In Order To CHANGE YOUR LIFE In 2024, You Need To DO THESE 3 Things First! | Yuval Noah Harari
Watch on YouTubeVideo summary
Yuval Noah Harari argues that to thrive in the rapidly changing landscape of 2024 and beyond, individuals must embrace three fundamental principles: continuous learning, mental flexibility, and collective responsibility. He emphasizes that the era where one could learn a profession in youth and rely on it for life is over; instead, humans must constantly adapt as automation and AI reshape industries. Crucially, this adaptation requires not just acquiring new skills but possessing "mental flexibility"—the ability to let go of old identities even those formed since infancy—as virtual realities with different physical laws emerge. Harari notes that while individuals cannot solve these challenges alone, governments must step in to create safety nets for retraining and provide psychological support during stressful transitions, rather than forcing specific solutions like coding onto everyone regardless of their circumstances or potential. The conversation delves into the ideological shifts defining human history, contrasting fascism, communism, and liberalism as competing narratives about collective versus individual value. Harari defines liberalism by four core liberties: choosing one's government, religion, profession, and spouse, noting that while it has historically faced opposition from authoritarian regimes like Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union, it is now the dominant worldview globally despite internal cultural wars. He warns against the current polarization in Western democracies where political rivals are viewed as existential enemies rather than mistaken citizens, a dynamic he believes destroys democracy by turning politics into civil war. This tension between collective care and personal responsibility is essential for social stability, yet modern media algorithms often amplify "righteous indignation," creating positive feedback loops that drive people toward tribalism and conflict instead of compromise. Harari expresses cautious optimism regarding humanity's long-term trajectory despite current crises like the Russian invasion of Ukraine or technological disruptions from AI. He points out that we are living in the most peaceful era in human history, a state achieved through international institutions rather than divine intervention or natural laws. However, this peace is fragile; if nations fail to uphold norms against aggression, as seen with Putin's actions, global defense budgets will skyrocket and trust between strangers could erode. He cites Ukraine as an example of successful nationalism that unites diverse ethnic groups against a common threat without resorting to hatred of minorities or neighbors. Conversely, he warns that the "will to power" often leads leaders to exploit societal fractures for political gain, turning nations into warring tribes and undermining the very institutions—like sewage systems—that keep humanity safe from disease and collapse. Looking toward future technologies like AI, gene editing, and the metaverse, Harari identifies significant dangers regarding privacy loss and the potential for autonomous weapons that could strip humans of their decision-making power. He cautions against fully divorcing human existence from biology in favor of a purely virtual life, arguing that our microbes and physical bodies are central to who we are; uploading consciousness would merely create copies rather than saving us from death or existential dread. The ultimate challenge lies in regulating these powerful technologies through international cooperation before the "tragedy of the commons" leads to uncontrolled competition among nations developing dangerous capabilities like autonomous drones. Ultimately, Harari suggests that humanity's survival depends on grounding our narratives back in biological reality and shared human experiences—such as the fear of death or desire for love—rather than relying on conflicting religious fantasies or mind-generated stories that fuel unnecessary conflict over territory or ideology.
Read the full video transcript
You all know Yuval Noah Harari. Welcome
back to the show. Thank you. It's good
to be here again. Then I'm very excited.
This is a very strange time that we are
living through. I want to start with a
quote of yours, which I think really
captures the spirit of the moment. It is
much worse psychologically to feel
worthless than to feel exploited. Mhm.
So given what's happening in the world
right now with things being automated,
going to AI, what are
three things, let's say, that people can
do to make sure that they're poised to
thrive in this time of massive change?
Mhm.
First of all, I mean, that's what
everybody is saying, but it's true that
is that you have to embrace change.
That the idea that you can learn
something in your youth, a profession,
uh a way of life, and it will just be
there for the rest of your of your life,
which was the situation for most of
history, this is this is no longer the
case.
We have to keep learning and keep
changing throughout our lives.
Otherwise, we will be left behind.
So that's one one key principle.
Related to that is that uh maybe the
most important quality
to survive and flourish in the 21st
century is to have mental flexibility.
Not just to keep learning and changing
again and again, also to keep letting
go.
Um part of what makes it difficult to
learn new things that we hold on.
Like, you know, I spent so many years
learning something, and now the world
has changed, and um I I just don't want
to let go. I'm letting go. Uh maybe like
I'll give an example of how deep it
goes.
Like,
it's not just what you learn in college
or what you learned in kindergarten.
It's even what you learned as a baby, as
a toddler, like learning how to see
or learning how to walk. And what does
that mean that I have I have I have to
relearn how to see and walk? Well, um as
virtual reality
improves
and you know, with all the talk of the
metaverse and so forth that we'll
discuss later on
increasingly, it's likely that there
will be many more activities shifting
from the physical biological world that
we know
into a new reality, a virtual reality,
which has different physical and
biological laws. Even the laws of
physics there are different. So, whether
you want to interact socially there
or maybe you have a job
in virtual reality, in the metaverse, or
maybe you design you you you you have a
new job designing fashion, designing
shirts for virtual reality because
people want to look good there.
You need to forget
how physics and light and gravity works
here because it works in a different way
in in in in that reality.
So, just what does it mean? Like I'm now
46. Let's say I have a new job designing
fashion for the metaverse.
How can I at age 46 kind of forget
what it what it means to see
and learn from scratch how to see
things?
Are you optimistic that adults can do
that?
Humans have an amazing ability to to
adapt and to change.
You know, it's often said that AI is
nowhere near its uh uh um
full capabilities, but human beings,
too,
are nowhere near their full full
capabilities. We really have no idea
what we can still do, what our mind can
can can still do. If you think about
jobs again,
so you know, the biggest
change in the job market of the 21st of
the 20th century, looking at the
previous century, it didn't come from
any technological invention.
It actually came from unlocking the
potential of half the human species.
Women, which were barred from so many
jobs because people thought they were
incapable of doing that, and they didn't
have the education and training and so
forth,
and the feminist revolution and the
changes in gender relations just
completely changed the job market, and
you didn't need to genetically engineer
uh
women's DNA
or to kind of connect them to some new
device. No, the potential to be
presidents, to be judges, to be
journalists, to be scientists was always
there,
but it wasn't tapped.
It and and it's it's
to a large extent, I hope we'll see
something similar in the 21st century,
that yes, we have all these new
challenges,
but uh we also have this
uh
um amazing untapped potential within us.
But this links to the to the third
thing, which is we can't do it alone.
Like placing all
do it alone or individuals can't do it
alone? Individuals can't do it alone.
Like placing all the responsibility on
individuals, the world is changing, now
it's your job to adapt, to to to change
yourself, to learn, it doesn't work like
that.
Um it's too much for an individual to do
just by themselves.
Uh we'll probably have
uh uh we'll require
organizations, governments to step in to
make sure that people are not left
behind.
You know, just retraining people, you
lose your old job
to a computer or a robot or a
self-driving vehicle, but there are new
jobs. I don't think there'll be a
problem with just an absolute lack of
jobs.
Old jobs disappear, but new jobs emerge.
The really difficult thing will be the
transition.
And the transition, first of all, you
need some kind of financial assistance.
Like you lost your old job, you need to
retrain for a couple of months for a new
profession, maybe. Who is going to
support you during this this time? So
just as in the 20th century, governments
built this huge
infrastructure
for educating the young,
schools and colleges and so forth, we'll
now need to build another infrastructure
to educate and to retrain people
in the 40s and 50s.
Do you see that as
one last thing is that they'll also need
psychological help. That's what I'm
Again, because it's going to be
extremely stressful.
To kind of invent yourself when you're
16, this is what you do when you're 16.
But when you're you're 46, you want to
take it easy. I don't want to start all
over again. So it's psychologically
very, very stressful.
And I think that we we will have to to
see more government support uh for
mental health just to cope with the
immense stress
of of the 21st century. Do you know the
learn to code meme?
The learn to code
Oh, learn to code. Um so people are
getting booted off of social media for
saying it. It's one of those things that
took me so by surprise. So anybody, I
think, that spends enough time
contemplating, okay, AI, what's the
future? I'm sure we'll get into data
harvesting and stuff like that. You
really do that
begin to understand that the future
belongs to the technically savvy. Mhm.
