I think this diagnosis
of the political disease is correct.
-
With regard to the answers,
I am far less certain.
-
I think what we are seeing
is the immediate human reaction:
-
if something doesn't work, let's go back.
-
And you see it all over the world,
-
that people, almost nobody
in the political system today
-
has any future-oriented vision
-
of where humankind is going.
-
Almost everywhere, you see
retrograde vision.
-
Let's make America great again,
-
like it was great, I don't know,
in the '50s, in the '80s, sometime,
-
let's go back there.
-
And you go to Russia.
-
So a hundred years after Lenin,
-
Putin's vision for the future
-
is basically, ah, let's go back
to the Tsarist empire.
-
And in Israel, where I come from,
-
the hottest political vision
-
of the present
-
is "let's build the temple again."
-
So let's go back 2,000 years backward.
-
So people are thinking
sometime in the past we've lost it,
-
and sometimes in the past, it's like
you've lost your way in the city,
-
and you say okay, let's go back
to the point where I felt secure
-
and start again.
-
I don't think this can work,
-
but a lot of people,
this is their gut instinct.
-
CA: But why couldn't it work?
-
America first is a very
appealing slogan in many ways.
-
Patriotism is in many ways
a very noble thing.
-
It's played a role in promoting
-
cooperation among large numbers of people.
-
Why couldn't you have a world
-
organized in countries
-
all of which put themselves first?
-
YNH: For many centuries,
-
even thousands of years,
-
patriotism worked quite well.
-
Of course it led to wars an so forth,
-
but we shouldn't focus
too much on the bad.
-
There are also many,
many positive things about patriotism,
-
and the ability to have
a large number of people
-
care about each other,
-
sympathize with one another,
-
and come together for collective action.
-
If you go back to the first nations,
-
so thousands of years ago,
-
the people who lived along
the Yellow River in China,
-
it was many, many different tribes
-
and they all depended on the river
-
for survival and for prosperity,
-
but all of them also suffered
-
from periodical floods
-
and periodical droughts,
-
and no tribe could do anything about it
-
because each of them controlled
just a tiny section of the river.
-
And then in a long
and complicated process,
-
the tribes coalesced together
-
to form the Chinese nation,
-
which controlled the entire Yellow River
-
and had the ability
-
to bring hundreds of thousands
of people together
-
to build dams and canals
-
and regulate the river
-
and prevent the worst floods and droughts
-
and raise the level
of prosperity for everybody.
-
And this worked in many places
around the world.
-
But in the 21st century,
-
technology is changing all that
in a fundamental way.
-
We are now living, all people
in the world are living
-
alongside the same cyber river,
-
and no single nation
-
can regulate this river by itself.
-
We are all living together
in a single planet
-
which is threatened by our own actions,
-
and if you don't have some kind
of global cooperation,
-
nationalism is just not on the right level
-
to tackle the problems
-
of whether it's climate change
-
or whether it's technological disruption.
-
CA: So it was a beautiful idea
-
in a world where most of the action,
-
most of the issues,
-
took place on national scale,
-
but your argument is that the issues
that matter most today
-
no longer take place on a national scale
but on a global scale.
-
YNH: Exactly. All of the major problems
of the world today
-
are global in essence,
-
and they cannot be solved
-
unless through some kind
of global cooperation.
-
It's not just climate change,
-
which is, like, the most obvious
example people give.
-
I think more in terms
of technological disruption.
-
If you think about, for example,
artificial intelligence,
-
over the next 20, 30 years
-
pushing hundreds of millions of people
out of the job market,
-
this is a problem on a global level.
-
It will disrupt the economy
of all the countries,
-
and similarly if you think
about, say, bioengineering
-
and people being afraid
of conducting genetic engineering
-
research in humans,
-
it won't help if just a single country,
-
let's say the U.S.,
-
outlaws all genetic experiments in humans
-
but China or North Korea
continues to do it.
-
So the U.S. cannot solve it by itself,
-
and very quickly, the pressure on the U.S.
-
to do the same will be immense
-
because we are talking about
high-risk, high-gain technologies.
-
If somebody else is doing it,
-
I can't allow myself to remain behind.
-
The only way to have regulations,
-
effective regulations,
-
on things like genetic engineering,
-
is to have global regulations.
-
If you just have national regulations,
-
nobody would like to stay behind.
-
CA: So this is really interesting.
-
It seems that this might be one key
-
to provoking at least
a constructive conversation
-
between the different sides here,
-
because I think everyone can agree
that the start point
-
of a lot of the anger that's
propelled us to where we are
-
is because of the legitimate
concerns about job loss.
-
Work is gone, a traditional way of life
-
has gone, and it's no wonder
that people are furious about that.
-
And in general, they have blamed
globalism, global elites
-
for doing this to them
without asking their permission,
-
and that seems like
a legitimate complaint.
-
But what I hear you saying
-
is that, so a key question is,
what is the real cause of job loss,
-
both now and going forward?
-
To the extent that it's about globalism,
-
then the right response, yes,
-
is to shut down borders
-
and keep people out
-
and change trade agreements and so forth.
-
But you're saying, I think,
-
that actually the bigger cause of job loss
-
is not going to be that at all.
-
It's going to originate
in technological questions,
-
and we have no chance of solving that
unless we operate as a connected world.
-
YNH: Yeah, I think that,
-
I don't know about the present,
-
but looking to the future,
-
it's not the Mexicans or Chinese
-
who will take the jobs from
the people in Pennsylvania,
-
it's the robots and algorithms,
-
so unless you plan to build a big wall
-
on the border of California --
-
(Laughter) --
-
the wall on the border with Mexico
is going to be very ineffective.