And if you are a 46-year-old truck
driver, it's sort of the classic
example, cuz that's, you going the way
of the dodo, and it's, you know, not
something that requires a high degree of
education or necessarily even a
ultra-high IQ. Not saying that drivers
don't have a high IQs, I'm just saying
it doesn't necessarily max your IQ to do
that job. And so, when people say,
"Okay, if the future belongs to the
technically savvy, we know drivers are
going to, you know, be without that job,
then they should learn to code to get a
new job."
And my instinct was, yes, that's
absolutely true. And I came to that
debate super late, and so by the time I
got there, people were already getting
banned off social media for saying it.
And I was like, wait, what? So, going
back, I couldn't understand why telling
the individual that you're going to be a
participant in this, I'm not opposed to,
I think it's a great idea for
governments to create a safety net. I
think it's a bad idea for governments to
drag you across the finish line. And I
think that ends in tyranny every time.
So, where do you see because it will be
hard, and there will be people left
behind. I don't see any way around that,
and nature, so curious to see if you
agree with this, nature does not care.
Nature will leave you behind in a
heartbeat. Mother nature is more than
happy to obliterate people, watch an
entire generation get eaten by a change,
doesn't care.
So, how do we
without incapacitating
the people that have to relearn and do
this very difficult thing, how do we
encourage them to move forward
without
either abandoning them on one side or
dragging them forward on the other?
Well, you know, first of all, I have to
say that I'm not sure that coding is
such a safe job, because coding too
could be automated. Maybe, you know, you
you could
you could also will also need a lot of
therapists, will need community
organizers, will even need philosophers,
because a lot of these new questions
they actually suddenly the big tech
companies need people who understand
deep philosophical questions because
they become technical questions.
You need a lot of people in the in the
taking care
of of other people. You know, it's
um
in a way it's easier to automate the job
of a coder than the job of a nurse.
Like coding is in the end it's just
data. It's just information. It's just
information coming in and out. So I can
see more easily how you automate the job
of a computer scientist, at least some
of these jobs, than the job of a nurse
who needs to replace a bandage
or to give an injection to a screaming
child and and things like that. Partly
because it demands a much wider range of
abilities. It's not just
of course a nurse needs
to understand information and to analyze
information and so forth, but also needs
motor skills,
also needs social skills, and the
combination of these skills this is much
harder to automate.
So I wouldn't place all my bets on on
something like uh coding. Governments
are essential
again partly because in many countries,
you know, I think about I don't know
you mentioned truck drivers, also
textile workers. You imagine you think
about many countries in Latin America.
They don't have a a high-tech sector.
They have a textile industry.
Lots and lots of people working in
textile producing shirts.
And suddenly all of this is automated.
It's cheaper to produce shirts in
California than in Mexico or in
Guatemala.
And in addition to that there is an
entirely new line of of
textile industry which is virtual
shirts. Like I spend hours in virtual
reality, I want to look good the latest
fashion in virtual reality.
And somebody needs to design it. Now
how do you take, again, a 40-year-old
unemployed textile worker from Guatemala
and turn her or him into a designer of
virtual shirts?
Um so, without so government support,
and in this case, I mean, these
countries could what even they can't
afford it. They will have to get support
from the richer countries. Otherwise, we
are facing a global uh uh uh
catastrophe.
So, I'm not saying that governments kind
of will force people to do something.
It's, you know, like with with basic
education for young people.
I mean, you can you can still fail.
You can still drop out, but at least
you're given the chance.
Uh and and then whether you use this
chance that you're given wisely or not
is is is up to you.
But I I think most of the successful
systems in history,
they they are complex. They don't place
all the responsibility just on
individuals
because then a lot of people are left
behind, not because uh uh uh of even
their fault. It's just they weren't
given the the the the proper
opportunity.
Uh on the other hand, trusting only
government, then you get these kind of
communist nightmares that we definitely
don't don't want to try this this this
mistake again.
Yeah, that to me is the problem. And
when I look at the culture war right
now, which quoting you again, uh
you said this is a paraphrase, but I'm
going to get really close. So, by all
means, if I say anything wrong, jump in.
But you said uh if Putin had waited 5 or
10 years to uh invade the Ukraine, the
West probably would have imploded on its
own, and he could have gotten away with
it.
And I was like
Wow, that is that is it feels
terrifyingly accurate. So, the way that
the West is tearing itself apart right
now, I find deeply distressing. So, the
reason that that ties into this for me
is that there there is a necessary
tension
between and I'll I don't know if you'll
agree with this, but by all means jump
in if you don't. There's a necessary
tension between the left and the right,
and I think the left and the right are
evolution's solution to you if you're a
social creature, Mhm. you want to try to
help everybody. But, as you try to help
everybody, there's the free loader
problem.
Yeah.
get people that will take advantage of
the system. So, you need people on the
other side that demand personal
responsibility. Mhm. But, if you only
have personal responsibility, that will
also lead to tyranny. So, you have
tyranny on both sides. And so, what you
need is the tension in the middle. Mhm.
But, you can't have the tension if each
side thinks that the tension is the
problem. Mhm. If they're both trying to
be right and they're trying to silence
the other side,
that feels like the core problem of the
West is that we no longer realize, "Oh,
it's good that not everybody's on my
side, whatever side you're on." Because
if everybody were on my side, we
wouldn't have the tension, we'll have
tyranny. Yeah.
Is that how you see it, or is there
something more nuanced? No, I I I think
the good thing about democracy is that
you have multiple voices, and you don't
see the other people as you you as your
enemies. You can think that they are
mistaken. You can even think that they
are stupid, but they are not evil.
You're they're not your enemies. Once
people in a democracy start seeing their
political rivals as as their enemies,
and as people who are trying to destroy
the way of life, democracy just cannot
survive in this situation.
Uh you can have a civil war. You can
have a dictatorship,
but you cannot have a democracy.
Because, you know, if if if if Americans
think that the other side, the other
Americans,
are their enemies out to to destroy
them,
then they will do anything to win the
elections because this is now like a war
and they have no incentive to accept the
result if they lose.
Um and that's that's the biggest danger.
I think that the not just the United
States, but many countries in in the
West are facing.
That
increasingly people are seeing
the their neighbors, the people in in in
the other state in in in the other town
as as their enemies.
It's not so clear why this is happening.
Mhm. Because actually the ideological
differences today are much smaller Okay.
than they were 50 years ago or 100 years
ago.
Before you finish that, can I set
something up? I'd never heard anybody
talk about this before. I know where
you're going. Okay. So you you said this
is this is all you. I thought this was
so brilliant. It gave me a way to
understand what's happening. You said in
the 20th century there were three big
ways of viewing the world. You had
fascism, Mhm. you had communism, Yeah.
and you had liberalism. Yes. Explain the
three because the punchline is where
you're going now, which is why didn't
people go with liberalism? But
please explain the three and then we can
get into why liberalism is breaking down
because I actually don't understand why.
Mhm.
Well,
that's that's that's that's
a lot to explain in in in brief, but
basically fascism is says that the state
is the only the state and the nation are
the only thing that matters. Mhm.
Um there is nationalism in itself is a
force for good.
Nationalism, when it's understood
correctly, it means simply that you love
the other people in your nation and
you're willing to make some sacrifices
for them, for instance, to pay taxes so
they that they get good health care.
When it's good nationalism is about
love, not about hating foreigners or
minorities. Uh fascism is when somebody
says that the nation is the only thing
that matter.
Individuals, uh groups, they don't
matter at all.
Everything should serve the needs of of
the nation, of the state.
Uh
the truth is whatever helps the nation.
Um good is whatever is good for the
nation. Even even beauty, like films and
and art and so forth, on it's all
political.
A a good film is a good that advances
the interests of the nations. That's it.
And anybody who opposes this is a
traitor and should be eliminated.
This is kind of the the basic worldview
of of fascism. You know, the symbol of
fascism is that the word fascism, it
means it comes from from from Latin for
fasces, that is it's it's a kind of
bundle of of reeds or bundle of of of
small kind of twigs.
And which is very strange. I mean, why
is the symbol of one of the most evil
and ferocious movement in history a
bundle of twigs? What What What What
What's the sense there? And the idea is
that each twig by itself is nothing.
It's It's It's easy to break it. It's
nothing. But you know, you take a lot of
twigs together, you can't break them.
So that's the message of of fascism,
that you're nothing in yourself as an
individual, but the group as a whole,
it's it's it's the only thing that
matters.
And then communism is actually a
variation on on that. It also
uh has no regard for for the individual.
It
thinks more in terms of class. It's not
so much the nation, which is in the
center, it's the class to which you
belong, which is at the center.