-
And I was struck when I watched
the debates before the elections,
-
I was struck that certainly Trump
did not even attempt
-
to frighten people by saying
the robots will take your jobs.
-
Now even if it's not true,
it doesn't matter.
-
It could have been an extremely
effective way of frightening people
-
and galvanizing people.
"The robots will take your jobs."
-
And nobody used that line.
-
And it made me afraid,
-
because it meant
-
that no matter what happens
-
in universities and laboratories,
-
and there there is already
an intense debate about it,
-
but in the mainstream political system
-
and among the general public,
-
people are just unaware
-
that there could be an immense
technological disruption,
-
not in 200 years,
-
but in 10, 20, 30 years,
-
and we have to do something about it now,
-
partly because most of what we teach
-
children today in school
-
or in college
-
is going to be completely irrelevant
-
to the job market of 2040, 2050.
-
So it's not something we'll need
to think about in 2040.
-
We need to think today
-
what to teach the young people.
-
CA: Yeah, no, absolutely.
-
You've often written about
moments in history
-
where humankind has
-
entered a new era kind of unintentionally.
-
Decisions have been made,
technologies have been developed,
-
and suddenly the world has changed,
-
possibly in a way that's
worse for everyone.
-
So one of the example
you give in "Sapiens"
-
is just the whole agricultural revolution,
-
which for an actual person
tilling the fields,
-
they just picked up a 12-hour
backbreaking workday
-
instead of six hours in the jungle
-
and a much more interesting lifestyle.
-
So are we at another possible
phase change here
-
where we kind of sleepwalk into
a future that none of us actually wants?
-
YNH: Yes, very much so.
-
During the agricultural revolution,
-
what happened is that immense
technological and economic revolution
-
empowered the human collective,
-
but when you look at actual
individual lives,
-
the life of a tiny elite
-
became much better,
-
and the life of the majority of people
-
became considerably worse.
-
And this can happen again
in the 21st century.
-
No doubt the new technologies
will empower the human collective,
-
but we may end up again
-
with a tiny elite
-
reaping all the benefits,
-
taking all the fruits,
-
and the masses of the population
-
finding themselves worse
-
than they were before,
-
certainly much worse than this tiny elite.
-
CA: And those elites might not
even be human elites.
-
They might be cyborgs or --
-
YNH: Yeah, they could be
enhanced superhumans.
-
They could be cyborgs.
-
They could be completely
nonorganic elites.
-
They could even be
non-conscious algorithms.
-
What we see now in the world
-
is authority shifting away
-
from humans to algorithms.
-
More and more decisions
-
about personal lives,
about economic matters,
-
about political matters,
-
is actually being taken by algorithms.
-
If you ask the bank for a loan,
-
chances are your fate is decided
by an algorithm, not by a human being,
-
and the general impression is that
-
maybe homo sapiens just lost it.
-
The world is so complicated,
-
there is so much data,
-
things are changing so fast,
-
that this thing that evolved
on the African savannah
-
tens of thousands of years ago
-
to cope with a particular environment,
-
a particular volume
of information and data,
-
it just can't handle the realities
of the 21st century,
-
and the only thing that may
be able to handle it
-
is big data algorithms.
-
So no wonder that more and more
authority is shifting from us
-
to the algorithms.
-
CA: So we're in New York City
-
for the first of a series of TED Dialogues
-
with Yuval Harari,
-
and there's a Facebook live
audience out there.
-
We're excited to have you with us.
-
We're going to start coming
to some of your questions
-
and questions of people in the room
-
in just a few minutes,
-
so have those coming.
-
Yuval, if you're going
to make the argument
-
that we need to get past nationalism
because of the coming
-
technological danger, in a way,
-
presented by so much of what's happening
-
so we've got to have
a global conversation about this.
-
Trouble is, it's really hard to get people
really believing that, I don't know,
-
AI really is an imminent
threat, and so forth.
-
The things that people,
some people at least,
-
care about much more immediately perhaps
-
is climate change,
-
perhaps other issues like refugees,
nuclear weapons, and so forth.
-
Would you argue that
-
where we are right now
-
that somehow those issues
-
need to be dialed up?
-
You've talked about climate change,
-
but Trump has said
he doesn't believe in that.
-
So in a way your most powerful argument,
-
you can't actually use to make this case.
-
YNH: Yeah, I think with climate change,
-
at first sight, it's quite surprising
-
that there is a very close correlation
-
between nationalism and climate change.
-
I mean, almost always the people
who deny climate change are nationalists.
-
And at first sight, you think why?
-
What's the connection?
-
Why don't you have socialists
denying climate change?
-
But then, when you think about it,
-
it's obvious.
-
Because nationalism has
no solution to climate change,
-
if you want to be a nationalist
in the 21st century,
-
you have to deny the problem.
-
If you accept the reality of the problem,
-
then you must accept that yes,
-
there is still room in the world
-
for patriotism,
-
there is still room in the world
-
for having special loyalties
-
and obligations towards your own people,
-
towards your own country.
-
I don't think anybody is really
thinking of abolishing that.
-
But in order to confront climate change,
-
we need additional loyalties
and commitments
-
to a level beyond the nation.
-
And that should not be impossible,
-
because people can have
-
several layers of loyalty.
-
You can be loyal to your family
-
and to your community
-
and to your nation,
-
so why can't you be also loyal
-
to humankind as a whole?
-
Of course, there are occasions
where it becomes difficult,
-
what to put first,
-
but life is difficult. Handle it.
-
(Laughter)
-
CA: Okay, so I would love to get
some questions from the audience here.
-
We've got a microphone here.
-
Speak into it, and Facebook,
get them coming too.
-
Question: So one of the things
-
that has clearly made a huge difference
-
in this country and other countries
-
is the income distribution inequality,
-
the dramatic change in income distribution
-
in the U.S. from what it was 50 years ago
-
and around the world.
-
Is there anything that we can do
to affect that,
-
because that gets at a lot
of the underlying causes?
-
YNH: So far I haven't heard
a very good idea
-
about what to do about it,
-
again partly because most ideas
remain on the national level,
-
and the problem is global.
-
I mean, one idea that we hear
quite a lot about now
-
is universal basic income,
-
but this is a problem.
-
I mean, I think it's a good start,
-
but it's a problematic idea because
it's not clear what universal is
-
and it's not clear what basic is.
-
Most people when they speak
about universal basic income,
-
they actually mean national basic income,
-
but the problem is global.
-
Let's say that you have an AI
-
and the 3D printers
-
taking away millions of jobs in Bangladesh
-
of all the people who make my shirts
-
and my shoes.
-
So what's going to happen?
-
The U.S. government will levy taxes
-
in Google and Apple in California
-
and use that to pay basic income
to unemployed Bangladeshis?
-
If you believe that,
-
you can just as well
believe that Santa Claus
-
will come and solve the problem.
-
So unless we have really universal
-
and not national basic income,
-
the deep problems
-
are not going to go away,
-
And also it's not clear what basic is,
-
because what are basic human needs?
-
A thousand years ago,
just food and shelter is enough,
-
but today people will say education
-
is a basic human need.
-
It should be part of the package.
-
But how much?
-
Six years? Twelve years? PhD?
-
Similarly with health care,
-
let's say that in 20, 30, 40 years,
-
you'll have expensive treatments
-
that can extend human life
-
to 120, I don't know.
-
Will this be part
-
of the basket of basic income or not?
-
It's a very difficult problem,
-
because in a world
-
where people lose their ability
to be employed,
-
the only thing they are going to get
is this basic income.
-
So what's part of it
-
is a very, very difficult
ethical question.
-
CA: And there's a bunch of questions
on how the world affords it as well,
-
who pays.
-
There's a question here
from Facebook from Lisa Larson.
-
How does nationalism in the U.S. now
-
compare to that between
World War I and World War II
-
in the last century?
-
YNH: Well the good news,
-
with regard to the dangers of nationalism,
-
we are in a much better position
-
than a century ago.
-
A century ago, 1917,
-
Europeans were killing each other
by the millions.
-
In 2016, with Brexit,
-
as far as I remember,
-
a single person lost their life,
-
an MP who was murdered
by some extremist,
-
just a single person.
-
I mean, if Brexit was about
British independence,
-
this is the most peaceful
war of independence in human history.
-
And let's say that Scotland
will now choose to leave the U.K.,
-
after Brexit.
-
So in the 18th century,
-
if Scotland wanted,
and the Scots wanted several times,
-
to break out of the control of London,
-
the reaction of the government
in London was to send an army up north
-
to burn down Edinburgh
-
and massacre the highland tribes.
-
My guess is that if in 2018,
-
the Scots vote for independence,
-
the London government
will not send an army up north
-
to burn down Edinburgh.
-
Very few people are now willing
to kill or be killed
-
for Scottish or for British independence.
-
So for all the talk
of the rise of nationalism
-
and going back to the 1930s,
-
to the 19th century,
-
in the West at least,
-
the power of national sentiments today
-
is far, far smaller
-
than it was a century ago.
-
CA: Although some people now,
you hear publicly worrying
-
about whether that might be shifting,
-
that there could actually be
outbreaks of violence in the U.S.
-
depending on how things turn out.
-
Should we be worried about that, or
do you really think things have shifted?
-
YNH: No, we should be worried.
-
We should be aware of two things.
-
First of all, don't be hysterical.
-
We are not back
in the First World War yet.
-
But on the other hand,
don't be complacent.
-
We reached from 1917 to 2017
-
not by some divine miracle
-
but simply by human decisions,
-
and if we now start making
the wrong decisions,
-
we could be back
-
in an analogous situation
-
to 1917 in a few years.
-
One of the things I know as a historian
-
is that you should never
underestimate human stupidity.
-
(Laughter)
-
It's one of the most powerful
forces in history
-
is human stupidity and human violence.
-
Humans do such crazy things
-
for no obvious reasons,
-
but again, at the same time,
-
another very powerful force
in human history is human wisdom.
-
We have both.
-
CA: We have with us here
moral psychologist Jonathan Haidt,
-
who I think has a question.
-
Jonathan Haidt: Thanks, Yuval.
-
So you seem to be a fan
of global governance,
-
but when you look at the map of the world
-
from Transparency International,
-
which rates the level of corruption
of political institutions,
-
it's a vast sea of red
-
with little bits of yellow here and there
for those with good institutions.
-
So if we were to have
some kind of global governance,
-
what makes you think that it would end up
being more like Denmark
-
rather than more like Russia or Honduras,
-
and aren't there alternatives
-
such as we did with CFCs?
-
I mean, there are ways to solve
global problems with national governments.