And
Uh,
the hero of communism is not the nation,
it's the working class.
But, again, to make a very long story
short, it's the same idea. This is why
also you see that Nazi Germany and the
Soviet Union, they constantly copy each
other.
Because the it's
at the basic level,
there is the same idea that individual
human beings count for nothing,
and it's only the interests of the
collective which are important.
And liberalism says that no,
but we put Yes, we need
also collective action, collective
cooperation. Um, again, to build a
healthcare system, to build an education
system, people need to cooperate. But,
still at the center, we have the
individual.
And, you know, there is a very
simple test
to test yourself whether you're liberal.
So, you know, the word liberal is just
as fascism comes from this fasces, this
bundle of of reeds, and communism from
communal, everything together. So,
liberalism is from from liberty,
freedom.
And, answer just four simple question.
Do you think people should have the
liberty to choose their own government?
Do you think people should have the
liberty to choose their own religion?
Do you think people should have the
liberty to choose their own profession?
And, do you think people should have the
liberty to choose their own spouse?
If you answer yes to all four questions,
congratulations, you're a liberal.
And, again, it sounds like what Who who
will object? But, for most of history,
most people objected.
Like,
you know, you had the American
Revolution against the king of England.
And, the whole idea of monarchy is that
people don't get They don't have the
liberty to choose their own government.
There is a king appointed by God the
whatever, and this is the government.
And similarly in in the Soviet Union or
in Nazi Germany, people don't get to
choose the government to replace the
government.
Similarly, if you think about
profession,
so in a communist society, you don't get
to choose your profession.
The Communist Party tells you that you
now go to the farm to raise cabbages,
and he now goes to the factory to
produce cars. And we tell you how many
cabbages to produce or what kind of cars
to produce. And if you go, I don't know,
to the Middle Ages, so again, you don't
have any liberty to choose your
profession. If you're a born to a
peasant family, you'll be a peasant. If
your father was a cobbler, you'll be a
cobbler. That that's it. You have no
choice there. And of course, when it
comes to choosing your spouse, same
thing.
It doesn't matter who you love.
It matters what your elders tell you,
what your church tells you, what the
nation needs.
Um and today,
in the big ideological war of the 20th
century, liberalism came came on top.
And when I said earlier that actually
the the the ideological differences that
I see today in the United States or in
the West as a whole in in the world as a
whole, are much smaller than 50 years
ago or 100 years ago, because almost all
people are liberal. Even the
conservatives who hate to think liberal,
"Oh, this is terrible. I hate these
liberals." They're liberal.
In in the in the long-term historical
sense, so of course, we we know these
hot hot button issues like abortion,
like gun control, and and these things.
And and and
there you have arguments, but underneath
it all,
there is much deeper and more widespread
ideological agreement
than anything we've seen 50 years ago or
100 years ago.
Even, you know, these kind of of of hot
button subjects like abortion, right?
Gay gay marriage. They're actually the
aftershocks of the Big Bang of the
1960s, of the sexual revolution, the
really big argument about these issues
were in the 1960s. The truth is, hitting
your career goals is not easy. You have
to be willing to go the extra mile to
stand out and do hard things better than
anybody else. But, there are 10 steps I
want to take you through that will 100x
your efficiency, so you can crush your
goals and get back more time into your
day. You'll not only get control of your
time, you'll learn how to use that
momentum to take on your next big goal.
To help you do this, I've created a list
of the 10 most impactful things that any
high achiever needs to dominate. And you
can download it for free by clicking the
link in today's description. All right,
my friend, back to today's episode. The
gap there was was much, much bigger, and
in the end almost everybody accepted the
liberal position.
You know, in in in in the in the 1950s,
universities could expel students from
university if they had sex before
marriage.
Wow. This was sex before marriage. This
is that.
Uh and who wants to go to to go back
there? I mean, you know,
uh a divorce was kind of
was unthinkable.
Uh marriage between a white person and a
black person was legally prohibited. So
crazy.
And this was, you know, 50, 60 years
ago.
So, I'm not saying that there are no
ideological differences remaining, or
that there are no kind of of
debates.
But, if people could step back and look
at the long-term
uh view,
they would be amazed how close actually
Republicans and Democrats in the US are.
You know, Republicans today are far more
liberal on uh say LGBT rights than
Democrats were in the 1960s.
So,
and and other I think people should ask
themselves, okay, we have these
remaining disagreements.
Is it a good enough reason to destroy
the American Republic over that?
To destroy basically Western
civilization over that.
So, you know, you think about the the
American Civil War.
And people today, some people say, okay,
we are approaching another Civil War.
Imagine
high school students in 100 years having
to write an an
a test about American history and they
get two questions. What was the first
Civil War about? That's easy, slavery.
What was the second Civil War about?
Is there anything as as clear as salient
that you can it was about that?
It was about gun control? It was about
whether transgender people can go to the
to the to the same toilet or not? What
what was it about?
And I think that the tragedy of what's
happening now in the US and in much of
the West
is that um
again, the ideological differences are
are are small on the ground, but they
are very big in people's imagination.
People have fantasies about what the
other side is planning to do which are
completely divorced from reality.
You know, in the 20th century
you didn't need to fantasize what these
communists want to do. They told you.
That you listen to to somebody like
Lenin or Stalin, they tell you.
We want to completely abolish
private property.
It's not a fantasy in the minds of some
liberals that this is what the
communists want to do.
The same thing with the fascists. You
just need to to listen to Hitler. He
literally detailed everything he wanted
to do. I'm going to do this and this and
the Jews were a problem and we're going
to do this. I was like, what? I could
not believe he published all of that.
Yeah. Don't forget he open. power.
Insane. It was in the open. And now much
of the kind of
gap is mostly in the imagination of
people.
And
the tragedy is
that in history
you can get terrible terrible wars. I'm
not saying everything that I said now is
not like it's not going to be a civil
war. It's they're going to not going to
be civil strife in the No. The tragedy
of history is that very often you get
terrible things happening
for
without any good reason at all.
But afterwards when when you look back
you ask, "What was this all about?" Like
you think about the wars of religion in
Europe in the 19 in in the 16th and 17th
century.
Which by the way
was part of the reason that people fled
Europe to come to the United States.
And Protestants and Catholics killing
each other by the millions. Like a third
of the population of Germany died in the
30 years war between Protestants and
Catholics.
A third of the population. And you look
back today
even as a as as as as a Protestant or a
Catholic and you ask yourself, "What was
this about?" And it's completely
incomprehensible.
To the people back then it looked like
the most important things in the world.
Like whether you believe in this
theological view or that theological
view, whether you do the mass in in in
in in with this ritual or with like the
a very big issue, whether it was whether
you give the the ordinary Christians
during mass
only the holy bread or also the wine.
And you look back
you got to have a big war over that?
Yes, they did have a very very big war
over that.
And also people sometimes have big wars
over fantasies in their minds.
We have now just an example, you know,
with the Russian invasion of Ukraine.
Um so Putin had all these fantasies in
in his mind. For instance, that NATO is
threatening Russia. You know, very
simple question. Name the country which
was about to invade Russia in 2022.
What, the Germans were about to invade
Russia? Have you been to Germany lately?
Do you think these people, what they
want to do in life is going to invade
Russia? Do you think the French want to
invade Russia? Napoleon will come out of
his grave and lead the the grand armée
again to Moscow? This is complete
fantasy.
But fantasies often shape history
and cause people to do, you know,
terrible things.
Yeah, this is so
I have a hypothesis. I know you don't
believe that history repeats, but that
humans do have a biology. We have a
nature. Humans are like something.
And I think there's two things, man, and
this is like a random entrepreneur
stabbing in the dark here, but I've
engaged with people enough that I'm
pretty confident that I'm on the right
track. I think there's two things that
lead to this kind of thing where we're
fighting over something that in the end
really isn't that important. One, some
people need to be chased by a lion. So
without an extrinsic real danger that
forces you to be like, "Yo, we may not
see eye to eye, but you can help me keep
my family safe, and in return I will
help you keep your family safe." Without
that, that impulse to protect or
whatever goes awry or just that they
can't handle boredom.
Something we talked about briefly before
we started rolling. And then there the
other thing is Nietzsche's will to
power.
And I did not understand
the culture war until I started reading
about Nietzsche and the idea that we
have we want to it can manifest
beautifully. We want to get better. We
want to improve. We want that control
over our life to to manifest what we
could be.