-
What would world government
actually look like,
-
and why do you think it would work?
-
YNH: Well, I don't know
how it would look like.
-
Nobody still has a model for that.
-
The main reason we need it
-
is because many of these issues
-
are lose-lose situations.
-
When you have a win-win situation
-
like trade, both sides can benefit
from a trade agreement,
-
then this is something you can work out.
-
Without some kind of global government,
-
national governments each
has an interest in doing it.
-
But when you have a lose-lose situation,
like with climate change,
-
it's much more difficult
-
without some overarching
authority, real authority.
-
Now, how to get there
-
and how would it look like,
-
I don't know.
-
And certainly there is no obvious reason
-
to think that it would look like Denmark,
-
or that it would be a democracy.
-
Most likely it wouldn't.
-
We don't have workable
-
democratic models
-
for a global government.
-
So maybe it would look more
like ancient China
-
than like modern Denmark,
-
but still, given the dangers
-
that we are facing,
-
I think the imperative
-
of having some kind of real ability
-
to force through difficult decisions
-
on the global level
-
is more important
-
than almost anything else.
-
CA: There's a question from Facebook here,
-
and then we'll get the mic to Andrew.
-
So Kat Hebron on Facebook,
-
calling in from Vale:
-
how would developed nations manage
-
the millions of climate migrants?
-
YNH: I don't know.
-
CA: That's your answer, Kat.
(Laughter)
-
YNH: And I don't think
that they know either.
-
I mean, they'll just
deny the problem, maybe.
-
CA: But immigration, generally,
is another example of a sort of problem
-
that's very hard to solve
on a nation-by-nation basis.
-
One nation can shut its doors,
-
but maybe that stores up
problems for the future.
-
YNH: Yes. I mean,
it's another very good case,
-
especially because it's so much easier
-
to migrate today
-
than it was in the Middle Ages
or in ancient times.
-
CA: Yuval, there's a belief
-
among many technologists, certainly,
-
that political concerns
are kind of overblown,
-
that actually political leaders
don't have that much
-
influence in the world,
-
that the real determination
-
of humanity at this point is by science,
by invention, by companies,
-
by many things other than
political leaders,
-
and it's actually very hard
for leaders to do much,
-
so we're actually worrying
about nothing here.
-
YNH: Well, first, it should be emphasized
-
that it's true that political leaders
ability to do good is very limited,
-
but their ability to do harm is unlimited.
-
There is a basic imbalance here.
-
You can still press the button
and blow everybody up.
-
You have that kind of ability,
-
but if you want, for example,
to reduce inequality,
-
that's very, very difficult.
-
But to start a war,
-
you can still do so very easily.
-
So there is a built-in imbalance
in the political system today
-
which is very frustrating
-
that you cannot do a lot of good
-
but you can still do a lot of harm.
-
And this makes the political system
-
still a very big concern.
-
CA: So as you look at what's
happening today,
-
and putting your historian's hat on,
-
do you look back in history
-
at moments when things
were going just fine
-
and an individual leader
-
really took the world
or their country backwards?
-
YNH: There are quite a few examples,
-
but I should emphasize, it's never
an individual leader.
-
I mean, somebody put him there,
-
and somebody allowed him
to continue to be there.
-
So it's never really just the fault
of a single individual.
-
There is a lot of people
-
behind every such individual.
-
CA: Can we have the microphone here please
-
to Andrew?
-
Andrew Solomon: You've talked a lot about
the global versus the national,
-
but increasingly
-
but increasingly it seems to me
that the world situation
-
is in the hands of identity groups.
-
We look at people within the United States
-
who have been recruited by ISIS.
-
We look at these other groups
which have formed
-
which go outside of national bounds
-
but still represent
significant authorities.
-
How are they to be integrated
into the system,
-
and how is a diverse set of identities
-
to be made coherent under
either national or global leadership?
-
YNH: well, the problem
of such diverse identities
-
is a problem for nationalism as well.
-
Nationalism believes
in a single, monolithic identity,
-
and exclusive or at least
more extreme versions of nationalism
-
believe in an exclusive loyalty
to a single identity,
-
and therefore nationalism has had
a lot of problems
-
with people wanting to divide
their identities
-
between various groups.
-
So it's not just a problem, say,
for a global vision.
-
And I think, again, history shows
-
that you shouldn't necessarily think
-
in such exclusive terms.
-
If you think that there is just
a single identity for a person,
-
I am just X, that's it,
-
I can't be several things,
I can be just that,
-
that's the start of the problem.
-
You have religions, you have nations
-
that sometimes demand exclusive loyalty,
-
but it's not the only option.
-
There are many religions and many nations
-
that enable you to have diverse identities
-
at the same time.
-
CA: But is one explanation of what's
happened in the last year
-
that a group of people have got
fed up with, if you like,
-
the liberal elites, for want
of a better term,
-
obsessing over many, many
different identities
-
and them feeling,
"But what about my identity?
-
I am being completely ignored here.
-
And by the way, I thought
I was the majority."
-
And that that's actually
sparked a lot of the anger.
-
YNH: Yeah. Identity is always problematic
-
because identity is always based
-
on fictional stories
-
that sooner or later collide with reality.
-
Almost all identities,
-
I mean, beyond the level
-
of the basic communities
of a few dozen people,
-
are based on a fictional story.
-
They are not the truth.
-
They are not the reality.
-
It's just a story that people invent
and tell one another and start believing.
-
And therefore all identities
are extremely unstable.
-
They are not a biological reality.
-
I mean, sometimes nationalists,
for example, think that the nation
-
is a biological entity.
-
It's made of the combination
of soil and blood,
-
creates the nation.
-
But this is just a fictional story.
-
CA: Soil and blood
kind of makes a gooey mess.
-
(Laughter)
-
YNH: It does,
-
and also it messes with your mind
-
when you think too much
-
that I am a combination of soil and blood.
-
If you look from a biological perspective,
-
obviously none of the nations
that exist today
-
existed 5,000 years ago.
-
Homo sapiens is a social animal,
-
that's for sure,
-
but for millions of years,
-
homo sapiens and our hominid ancestors
-
lived in small communities
-
of a few dozen individuals.
-
Everybody knew everybody else.
-
Whereas modern nations
are imagined communities,
-
in a sense that I don't
even know all these people.
-
I come from a relatively
small nation, Israel,
-
and eight million Israelis,
-
I never met most of them.
-
I will never meet most of them.
-
They basically exist here.
-
CA: But in terms of this identity,
-
this group who feel left out
-
and perhaps have work taken away,
-
I mean, in "Homo Deus"
-
you actually speak of this group
in one sense expanding,
-
that so many people
-
may have their jobs taken away
-
by technology in some way
-
that we could end up with a really large,
-
I think you call it a useless class,
-
a class where traditionally,
-
as viewed by the economy,
these people have no use.
-
YNH: Yes.
-
CA: How likely a possibility is that?
-
Is that something we should
be terrified about?
-
And can we address it in any way?
-
YNH: We should think about it
very carefully.
-
I mean, nobody really knows
-
what the job market would look like
-
in 2040, 2050.
-
There is a chance many
new jobs will appear,
-
but it's not certain,
-
and even if new jobs do appear,
-
it won't necessarily be easy
-
for a 50-year old
unemployed truck driver,
-
made unemployed by self-driving vehicles,
-
it won't be easy for
an unemployed truck driver
-
to reinvent himself or herself
-
as a designer of virtual worlds.
-
I mean, previously, if you look at the
trajectory of the industrial revolution,
-
when machines replaced humans
in one type of work,
-
the solution usually came
from low-skilled work
-
in new lines of business.
-
So you didn't need any more
agricultural workers,
-
so people moved to working
in low-skilled industrial jobs,
-
and when this was taken away
by more and more machines,
-
people moved to low-skill service jobs.
-
Now, when people say there will
be new jobs in the future
-
that humans can do better than AI,
-
that humans can do better than robots,
-
they usually think about high-skilled jobs
-
like software engineers
-
designing virtual worlds.
-
Now, I don't see
-
how an unemployed cashier from Wal-Mart
-
reinvents herself or himself at 50
-
as a designer of virtual worlds,
-
and certainly I don't see how
the millions of unemployed
-
Bangladeshi textile workers
-
will be able to do that.
-
I mean, if they are going to do it,
-
we need to start teaching
the Bangladeshis today
-
how to be software designers,
-
and we are not doing it.
-
So what will they do in 20 years?
-
CA: So it feels like you're really
highlighting a question
-
that's really been bugging me
the last few months more and more.
-
It's almost a hard question
to ask in public,
-
but if any mind has some wisdom
to offer in it, maybe it's yours,
-
so I'm going to ask you:
-
what are humans for?
-
YNH: As far as we know, for nothing.
-
(Laughter)
-
I mean, there is no great cosmic drama,
-
some great cosmic plan,
-
that we have a role to play in it,
-
and we just need to discover
what our role is
-
and then play it to the best
of our ability.
-
This has been the story
-
of all religions
and ideologies and so forth,
-
but as a scientist, the best I can say,
-
this is not true.
-
There is no universal drama
with a role in it for homo sapiens.
-
So --
-
CA: I'm going to push back on you
just for a minute,
-
just from your own book,
-
because in "Homo Deus,"
-
you give really one of the most
coherent and understandable accounts
-
about sentience, about consciousness,
-
and that unique sort of human skill.
-
You point out that it's
different from intelligence,
-
the intelligence that we're
building in machines,
-
and that there's actually a lot
of mystery around it.
-
How can you be sure
-
there's no purpose
-
when we don't even understand
-
what this sentience thing is?
-
I mean, in your own thinking,
-
isn't there a chance that what humans
are for is to be the universe's
-
sentient things,
-
to be the centers of joy and love
and happiness and hope?
-
And maybe we can build machines
that actually help amplify that,
-
even if they're not going
to become sentient themselves?
-
Is that crazy?
-
I kind of found myself hoping that
reading your book.
-
YNH: Well, I certainly think that the most
interesting question today in science
-
is the question of consciousness
and the mind.
-
We are getting better and better
-
in understanding the brain
-
and intelligence,
-
but we are not getting much better
-
in understanding the mind
and consciousness.
-
People often confuse intelligence
and consciousness,
-
especially in places like Silicon Valley,
-
which is understandable because,
in humans, they go together.
-
I mean, intelligence basically
is the ability to solve problems.
-
Consciousness is the ability
to feel things,
-
to feel joy and sadness
and boredom and pain and so forth.
-
In homo sapiens, and all
other mammals as well,
-
it's not unique to humans,
-
in all mammals and birds
and some other animals,
-
intelligence and consciousness
go together.
-
We often solve problems
-
by feeling things.
-
So we tend to confuse them.
-
But they are different things.
-
What's happening today
in places like Silicon Valley
-
is that we are creating
-
artificial intelligence
-
but not artificial consciousness.