But then there's also the toll booth
person that isn't going to let you
through if you don't have exact change
because they can. And that they get to
feel that sense of okay, I matter. I I
have some
control over the world. And that desire
to have power
coupled with there's nothing real to
fight against
puts humans in a very weird situation
where they will pick up on minor things
and we just run in opposite directions
so that we have
the expression of
the will to power. Now, I am new to
nature, so I do not claim to fully
understand him.
But it seems like he saw it as a pretty
broad spectrum. Could be a beautiful
thing. It could be an ugly petty thing.
So I don't want to paint it with like
these dark overtones and wolves howling
in the background. But like that it can
manifest in a pretty ugly way.
I I completely agree that much of what
we see now is not an ideological battle.
It's uh certain politicians
uh
who as you say that what what is driving
them is power, not ideology. And they
are using
um divisive
uh uh
issues.
You know, the the way to gain power is
to take a certain issue and politicize
it. And they they are searching for
issues that can get people enraged. That
can and and then harnessed harnessed
this energy to to get to power. So a lot
of the issues that you know, people are
fighting over, if they were
depoliticized
they could have been solved much more
easily.
But you take these issues and you turn
them into these big ideological battles
and then nobody wants to to back down
and become this tribal affair and this
is the the way that these leaders
ride to power. And and again we see it
so many times in history. It's really
terrible.
I think that the job of leaders should
be actually to heal the community, to
bring it together.
And this is why also I think that you
know many people today say that that we
see the resurgence of resurgence of
nationalism all over the world. But
actually much of the world you see a
crisis of nationalism and the resurgence
of tribalism of tearing nations into
their components and destroying actually
the national community.
Like I said before, nationalism when
when it is understood correctly, it's a
force for good in the world. The basic
kind of message of nationalism is uh the
the the ability to care about people you
don't know, which is amazing. You know,
from a biological perspective, we are
kind of programmed to care about a very
small number of people that we know
personally, our family, our friends and
to prefer them over everybody else.
And the big task of nationalism is to
come and say and say to us no, there is
a much larger community of people that
you need to care about. So for instance,
you take money away from your family
and you give it to build a health care
system. This is these are taxes so that
strange people that you never met in
your life on the other side of the
country, you'll never meet them, but
because you're a good patriot and you
care about them, you pay your taxes
honestly so that they get some basic
health care or education or a sewage
system.
And
um similarly, like you now I don't know
you're a mayor or you're a
prime minister or something and you need
to appoint somebody for a job,
and you have two options. You have your
cousin,
which is not qualified at all, but he's
your cousin, man. And you have like a
very qualified person who is a stranger.
Millions of years of evolution are
screaming in your ear, "Are you an
idiot? Give it to your cousin."
But patriotism tells you no. You should
give the job to the qualified person
because they would do a better job for
the community.
And that's that's the the the the the
the the the the the good side
of of of nationalism.
And what we see now in many parts of the
world is politicians who describe
themselves as nationalists, but they are
actually not trying to create uh
harmony in the national community. They
don't strengthen the national community.
They tear it apart.
They deliberately look for any crack,
for any wound in kind of the national
body. Hey, here there there's a problem.
This is something that people don't
agree on, and instead of trying to heal
it, they kind of
poke their finger into it and try to
enlarge it as much as possible, to
inflame it, because it this is their
ticket to power.
And in this way they destroy
the national community
and uh
uh turn the nation into warring tribes.
And then they place themselves at the
head of one tribe
and tell people, "You have to follow me,
otherwise the other tribe will destroy
you."
And you're completely right. This is
simply uh
uh the the will to power. It works. We
see, unfortunately, in many parts of the
world, we see that it is working. Not
just in the US. I mean, there are
elections this this week in Brazil.
There are elections uh next week in my
country in Israel. It's exactly the
same.
Instead of leaders who are trying to
heal the national community, you see
leaders that try to destroy it and get
power by kind of leading just one tribe.
Mhm.
Yeah, this is why like I'm a super
optimistic guy. As I was saying before
we started rolling like when it comes to
AI, the metaverse, all that stuff,
you're going to have to slap me back to
reality because I'm so optimistic.
But on this, I am pessimistic only
because when I look at the human animal
and the way that we're wired and what
biology tells us to do,
I don't see it feels like a positive
feedback loop that has been magnified a
thousandfold by social media. And so now
information is coming at us so fast,
it's memified so it becomes very easy to
digest.
I have a level of confusion because so
much is coming at me.
If I feel insecure, nothing from a
biology perspective, nothing is more
intoxicating than the certainty of
righteous indignation. So the reason
that somebody can acquire power by
poking at something is they're telling
me exactly how to feel about something
very concrete. And so it's like you
should hate those people because they
have guns. You should hate those people
because they believe in abortion. You
should hate those people because on and
on and on.
And so it now in all of my confusion, I
have absolute certainty.
And through a weird quirk of evolution,
that calms my mind and distracts me from
all the like internal emotional turmoil
that I was having.
And it's like
the only way that I see that running its
course so that we it's like labor. Once
a woman goes into labor, there is no
stopping it. She's either going to die
or she's going to give birth to a child.
Those are your two options, there's
nothing in between. Yeah. Because you're
you're in that positive feedback loop. I
feel like and Lord knows I want you to
tell me that we're not, but I feel like
we're in a positive feedback loop right
now of people racing away from each
other. Mhm.
And the only way that they will come
back to the middle is through enough
suffering.
And every war proves that after a while
you just don't want to fight anymore.
And you've seen too many people die and
it's like, "Oh my god, this is so
horrible. Now I'm willing to compromise.
Now I'm willing to come back to the
table."
And if you see a way out of this,
because I am a big believer in Nelson
Mandela. When I read Long Walk to
Freedom, that changed me at some deep
fundamental level where he was like,
"Hey, they imprisoned me for 27 years.
And what's my answer when I come back
out? To find what I've heard you refer
to as a middle way."
So, way number one is to remain
oppressed. Clearly, he wasn't prepared
to do that. Way number two is to become
the oppressor. And he was like, "You
give up your humanity when you become
the oppressor." So, he's like, "You
might be in power, but you give
something up that's not worth giving
up." The third way, the way in the
middle, is to heal people, to bring them
back together. And so, I'm like, "If he
can do that, like none of us have an
excuse."
But I don't think that we can. I think
he was such a freakishly rare human.
I just don't know who we turn to.
Well, I'm less optimistic about the
metaverse and all that and we'll discuss
this in in a minute. But but I'm more
optimistic
We can trade optimism. Well, well, yeah,
I'm the opposite. I'm more optimistic
about I mean, not like terribly
optimistic, but a little more optimistic
All right, let's hear about our chances,
you know, kind of politically and and
and and so forth. I mean, first of all,
I look at the long-term process of
history. Uh we started
tens of thousands of years ago, hundreds
of thousands of years ago, as isolated
bands.
I mean, 100,000 years ago, you have
humans living in small hunter-gatherer
bands of a few dozen individuals.
And over history, you see that the
direction is very, very clear. Humans
find ways
to trust more and more strangers, to
come together into larger and larger
groups,
even though kind of evolution
evolutionarily it makes no sense.
I mean, we are programmed to trust just
a very, very small number of individuals
that we know personally. And yet, we
have
uh nations, we have countries of
hundreds of millions of people. We have
a trade network which covers basically
the the entire globe.
So, humans find ways how to
to to to to overcome these tendencies
and to develop trust.
And when you look specifically even at
the issue of of violence and war,
the last few decades have been the most
peaceful era in human history.
Now, I know there have been conflicts
and and and wars in the last few
decades. I come from Israel, you don't
need to tell me. I I lived in the Middle
East all my life. But, when you look at
the statistics,
it's the most peaceful era in human
history.
It's an era when humans had more chance
to die from eating too much
than from human violence.
In most of the world, it became
unacceptable for one country to just
invade and conquer its neighbors because
it's it's it's stronger.
Um you see it in the in the state
budgets maybe in in better than any
other place. For most of history, the
number one item on the budget of every
king and sultan and emperor is the army.
The army, the navy, the fortresses, the
military.
In recent decades, the average
expenditure of governments all over the
world together, the average, on the
military is about 6%. Wow. That's
amazing because this is what enabled the
the
to shift to again education, welfare, uh
uh healthcare. Most countries spend much
more on education, healthcare, and
welfare than they spend all their on
their military. What is up, my friend?
Tom Bilyeu here, and I have a big
question to ask you. How would you rate
your level of personal discipline on a
scale of 1 to 10? If your answer is
anything less than a 10, I've got
something cool for you. And let me tell
you right now, discipline by its very
nature means compelling yourself to do
difficult things that are stressful,
boring, which is what kills most people,
or possibly scary or even painful. Now,
here is the thing. Achieving huge goals
and stretching to reach your potential
requires you to do those challenging,
stressful things and to stick with them
even when it gets boring, and it will
get boring. Building your levels of
personal discipline is not easy, but let
me tell you it pays off. In fact, I will
tell you you're never going to achieve
anything meaningful unless you develop
discipline. All right, I've just
released a class from Impact Theory
University called How to Build Ironclad
Discipline that teaches you the process
of building yourself up in this area so
that you can push yourself to do the
hard things that greatness is going to
require of you. All right, click the
link on the screen, register for this
class right now, and let's get to work.
I will see you inside this workshop from
Impact Theory University. Until then, my
friends, be legendary. Peace out.
And that tells us that it's possible.
Now, we shouldn't be complacent
and think that oh, this is now that's
it. We have peace. We can just relax.
No, peace didn't come from some changing
the laws of nature or because of divine
intervention. It came because people,
countries built good institutions, not
just on a national level, but on the
international level.
Since 1945, countries have built a
rule-based
international system, which had many
problems,
but still managed to provide more peace
than in any previous era.
This is now in question.
The Russian invasion of Ukraine and
other developments are so frightening
because they endanger the biggest
achievement of of of humanity.
Uh this era of relative peace.
You know, if if if Putin is allowed to
get away
with what he's trying to do in Ukraine,
then you will see defense budgets all
over the world skyrocket. Already now,
lots of countries, Germany, Japan,
countries in Europe doubling, tripling
their defense budgets.
It's basically like, you know, you had
the biggest the biggest taboo in the
international system
was you cannot invade another country
and conquer it just because you're
stronger.
And he's now breaking this taboo, and
everybody around the world is watching
to see what will happen. It's like in a
school when you have a bully who picks
on a on a smaller kid and starts beating
him,
and all the kids are watching what will
happen.
If the bully gets away with it,
nobody intervenes, if they then it's
clear to everybody, that's it. The laws
of the school, the norms of the school
have changed.
Now, everybody knows this can happen.
If on the other hand,
people intervene, the bully is stopped,
you give support to to to the to the to
the victim,
then the norm actually gets
strengthened.
People realize, hey, you can't do that.
And this is now what is happening.
Uh dictators and regimes all over the
world are watching to see what will
happen in Ukraine.
Um so far Putin is not getting away with
it. There's been massive support from
from Ukraine from the West. The
Ukrainians themselves are fighting more
bravely and efficiently than anybody
could have imagined.
And this also goes back to to to kind of
where my optimism about what's happening
inside nations come from. You look at
Ukraine.
Um Ukraine is a very new country.
Just, you know, 30 years since it's
gained its independence from the Soviet
Union.
It It's made of different ethnic groups.
You have people speaking Russian, people
speaking Ukrainian, you have Jews, and
and so forth. And it was
uh under the most intense kind of
disinformation campaign
coming from Russia
trying to divide the Ukrainians against
themselves. Trying to do exactly that,
to tear apart the fabric of the
Ukrainian society, of Ukrainian nation,
and turn, you know, uh Ukrainian
speakers and Russian speakers against
each other.
And they completely failed, the
Russians.
Putin gambled. One of the reason what
happening in the in the war, Putin
gambled that the moment his tanks would
enter Ukraine, Ukraine would just
collapse. Zelenskyy would run away. The
Ukrainian army would surrender. And lots
of Ukrainians would, you know, throw
flowers on the Russian tanks.
And it didn't happen.
The Ukrainians actually came together.
Um Zelenskyy didn't flee. The Ukrainian
army didn't surrender. And people threw
Molotov cocktails on on the Russian
tanks. And you know, Zelenskyy himself,
he is Jewish,
coming from a Russian-speaking family.
Now, if if if Ukraine had fallen victim
to this kind of tribalism,
then the Ukrainians would think that,
well, he's Russian-speaking, he's
Jewish, he's not really Ukrainian, we
can't trust him.
But he became this national hero.
And I think that I hope that more
countries around the world would learn
from from this example
that
uh uh nationalism doesn't mean that you
hate minorities or you hate your
neighbors. No, it means that that people
come together.
It's an interesting take on nationalism
that I I've thought a lot about because
I grew up in the '80s when it was
it was self-evident that you loved
America. I mean, that was certainly the
prevailing thing. To be against America
was like punk rock. Like it was so anti,
it was like way outside the pale.
And now that's become so commonplace
that it isn't even punk rock anymore.
It's like it's it is I don't know that
it's the dominant voice, but it's a big
enough voice that it isn't
It's not like you say, "Oh, these kind
of extreme radical lefties." You also
see it on the right that people are
against the federal government, against
the FBI, against the postal office. Like
anything that smells
of of of of of the state.
And they they have all these conspiracy
theories about the deep state.
And you know you know what the what the
deep state really is?
The deep state is the sewage system.
You know, somebody built this system
under our houses and streets and towns,
and it's a good system.
You know, you go to the toilet, you
flush down what you've done, and it it's
gone somewhere, and it's take being
taken care of. If there was no sewage
system, we would you know, we would die
of cholera.
Because somebody needs to take care to
separate, say, the drinking water from
the sewage system.
That you don't get germs in your
drinking water. And who is this
somebody? This is the job of of the
government. This is the job of the
state.
And and that's the deep state. And when
you see that people are kind of turning
even against that.
And again, it's coming from from both
sides.
This is
This is so unfortunate that humanity has
managed on many levels to reach this,
you know,
amazing achievements.
Whether it's the most peaceful era in
history, whether it's building sewage
systems so that we don't get cholera
epidemics.
And then people take it for granted.
And then people just neglect it.
That, you know, it's like living in a
house that everybody inhabits, but
nobody wants to repair.
And eventually it it falls down.
And like you said, then people then
people realize what what what
what they missed. Like when you have a
war
and you see people
dying and suffering around you,
then you look back and you say,
"Actually, we had it so good before.
How do we get back there?"
And hopefully
we
we realize in time what we can lose
and we don't get into the war in the
first place.
And it feels to me as a historian that
we are kind of at the edge of the
precipice. Like we've climbed up. We've
been so far below in the jungle, in kind
of this conflict for survival with
violence and disease and poverty. And
we've climbed up to the top or to to a
very high place, but we are still at the
edge of the precipice.
We can fall down all the way down
very very quickly, within just a few
years. Mhm.
And
and and and people don't really realize
it.
Yeah, so you just made me think of
Oppenheimer's quote, "I am become death,
destroyer of worlds." We're living in a
a really
We're living in an amazing time. I
wouldn't want to live at any other time,
but it is a moment of
that requires deep reflection on the
stories that we tell ourselves. So, I
know that as you look at the long arc of
history, you think a lot about Okay, the
reason that humans become the most
dominant predator this world has ever
seen is not because we're the strongest,
fastest, sharpest teeth, claws,
whatever. It's because we could organize
flexibly in groups via the stories that
we effectively bond over and come
together over.
And when we were talking about fascism,
communism, and liberalism,
when I first heard you talk about that,
you said these these are the dominant
stories that over history people have
been fighting over. So, you have the
story of the state is the only thing
that matters and that that what life is
going to be is an eternal struggle
between warring states. One will
violently conquer all the rest and then
there will finally be peace. So, it's
like, "Hey, as Germans, we're that we're
the one. Like, it's us. Like, all we
have to do now is take over. Like, it
was meant to be." Then communism, same
idea. It's the story that the only the
state matters, but the way that we get
there is by distributing everything
equally. And then liberalism, the story.
And you said World War II ended the idea
of fascism.
Uh the Cold War ended the idea of
communism. Liberalism actually worked,
but it's still tearing itself apart. And
so, then the question becomes why? Okay,
so now, if we're on this precipice and
it's this incredibly important moment
where we've got the potential for gene
editing, which you've said could destroy
all of humanity. We've got the potential
for AI or AI's here, man. Anybody that
doesn't recognize like how like now
that we're using it in our own business
on both the the traditional content
side, so what we're doing now will be
tremendously influenced by our ability
to find our audience using AI. And then
on the other side, so we're building in
the metaverse. So, who's designing those
shirts? It's largely humans, but now
they're being augmented with AI. You can
literally type something and it will
give you a design. It's insane. That's
today. So, it becomes a question of what
story are you telling yourselves? Now, I
think the thing, cuz you and I agree on
a lot, but if I had to guess on the
thing that maybe makes me slightly more
pessimistic than you is I believe
ultimately the collective is a
reflection only of the individual.