-
There has been an amazing development
in computer intelligence
-
over the last 50 years,
-
and exactly zero development
in computer consciousness,
-
and there is no indications that computers
are going to become conscious
-
anytime soon.
-
So first of all, if there is
some cosmic role for consciousness,
-
it's not unique to homo sapiens.
-
Cows are conscious, pigs are conscious,
-
chimpanzees are conscious,
chickens are conscious,
-
so if we go that way,
-
first of all we need
to broaden our horizons
-
and remember very clearly
-
we are not the only
sentient beings on Earth,
-
and when it comes to sentience,
-
when it comes to intelligence,
there is good reason to think
-
we are the most intelligent
of the whole bunch.
-
But when it comes to sentience,
-
to say that humans are more
sentient than whales,
-
or more sentient than baboons
or more sentient than cats,
-
I see no evidence for that.
-
So first step is, you go
in that direction, expand.
-
And then the second question
-
of what is it for,
-
I would reverse it
-
and I would say that
-
I don't think sentience is for anything.
-
I think we don't need
to find our role in the universe.
-
The really important thing
-
is to liberate ourselves from suffering.
-
What characterizes sentient beings
-
in contrast to robots, to stones,
-
to whatever,
-
is that sentient beings
suffer, can suffer,
-
and what they should focus on
-
is not finding their place
-
in some mysterious cosmic drama.
-
They should focus on understanding
what suffering is,
-
what causes it, and how
to be liberated from it.
-
CA: I know this is a big issue for you,
-
and that was very eloquent.
-
We're going to have a blizzard
of questions from the audience here,
-
and maybe from Facebook as well,
-
and maybe some comments as well.
-
So let's go quick.
-
There's one right here.
-
Keep your hands held up
at the back if you want the mic,
-
and we'll get it back to you.
-
Question: So in your work, you talk a lot
about the fictional stories
-
that we accept as truth,
-
and we live our lives by it.
-
As an individual, knowing that,
-
how does it impact the stories
that you choose to live your life,
-
and do you confuse them with the truth
-
like all of us?
-
YNH: I try not to.
-
I mean, for me, maybe the most
important question,
-
both as a scientist and as a person,
-
is how to tell the difference
between fiction and reality,
-
because reality is there.
-
I'm not saying that everything is fiction.
-
It's just very difficult for human beings
-
to tell the difference
-
between fiction and reality,
-
and it has become more and more difficult
-
as history progressed,
-
because the fictions
that we have created --
-
nations and gods and money
and corporations --
-
they now control the world.
-
So just to even think that oh,
this is just all fictional entities
-
that we've created, is very difficult.
-
But reality is there.
-
For me the best --
-
There are several tests
-
to tell the difference
between fiction and reality.
-
The simplest one, the best one
that I can say in short
-
is the test of suffering.
-
If it can suffer, it's real.
-
If it can't suffer, it's not real.
-
A nation cannot suffer.
-
That's very, very clear.
-
Even if a nation loses a war,
-
we say, "Germany suffered a defeat
in the First World War."
-
It's a metaphor.
-
Germany cannot suffer.
-
Germany has no mind.
-
Germany has no consciousness.
-
Germans can suffer, yes,
but Germany cannot.
-
Similarly, when a bank goes bust,
-
so the bank cannot suffer.
-
When the dollar loses its value,
the dollar doesn't suffer.
-
People can suffer. Animals can suffer.
-
This is real.
-
So I would start, if you
really want to see reality,
-
I would go through the door of suffering.
-
If you can really understand
what suffering is,
-
this will give you also the key
-
to understand what reality is.
-
CA: There's a Facebook question
here that connects to this,
-
and it's from someone around the world
in a language that I cannot read --
-
YNH: Oh, it's Hebrew.
CA: It's Hebrew. There you go.
-
(Laughter)
-
Can you read the name?
YNH: [??]
-
CA: Well, thank you for writing in.
The question is, is the post-truth era
-
really a brand new era,
-
or just another climax or moment
in a never-ending trend?
-
YNH: Personally, I don't connect
with this idea of post-truth.
-
My basic reaction as a historian,
-
if this is the era of post-truth,
-
when the hell was the era of truth?
CA: Right.
-
(Laughter)
-
YNH: Was it the 1980s, the 1950s,
-
the Middle Ages?
-
I mean, we have always lived
in an era, in a way, of post-truth.
-
CA: But I'd push back on that,
because I think what people
-
are talking about is that there was
a world where you had
-
fewer journalistic outlets,
-
where there were traditions
-
that things were fact-checked,
it was incorporated into the charter
-
of those organizations that
the truth mattered.
-
So if you believe in a reality,
-
then what you write is information.
-
There was a belief that that information
-
should connect to reality in a real way,
and that if you wrote a headline,
-
it was a serious and earnest attempt
-
to reflect something
that had actually happened.
-
And people didn't always get it right,
but I think the concern now is you've got
-
a technological system
that's incredibly powerful
-
that for a while at least
-
massively amplified anything
-
with no attention paid to whether
it connected to reality,
-
only to whether it connected to clicks
-
and attention,
-
and that that was arguably toxic.
-
That's a reasonable concern, isn't it?
-
YNH: Yeah, it is. I mean,
the technology changes,
-
and it's now easier to disseminate
both truth and fiction and falsehood.
-
It goes both ways.
-
It's also much easier, though,
-
to spread the truth
-
than it was ever before.