And
I do think that even if you want
collective change, it has to spring
forth from the individual. Now, we get
into the deep complexities of what that
looks like. So, when you have somebody
like a Nelson Mandela who can actually,
as an individual, sway the collective,
okay, that's very special. And so,
there's clearly a relationship. It's not
an individual in isolation. We're not
whatever 7.4 billion individuals in
isolation. It's very much the way that I
say it is we are both the shout and the
echo. So, you are what you do, and you
are the reflection that comes back from
other people about how they feel about
what you do. And you can never
disentangle those. So, I don't think the
human mind is designed to disentangle
those two things. They are effectively
one in the same.
But, the thing that gets in there, the
way that we're able to take all of these
variables and make sense out of it is
through a narrative, which then deeply
simplifies this incredibly complex
world.
And so, my the thing that I cling to as
hope on this precipice is that people
take the responsibility to tell
themselves a narrative that brings
people back together. Yeah. That's the
only path I see forward. And so, my
thing is
as somebody with a platform,
I think a lot about
is that Go ahead. No, but but there is a
narrative. There is I actually this is
the main story that I tell in in in my
new book, Unstoppable Us.
Um which is aimed at at kids, but
to give them the understanding
that
their identity is closely connected to
all the other people in the world, and
actually even beyond people, to to other
animals.
Because if you want to understand who
you are,
so you know, you get these kind of
national stories, which are important,
but they are so limited. Because nations
have been around for just something like
5,000 years. You know, the oldest
nations in the world, like Egypt, they
go back 5,000 years. Most nations go
back just a couple of hundred years.
And each of us is made of bits and
pieces that came from all over the
world,
for from the whole of history.
You know, it starts with the food that
we eat. Like if I like to eat chocolate,
and chocolate was discovered by the
Olmecs in Central America, something
like 4,000 years ago. So, this is a bit
of Olmec in me that I like chocolate.
And I like my chocolate sweet,
and sugar was domesticated in New
Guinea, something like 8,000 years ago.
So, I have a bit of New Guinea in me
that I like I like sugar.
And um, going much, much deeper, like
our most basic emotions.
You know, as a kid, I sometimes would
wake up in the middle of the night,
afraid there was a monster under the
bed, and I would call my mom. Mom, there
is a monster.
And where is this coming from? This is
not Jewish culture. This is not Israeli
invention. This is coming from millions
of years of evolution.
It's actually a historical memory.
Tens of thousands of years ago, when we
lived in the wild, there were actually
monsters that came in the night to eat
children. Lions and cheetahs and so
forth. And if you continue to sleep, the
lion eats you.
If you wake up and call your mom, you
could be saved.
And again, calling your mom, where is
this is from? Moms are not a Jewish
invention or an American invention.
Again, all mammals and all birds have a
very close connection between mother and
offspring. I mean, this is the very
definition of of being a mammal.
No, mammals means that, you know, you
have I don't know, you have turtles. So,
the mother turtle, she would just climb
at night from the ocean, dig a hole, lay
eggs, cover it, go back to the ocean.
That's it. My job is done.
Best of luck to you. Now, as as a
mammal,
all mammals eat their mother.
Like you're born
Crazy way to say it, but yeah, it's
true. She not only carried you in her
womb.
After you're born, she actually feeds
her feeds you from her body. Mhm. And if
something happens in the connection
between mother and child, you don't
survive.
And this is so basic in who we are. And
you know, as a Jewish kid, you should
know that it's the same with Muslim
kids.
And it's the same with Russian and
Ukrainian kids. And it's the same with
American and Mexican kids.
So, there's this is something very, very
deep in us that connects all of us.
And I think this is a basis
for a a narrative for the 21st century
because we now face also collective
challenges
that threaten the existence, the
humanity of all of us. Again, it's not
just nuclear war and climate change.
It's also what you mentioned. I see new
technologies like genetic engineering
and to some extent also AI as
existential dangers to all of us
uh that we should unite
to face. Is genetic engineering the one
that freaks you out the most?
Um
It it depends because it's it's it's
it's it develops much more slowly than
AI. Mhm. So, in terms of for like what
it can do, then genetic engineering is
probably the most frightening. Germline
only, or do you not want people even
messing with their own? At this stage,
we just don't understand our body and
our brain and our mind well enough to
start messing with it.
Mhm. You know, basically, if you give
corporations and armies and governments
the technology to start changing the
human body,
so, they will start changing
uh kind of developing, upgrading the
human qualities that they need.
Yeah. They want discipline.
They want intelligence. Like, armies
want disciplined and intelligent
soldiers. So, they will try to mess with
our genes, with our body, to make us
more disciplined and more intelligent.
Now, other things, like compassion or
like spirituality, they don't want that.
You know, Putin needs disciplined and
intelligent soldiers to to fight his
war. He doesn't want compassionate
soldiers or spiritual soldiers.
So, even without trying to to to to
eliminate these qualities, just by
focusing on what they want, we might get
kind of highly intelligent and highly
disciplined humans who lack compassion
and lack any spiritual depth.
And the terrible thing about that
is that it will not be a temporary
uh uh change.
It could go on for generations.
If you look back in history, so, figures
like Hitler, like Stalin, they also
tried to re-engineer humans.
But,
they uh
it it it it it it it it it had a time
limit.
Like, with education
and with uh uh uh mass political
control, they could, for a few years,
change the
characteristics of entire populations.
Like brainwashed them with Nazi ideology
or communist ideology.
But eventually when they fell,
you get back to to the to to to ground
zero. You get back to this body, to this
brain. They didn't manage to change it.
So over time, we can start again.
But once you give these kind of regimes
the ability to actually change the human
body,
like permanently, maybe even germline,
then
their
legacy
can last indefinitely. They can create a
new human species. How closely did you
follow the Chinese doctor that
supposedly was addressing HIV, but oops,
it also makes you more intelligent?
Uh this was a like very very
frightening.
Uh to see that it's actually starting to
happen.
And again, the thing to realize is that
people dreamt about it throughout
history.
People always dreamt to kind of
re-engineer humanity.
It came from different places. Um
think about China. So if you're a
Chinese emperor like 2,000 years ago,
one of your biggest problems in life is
that if you give too much power to your
ministers and generals, they might rebel
against you, the will to power, and want
to kill you and your family, and
establish their dynasty.
And they found a solution,
which is based on bioengineering. Now
you can ask bioengineering 2,000 years
ago in China? Yes, it's called
castration.
Whoa. Castration is bioengineering. You
take a man, you cut something off, you
get a different kind of man that is
perfectly fit for the purposes of the
emperor.
I didn't know they did that.
Yeah, you you eunuchs.
I mean
eunuchs existed. I didn't know they they
generals. You had eunuch generals and
unique ministers because they posed much
less of a threat.
They can't establish their own dynasty.
Wow.
And you had in there are periods in
Chinese history when most of the
imperial administration was eunuchs. Do
you have a dark view of humanity?
Like you know, you want a government
job? Yes, just give us your testicles
and we'll give you a government job.
And this was not just China. You see the
same thing happening in in the Byzantine
Empire, in the caliphate, in the Islamic
caliphate because this was kind of
bioengineering of a thousand or two
thousand years ago. That again, you need
this this special kind of human
which has intelligence and discipline
but doesn't pose the threat of
establishing their own dynasty. That's
the solution.
So Wow.
this was very limited. But
you had other you know, you have the I
know that the Christians.
They also have a problem with with
humans as they are because humans are
not very good in obeying all the kind of
dictates of of Christianity.
So they try to change humanity but they
fail.
They don't have the ability to really
intervene deep inside the human genome,
the human brain. Like Christianity
doesn't like sex very much. It doesn't
It doesn't have It has a negative view
of sex.
But what to do? I mean, you can't change
the human sexual urge. They tried a lot
of times.
But even monks and nuns did not always
keep their vows of chastity. You have
popes with children.
So Christianity had a very big trouble
like overcoming this sexual urge of
humans.
And um you know, you fast forward to the
future, what would some fundamentalist
religious regime, Christian or Muslim or
whatever, do
with genetic engineering?
They can
What I often say is that
the people who develop the technology,
they usually think about the good
usages. We will use this to cure
disease. We will use this to to improve
people's lives. But you also need to
take a moment, think about the
politician you most hate in the world or
think about the religious movement or
the ideological movement that
which was the worst in history from your
perspective and take a few minutes to
think what would they
with the technology that I'm developing
right now. It's It doesn't mean we stop
all technological development.
But it means that we have to be very
careful especially about thing about
something like genetic engineering,
which is to some extent irreversible. We
We have never seen like something like
that in history. The The Chinese
emperor, they could create eunuchs.
But it was just one generation. They
could not create an entire kind of new
specie
of human eunuchs. It doesn't work.
But now it could be done.
So that's one very big danger and and
the other big danger it it it comes from
AI because AI also is something
completely new in human history.
It's the first
time that we invent something that can
take power away from us. Going back to
the will to power. Every previous
invention in history gave more power to
humans because
even if the tool was extremely powerful,
an atom bomb,
the decision how to use it
always remained in human hands.
It was not the atom bomb that decided to
to bomb Hiroshima.
It was Truman
and the the the the American army. It
was human beings. So even a nuclear bomb
actually empowers humanity.
AI is the first invention that breaks
this because it can make decisions by
its own. That's the whole idea.
So, it potentially can take power away
from us. We already see it beginning to
happen. Uh you know, increasingly you
apply to to to to the bank to get a loan
and the bank says no. And why not?
Because the algorithm said no.
And you apply for a university or you
apply for a job and increasingly it's an
AI making a decision about your life.
And we will see it in more and more
areas. Now, again, it's not all bad. It
can improve many decision-making
processes. It can uh really improve
medicine. But we should be aware of the
danger when this technology is in the
wrong hands
or when we don't understand its its true
potential.
Because another new thing about AI, and
I think we talked about this the last
time I was here, so I I won't go into
too much details. It's It could
eliminate human privacy completely.
Throughout history, again, emperors and
kings and popes always dreamt about
following people all the time and and
and and watching them, supervising them.
They They couldn't do it. They didn't
have the technology. What do you think?
So, I've I've heard you say that imagine
that North Korea gets a hold or a
government like gets a hold of a device
that can read effectively your mood. So,
when you see a poster of the supreme
leader and you have anger,
Uh
cool, you're arrested and you're locked
away.
What What is the real-world
response to that? Like, how do we Like,
do you have a
The response is it's political. I mean,
I mean, don't get there.
But you know that other countries are
going to do it. So, there's going to be
the tragedy of the commons. And this is
where I like I get into the Hey, I'm
optimistic. I'm living my life. I'm
trying to of beautiful things. But at
the same time, in the back of my mind,
I'm like, "Humans are never going to
stop." Like, we're never going to stop.
The tragedy of the commons is real. And
so, whatever solution we put in place
has got to deal with the tragedy of the
commons.
Yes. I mean, again, this is where I'm
not optimistic because the only way to
really regulate a technology like AI is
through international cooperation. If
you think about, you know, autonomous
weapon systems, which are extremely
dangerous, if
only America bans them, but the Chinese
or the Russians keep developing them,
then very soon America will say, "Hey,
we don't want to be to be left behind.
We have to do it also. We don't want to
do it, but we have to do it." So, the
only way you can regulate it is through
some kind of international agreement,
cooperation. And as international
tensions in the world just increase,
then I'm not optimistic at all
about the potential to regulate this
technology.
Within
certain within a country,
you can regulate it to some extent. You
can protect people's privacy.
For instance, you can have laws that say
that if somebody collects my private
information, they can only use it to
help me. They cannot use it to
manipulate me or to sell it to a third
party.
Now, this is obvious because we have
these kinds of laws about so many other
things. Like with my personal doctor,
it's known for for years, for
generations, that you have this exactly
these kinds of laws.
My personal doctor has a lot of very
private information about me.
And he or she use it in order to help
me. They are not allowed to use it to
manipulate me or to sell it to some
political party or to some corporation.
So, why is Facebook allowed to do it?
So, this should be very, very simple.
That's one defense of our privacy.
Another thing that we can regulate
is that we should never allow all the
information to be concentrated in one
place.
Whether this one place is a government
agency or whether this one place is a
corporation, this is the high road to a
dictatorship. Somebody that has all the
information of all the people, they
basically control everybody.
You know, I mean, even if you think
about it on a global scale
that you think in 20 years you have some
country that somebody in in China or
somewhere have the entire personal
records of every politician, every
judge, every journalist, every military
officer in that country from the time
they were little. Like every illness
they had, every sexual encounter, every
bribe they took. They know that.
This is no longer an independent
country. This had become a kind of data
colony.
To control the colony, you don't need to
send soldiers in to to to police people,
you just take the data out.
And if you have enough information, you
can control this country by remote
control from from from from afar. So,
I I think we need to have regulations
against these kinds of things. And and
it can be done. And similarly, when we
think about the new developments like
the metaverse, we have to think very
very carefully about
what's happening there.
Again, I'm I'm a historian, so I always
look at things from a very long-term
perspective. But hey, we know this. This
has been a fantasy of humans for
thousands of years. It really goes back
to ancient philosophical and religious
debates about what is a human being.
You know, you go back to early
Christianity. So, you have two camps.
You have one camp which says humans are
embodied beings. The body is in the
center.
Which was the old Jewish view. You are
not your mind. You are not a spiritual
entity, a soul. You are a body.
In the book of Genesis, God creates Adam
and Eve from clay, and they don't exist
before that. They exist only as bodies.
In the New Testament, Jesus rises from
the dead in the flesh.
And
when he preaches to people about the
kingdom of God,
he means a
a physical kingdom here on Earth with
physical bodies, with biological bodies.
So, this was one view. As humans are our
bodies, our biological entities. And
then there was the other view, which
which was influenced by Greek philosophy
and so forth, and which increasingly
became dominant, which says, "No,
humans are not bodies.
Humans are an immaterial soul
or spirit trapped within a physical
body. The body is bad, is evil, is
corrupt, is dirty, is ugly.
The soul is completely pure and
spiritual." We're back to narratives.
Which of those narratives do you
believe?
I I I'll get to that in in in a moment.
I'll just complete my thought that what
we see now in the metaverse is exactly
this argument being replayed.
That is can we
uh as as as humans just shift to the
immaterial realm of the metaverse and
leave our biological bodies behind?
Or is it impossible or even dangerous to
try and separate
our kind of mental existence
from our bodily and and and physical
existence?
give you a little bit of hope for some
of the people working in the metaverse.
So, I am very grounded in biology.
So, the things that I'm interested in
with that very much coexist. Now, will
it be interesting for a entirely virtual
species to inhabit? Maybe, that could be
cool, but that doesn't help us. So, even
people thinking about uploading their
consciousness, I've thought through that
one a lot.
It would be a copy of me, but it
wouldn't be me. So, all of the sadness
of death and all that that I would be
hoping to avoid by doing that doesn't
help. Maybe it kind of gives the same
sense of having a kid, but it wouldn't
by any means save me from having to deal
with death. So, but the metaverse is
still really interesting to me. Now, I'm
a person when I say I'm grounded
biology, I'm talking about understanding
the microbiome and how wildly that
influences my thoughts and am I just a
shell for microbes? Maybe. And so, like
I'm I take a very very grounded approach
to that.
Now, having said that, so hopefully that
gives you a little bit of optimism. Not
everybody's trying to divorce from the
body. It's I think it's a
most of the day Well, that I would
caution against. all the important, you
know, increasingly your social life,
your job is increasingly in the
metaverse. The biology of the situation
will make that a disaster. So, I would
highly as somebody developing in the
metaverse, I will highly caution people
against that because you have to feed
your microbes. You have to love and bond
and there's there's so many things that
we pick up on. Anyway, I totally see how
it it derails. But if people are talking
about like, "Hey, you can't ignore the
body. This is a very real thing. You
have to pay attention to this. Fun place
to visit. You can't live there."
Hopefully we can avoid some of the
nonsense that comes along with like
social media where nobody even talked
about, "Let's talk about how this
becomes deranging." Cuz social media has
been incredible in my life. I don't have
an addictive personality, so that
probably helps. So, it's very easy for
me to go, "I spend a little bit of time
on it. What time I do spend is
incredibly empowering because I have
trained the algorithm to give me useful
things, not things that compare me to
other people and make me feel terrible.