-
But I don't think there is anything
-
essentially new
-
about this disseminating fictions
-
and errors.
-
There is nothing that, I don't know,
Goebbels, Joseph Goebbels, didn't know
-
about all this idea of fake news
-
and post-truth.
-
He famously said that if you repeat
a lie often enough,
-
people will think it's the truth,
-
and the bigger the lie, the better,
-
because people won't even think
that something so big can be a lie.
-
I think that fake news
-
has been with us for thousands of years.
-
Just think of the Bible.
-
(Laughter)
-
CA: But there is a concern
that the fake news
-
is associated with tyrannical regimes,
-
and when you see an uprise in fake news
-
that is a canary in the coal mine
-
that there may be dark times coming.
-
YNH: Yeah. I mean, the intentional use
of fake news is a disturbing sign,
-
but I'm not saying that it's not bad,
I'm just saying that it's not new.
-
CA: So there's a lot of interest
on Facebook on this question
-
about global governance
versus nationalism.
-
Question here from Phil Dennis:
-
how do we get people, governments,
to relinquish power?
-
Is that a necessity?
-
Is it going to take war to get there?
-
Sorry Phil, I mangled your question,
but I blame the text right here.
-
YNH: One option that some people
talk about is that only a catastrophe
-
can shake humankind
-
and open the path to a real system
of global governance,
-
and they say that we can't do it
before the catastrophe,
-
but we need to start
laying the foundations
-
so that when the disaster strikes,
-
we can react quickly.
-
But people will just not have
the motivation to do such a thing
-
before the disaster strikes.
-
Another thing that I would emphasize
-
is that anybody who is really
interested in global governance
-
should always make it very, very clear
-
that it doesn't replace or abolish
-
local identities and communities,
-
that it should come both as --
-
It should be part of a single package.
-
CA: I want to hear more on this,
because the very words "global governance"
-
are almost the epitome of evil
in the mindset of a lot of people
-
on the alt-right right now.
-
It just seems scary, remote, distant,
and it has let them down,
-
and so globalist,
global governance, no, go away!
-
And many view the election
as the ultimate poke in the eye
-
to anyone who believes in that.
-
So how do we change the narrative
-
so that it doesn't seem
so scary and remote?
-
Build more on this idea
-
of it being compatible
with local identity, local communities.
-
YNH: Well, I think again we should start
-
really with the biological realities
-
of homo sapiens,
-
and biology tells us two things
-
about homo sapiens which are
very relevant to this issue:
-
first of all, that we are
completely dependent
-
on the ecological system around us,
-
and that today we are talking about
a global system.
-
You cannot escape that.
-
And at the same time, biology tells us
about homo sapiens
-
that we are social animals
-
but that we are social
on a very, very local level.
-
It's just a simple fact of humanity
-
that we cannot have intimate familiarity
-
with more than about 150 individuals.
-
The size of the natural group,
-
the natural community, of homo sapiens,
-
is not more than 150 individuals,
-
and everything beyond that
-
is really based on all kinds
of imaginary stories
-
and large-scale institutions,
-
and I think that we can find a way,
-
again based on a biological
understanding of our species,
-
to weave the two together
-
and to understand that today
in the 21st century,
-
we need both the global level
-
and the local community,
-
and I would go even further than that
-
and say that it starts
with the body itself.
-
The feelings that people today have
-
of alienation and loneliness
and not finding their place in the world,
-
I would think that the chief problem
-
is not global capitalism.
-
The chief problem is that over
the last hundred years,
-
people have been
-
becoming disembodied,
-
have been distancing themselves
from their body.
-
As a hunter-gatherer or even as a peasant,
-
to survive you need to be
constantly in touch
-
with your body and with your senses,
-
every moment.
-
If you go to the forest
to look for mushrooms
-
and you don't pay attention
to what you hear,
-
to what you smell, to what you taste,
-
you're dead.
-
So you must be very connected.
-
In the last hundred years,
people are losing their ability
-
to be in touch with their body
and their senses,
-
to hear, to smell, to feel.
-
More and more attention goes to screens,
-
to what is happening elsewhere,
-
some other time.
-
This I think is the deep reason
-
for the feelings of alienation
and loneliness and so forth,
-
and therefore part of the solution
-
is not to bring back some mass nationalism
-
but also reconnect with our own bodies,
-
and if you are back
in touch with your body,
-
you will feel much more at home
in the world also.
-
CA: Well, depending on how things go,
we may all be back in the forest soon.
-
We'll see. We'll have one more question
in the room and one more on Facebook.
-
Question: Hello.
I'm from Ghana, West Africa,
-
and my question is:
-
I'm wondering how do you present
and justify the idea of global governance
-
to countries that have been
historically disenfranchised
-
by the effects of globalization,
-
and also if we're talking about
global governance,
-
it also sounds to me like it will
definitely come from a very
-
Westernized idea of what's
the global supposed to look like.
-
So how do we present and justify
that idea of global
-
versus wholly nationalist
-
to people in countries like Ghana
and Nigeria and Togo
-
and other countries like that?
-
YNH: I would start by saying
that history is extremely unfair,
-
and that we should realize that
-
many of the countries that suffered most
-
from the last 200 years of globalization
-
and imperialism and industrialization
-
are exactly the countries
-
which are also most likely to suffer most
-
from the next wave.
-
And we should be very,
very clear about that.
-
If we don't have a global governance,
-
and if we suffer from climate change,
-
from technological disruptions,
-
the worst suffering
will not be in the U.S.
-
The worst suffering will be in Ghana,
will be in Sudan, will be in Syria,
-
will be in Bangladesh,
will be in those places.
-
So I think those countries
have an even greater incentive
-
to do something
-
about the next wave of disruption,
-
whether it's ecological
or whether it's technological.
-
Again, if you think about
technological disruption,
-
so if AI and 3D printers and robots
-
will take the jobs
-
from billions of people,
-
I worry far less about the Swedes
-
than about the people in Ghana
or in Bangladesh.
-
And therefore, because
history is so unfair
-
and the results of a calamity
-
will not be shared equally
between everybody.
-
As usual, the rich will be able
to get away from
-
the worst consequences of climate change
-
in a way that the poor
will not be able to.
-
CA: And here's a great question
from Cameron Taylor on Facebook:
-
at the end of "Sapiens,"
-
you said we should be asking the question,
-
what do we want to want?
-
Well, what do you think
we should want to want?
-
YNH: I think we should want
to want to know the truth,
-
to understand reality.
-
Mostly what we want is to change reality,
-
to fit it to our own desires,
-
to our own wishes,
-
and I think we should first want
-
to understand it.
-
If you look at the long-term
trajectory of history,
-
what you see is that
for thousands of years
-
we humans have been gaining
control of the world outside us
-
and trying to shape it
-
to fit our own desires.
-
And we've gained control
of the other animals,
-
of the rivers, of the forests,
-
and reshaped them completely,
-
causing an ecological destruction
-
without making ourselves satisfied.
-
So the next step
-
is we turn our gaze inwards,
-
and we say okay, getting control
of the world outside us
-
did not really make us satisfied.
-
Let's now try to gain control
of the world inside us.
-
This is the really big project
-
of science and technology
and industry in the 21st century
-
will be to try and gain control
of the world inside us,
-
to learn how to engineer and produce
-
bodies and brains and minds.
-
These are likely to be the main products
-
of the 21st century economy.
-
When people think about the future,
-
very often they think in terms,
-
oh, I want to gain control
of my body and of my brain.
-
And I think that's very dangerous.
-
If we've learned anything
from our previous history,
-
it's that yes,
-
we gain the power to manipulate,
-
but because we didn't really
understand the complexity
-
of the ecological system,
-
we are now facing an ecological meltdown.
-
And if we now try to reengineer
the world inside us
-
without really understanding it,
-
especially without understanding
the complexity of our mental system,
-
we might cause a kind of
internal ecological disaster,
-
and we will face a kind of mental
meltdown inside us.
-
CA: Putting all the pieces together here,
-
the current politics,
the coming technology,
-
concerns like the one
you've just outlined,
-
I mean, it seems like you yourself
-
are in quite a bleak place
-
when you think about the future.
-
You're pretty worried about it.
-
Is that right?
-
And if there was one cause
for hope, how would you state that?
-
YNH: I focus on the most dangerous
-
possibilities partly because this is
like my job or responsibility
-
as an historian or social critic.
-
I mean, the industry focuses mainly
on the positive sides,
-
so it's the job of historians
and philosophers and sociologists
-
to highlight the more dangerous potential
-
of all these new technologies.
-
I don't think any of that is inevitable.
-
Technology is never deterministic.
-
You can use the same technology to
create very different kinds of societies.
-
If you look at the 20th century,
-
so the technologies
of the Industrial Revolution,
-
the trains and electricity and all that
-
could be used to create
a communist dictatorship
-
or a fascist regime
or a liberal democracy.
-
The trains did not tell you
what to do with them.
-
Similarly, now, artificial intelligence
and bioengineering and all of that,
-
they don't predetermine a single outcome.
-
Humanity can rise up to the challenge,
-
and the best example we have
of humanity rising up
-
to the challenge of a new technology
-
is nuclear weapons.
-
In the late 1940s, '50s,
-
many people were convinced
-
that sooner or later the Cold War will end
-
in a nuclear catastrophe,
destroying human civilization.
-
And this did not happen.
-
In fact, nuclear weapons
-
prompted humans all over the world
-
to change the way that they managed
-
international politics,
-
to reduce violence.
-
And many countries basically took out war
-
from their political toolkit.
-
They no longer tried
to pursue their interests with warfare.
-
Not all countries have done so,
but many countries have.
-
And this is maybe the most
important reason
-
why international violence
declined dramatically since 1945,
-
and today, as I said,
-
more people commit suicide
-
than are killed in war.
-
So this I think gives us a good example
-
that even the most frightening technology,
-
humans can rise up to the challenge
-
and actually some good can come out of it.
-
The problem is, we have very little
margins for error.
-
If we don't get it right,
-
we might not have a second option
-
to try again.
-
CA: That's a very powerful note
on which I think we should draw this
-
to a conclusion.
-
Before I wrap I just want to say
one thing to people here
-
and to the global TED community
-
watching online, anyone watching online.
-
Help us with these dialogues.
-
If you believe, like we do,
-
that we need to find
a different kind of conversation,
-
now more than ever, help us do it.
-
Reach out to other people,
-
try and have conversations
with people you disagree with,
-
understand them,
-
pull the pieces together,
-
and help us figure out how
to take these conversations forward
-
so we can make a real contribution
-
to what's happening
in the world right now.
-
I think everyone feels more alive,
-
more concerned, more engaged
-
with the politics of the moment.
-
The stakes do seem quite high,
-
so help us respond to it
-
in a wise, wise way.
-
Yuval Harari, thank you.
-
(Applause)