Uh so, it's like, you know, you have to
be very thoughtful about stuff like
that. So, my hope is that we get a
little bit wiser. Of course, not
everybody will.
But, it really does come back to this
idea of narrative. Like, I tell myself a
narrative about what the virtual space
is. It's going to keep me, I think, from
hitting the major roadblocks. I'm sure
there will be things I can't anticipate
yet. But, the the thing that I want to
make sure that we touch on is
I am not religious, but I worry that
the thing that you're talking about,
where we have to be thoughtful about
gene editing, and we have to come
together as a big cooperative,
I don't know how that happens without
a
without something filling the god-like
hole in all of our brains, where we want
some grand meaning, something that we
can orbit around, but that brings us
together.
hole in our brain.
Interesting. I mean, the people think
don't worry about God is dead at all.
Doesn't faze you.
mean, we managed without him for many
periods in history, and we've been doing
quite well in in recent generations
without him.
I think that some people connect God and
morality. How do we come together then
as a huge species, like as one planet to
fight the big things? What's the big
narrative we all revolve around? I think
the big narrative is the biological
narrative. That we are all homo sapiens.
That we are all have the same basic
experiences. That we all want to fall in
love. That we all have very deep ties
with our family members. That we all we
don't want to be sick. It's we don't
like pain. That we don't want to die.
That we're afraid to die. I mean, these
are things that are common to all
humans. You don't need God for them. And
also, very important, you don't need God
for morality.
Some people say that and it was common
in history to have this argument that
even if God doesn't exist, we have to
believe in him because without God,
people will just kill and murder and
rape and and we now have empirical
evidence that this is absolutely not
true.
think it breaks down like that. I think
people are missing something more subtle
with that. I'm just playing with these
ideas, please don't I hope it doesn't
come across like I think I know, but
I feel like the thing is more subtle.
So, I haven't believed in God since I
was like 15.
So, I totally get as I've never felt
compared compelled to steal, murder,
rape, none of the like none of that
enter my mind.
But, when I look at sort of the broad
sweep of humanity, I realize that people
will fall in line with whatever the sort
of dominant philosophy of their tribe
is.
So, by way of example, I'm I feel almost
ridiculous bringing this up to you cuz
you're a historian and I'm very much
not, but the thing that stopped the
conquistadors from coming up and taking
over what we now think of as America,
the thing that originally stopped the
Americans from coming across uh the
Comanches tribe, I believe is the name.
And so, how did they become the tribe
when all the other Native American
tribes were falling by the wayside and
getting relegated to reservations, why
didn't they? Because of sheer brutality.
And reading the book Empire of the
Summer Moon was utterly fascinating when
he was like they were the only tribe
that fought on horseback instead of
riding the horse to the fight and
getting off. And so, they were able to
just bring this level of viciousness
that
we've seen throughout history in all
different kinds of tribes and peoples,
but hearing it described, you realize,
oh, it was actually really effective.
So, thinking of yourself as a warrior,
um treating the other people as the
other that you need to stop them, kill
them, torture, maim, whatever. You kill
all adults, you take either the women
and the adult males, you take women and
and children, but if they're infants and
you kill them, too, because it's too
much of a hassle. It's like
it's actually effective, but it's super
gnarly. And so, what is the thing that,
given how many times we've seen that,
whether it's the Nazis
God never stopped it. I mean, the
conquistadors did the same thing and
they believed in God. So, God doesn't
stop these kind of terrible things from
happening.
1,000% agree. So, that's why I said
God-shaped hole. I'm trying to figure
out what that cuz it isn't God. I want
to be very clear on my stance. I mean,
we need morality. That's that's
certainly true.
So, how do we make that like a thing
that everyone's like, "Yeah." Because as
you were describing
uh getting everybody to recognize the
biology of it. So, I have said a
thousand times, on my tombstone, I want
them to put you're having a biological
experience. That like you and I could
not agree more about like I want that to
work. I just don't think it will. Mhm.
And so, how or maybe this, how do we
make you're having a biological
experience so cool and so infectious
that it propagates and and people come
together? Mhm.
Um
you know, first of all, with regard to
the the example you gave, so yes.
Throughout history, viciousness was an
effective way to build empires, but now
with nuclear weapons, it's only a way to
destroy all of us.
So, the same way that AI is a game
changer and the same way that genetic
engineering is a game changer, nuclear
weapons were also a game changer.
That uh you can no longer conquer the
world by force. The only thing you will
achieve is the annihilation of
everything. Just to be clear really fast
on that, all I'm saying is that they
became the tribe not by being
genetically superior, by having a belief
system that made them unstoppable. Yes.
So, and and this now becomes more and
more dangerous to have this kind of of
of belief system.
Um we need I mean, again, if if if you
have a lot of people in the world,
different groups, with this kind of
belief system, you end up with World War
III. And with the type of weapons we now
have, not just nuclear weapons, but also
increasingly AI and and robotics and so
forth, this is the end of humanity.
Unless the thing, the belief system,
that's powerful is one of beauty. I just
don't know how to make beauty contagious
in the way that the will to power is
contagious. Mhm.
Well, I don't either, but
one thing that makes me hopeful is that
you don't see a kind of constant level
of violence throughout history. You do
see periods of peace and periods of war.
We just we we have just experienced, as
I said earlier,
uh some of the most peaceful decades in
human history.
So, this this makes me hopeful.
And um we need to find ways to connect
people. I don't think God is a good way
because different people have different
gods. And, you know, coming from Israel,
both sides believe in God.
But he tells them different things.
And he tells the Jews that Jerusalem is
yours, and he tells the Muslims
Jerusalem is yours, and then they fight
over it. And the tragedy is that it's a
completely unnecessary conflict. You
know, if it was some kind of objective
necessity,
like you have two people alone on an
island, there is the last apple or the
last piece of bread, whoever gets it
survives, the other dies, then I say,
"Okay. You know, this is a situation
when conflict is maybe is inevitable."
But this is not the case in my country.
There is enough food, there is enough
territory between the Mediterranean and
the Jordan River to feed and to house
everybody.
Humans usually don't really fight about
objective biological things the same way
that wolves or chimpanzees fight. They
don't really fight about territory. They
fight about fantasies in their minds.
That both sides have a fantasy about
Jerusalem, which is just incompatible
with the the story with the mythology of
the other side, and this is what they
fight about. About the fantasy in their
in their mind. I mean, going back to the
to the metaverse in a way. When you go
to Jerusalem, I
I teach them at the Hebrew University,
so it's a place like with biological
glasses
of of an ape, you see, it's just like
every other place. You have trees, you
have stones, you have buildings. It's
the same like Los Angeles, like any
other place.
But then you put on a different set of
glasses, you put on religious glasses,
and you see ancient hills, and you see
divinity, and you see sacred stones, and
sacred trees, and everything is sacred.
You know, a sacred place is a place plus
a story about the place.
And this is at the bottom of most
conflicts in the world. Also, you look
at again at the Russian invasion of
Ukraine. Is it about territory? Russia
is the biggest country in the world.
They need more territory? This is the
thing they need, more territory? No.
It's about the fantasies in in the head.
I think that the more we come back to
the level of again, of the body, of
biology, the more common ground that we
have.
Throughout history, you you you you got
the opposite narrative.
You got a narrative, again, from
religions like Christianity, that the
body is the source of all the bad things
in life.
And the mind, this is a kind of the
more spiritual, more beautiful, better
part. And most of the time, it's the
opposite.
That on the level of the body,
we can relate
to every other human being in the world
because biologically we are the same.
What creates this huge distance between
us is the fantasies that the mind
imagines and and produces.
So, I I think that again, if I have hope
for the for humanity in the 21st
century, is actually getting a little
away from our from thinking too much
from from the mind
and grounding ourselves a little more in
our body.
I love it. Where can people follow you?
Where can people follow me? Um,
I have a website. Uh,
ynharari.com.
And from there you can get to all kinds
of other stuff like books and and and
videos and whatever, yeah. I have clung
to every word of everyone of your books.
So, thank you and thank you for being on
today. It was amazing. Guys, if you
haven't already, be sure to subscribe.
And until next time, my friends, be
legendary. Take care. Peace. If you're
looking to really understand yourself
and thrive in the future, be sure to
watch this next episode, which is all
about finding success in life. If If we
saw completely into ourselves, we would
hate ourselves so thoroughly that we
wouldn't get out of bed. We would all be
killing ourselves.