It is now more than a decade since you wrote sapiens. It was a worldwide hit, and in essence, it was a very sort of positive explanation of how we humans have come to sort of dominate this planet. It was about our ability to cooperate, to tell shared stories, to give ourselves common purpose. I just wonder whether in the last decade, youve lost some of that optimism. I think our shared stories and our ability to cooperate, both as a species, but also on the national level, is collapsing in more and more places. I see it now in my home country of israel, which is really on the verge maybe of a constitutional crisis or even a civil war. Maybe what we need to understand specifically about democracies is that democracy, in essence, is a conversation. You know, dictatorship, there is one person dictates everything. Democracy is trying to reach some agreement through conversation, and conversation is not always possible. For most of history, large scale conversation was just technically impossible. You had small scale democracies, like in city states, like in ancient athens. But until, say, the 19th century, we have no example of a large scale democracy, millions of people cooperating, conversing, making decisions together, because there was just no way for millions of people to hold a conversation over a large territory. Then came new Information Technology, like newspapers, like telegraph, radio, television, and they made large scale conversation and large scale democracy possible. And now its falling apart. We are not absolutely certain why. Its a strange situation. We have now the best, or most sophisticated Information Technology in history, and people are no longer able to talk with each other or to agree on the most basic facts. Yeah, i mean, that does appear to be a paradox. Its never been easier to tell stories and share stories. In the old days, it was a top down process. Only those who control the levers of information could share their stories. Yeah. Now we are all publishers, in a sense. Yeah. Pretty much all of us, certainly in the rich world, have smartphones, we can be publishers. But youre saying that maybe that diffusion of storytelling has become problematic . Nobody really knows the answer. This would be the number one question i would ask, you know, the experts on the new Information Technology, the managers of facebook and tiktok and twitter, please put Everything Else on the back burner and address this question. Why is it that when we have such sophisticated Information Technology, the conversation breaks down . You know, like, we always had disagreements. If you look at ideological disagreements, there were much bigger issues in the us, for instance, in the 1960s, but people could still agree who won the last elections. Now its becoming impossible to agree on even the most basic facts. So you think the level of toxicity has identifiably markedly risen in the last, lets say, couple of decades . Maybe couple of years, even. Mm hm. And we see again that the Information Atmosphere is polluted by more and more toxic information. Trust collapses, and when trust between people collapses, democracy becomes impossible. You can have dictatorship or you can have civil war, but democracyjust cant function in such a situation. I think part of it is, its not the whole answer, but part of it is the rise of politicians and movements that deliberately undermine trust between people. I think its motivated in a deep sense by a view of reality that says, the Populist View of reality, if you want, that says that the only reality is power, that there is no such thing, not just as truth, but also as justice or beauty. Populists often tell us that all social interactions are power relations, people only want power. When somebody tells you that they are interested in the truth or injustice, this is just a ploy to get power. And they also tell because of this that every institution that claims to be interested in truth, like a university or a newspaper, or injustice, like the court, is just fooling us. Its really interested only in power. And this kind of cynical worldview, it destroys trust in institutions. But the problem is, yuval, that there is a very big debate about what truth actually is. And in a sense, youve been part of that debate because over years, youve written about the importance of preserving institutions and traditions. Youve talked about religions and the stories they tell. Yeah. Youve even at times talked about the utility of having monarchies and royal families. You call it a fairy tale, but you say its a fairy tale that often acts as a glue. Yes. Is useful for a society, lets say, like the united kingdom. Those arent stories that are about truth. So you yourself are recognising that actually, truth isnt the only parameter to judge the value of stories by. Absolutely fiction has a Critical Role to play in human institutions, in human societies, but we can and need to be truthful about that as well. The laws of football, for instance, we cant play football unless we have laws. Now, Everybody Knows these are fictional laws we invented, and because we acknowledge it, we can change them. Its the same with the constitution of a country. If you think it comes from god or something, then this creates a problem because you have a fictional set of rules that somebody says, this is not fiction, this is an absolute truth. The thing about, for instance, the difference between the Ten Commandments and the Us Constitution. The Ten Commandments claim to be an absolute truth, not a fictional creation of humans. This is why you cant change them. The tenth commandment, for instance, endorses slavery. People dont really think about it often, but the tenth commandment, Thou Shalt Not Covet your neighbours house or field, or slaves. So according to the Ten Commandments, its ok to have slaves, its just wrong to covet somebody else� s slaves. Now, because it says this comes from god, you cant change it. But the Us Constitution acknowledges at the very beginning that it is we, the people, who created these laws, and therefore it includes a mechanism to change the laws if you have a big enough consensus. So yes, we need fictions like the laws of football or laws of the economy, but we need to be honest that this is our creation, and therefore we can change them under certain circumstances. And this is what gives society this combination of strength and flexibility. Now, no one listening to you, even right now, could doubt your ability to capture ideas, to analyse, and to make that accessible to an audience, a worldwide audience. You have that gift. But something has changed for you in the recent past. Youve stopped or ceased being just the sort of public intellectual, the analyst and thinker, youve become a participant and youve become a participant on the streets of your own country, where you Havejoined Hundreds Of Thousands of other israelis protesting about what you claim to see as the rise of an authoritarian, even dictatorial, strand in israeli governance. What has it been like for you changing from analyst to participant . Well, i didnt think it would reach that stage. I really prefer to stayjust as an historian and not as a participant. But my house is on fire, so i have to attend to it. And, you know, partly. You say your house is on fire. Many other israelis would say, on the contrary, what is happening is that the house is being stabilised. Yeah. So to understand the situation in israel, i would say there is just one question that needs to be asked. What limits the power of the government . The whole idea of democracy is that you have checks and balances, so you dont have a bunch of people that can just do anything they want. Now, in israel, we have a very brittle democracy. There is a single check on the power of the governing coalition, and this is the Supreme Court. If you have a small majority in the Israeli Parliament out of 120 knesset members, if you have 61 knesset members who vote, for instance, to take away Voting Rights from arab citizens or to ban women from public spaces, the only entity that can intervene and says, no, you cant do that, this is anti democratic, is the Supreme Court. Now the government tries to neutralise the Supreme Court. In your view, without getting into too much detail about netanyahus judicial reforms, what he is doing is saying that for far too long, thejudiciary has become something of a closed shop, a self perpetuating elite. What we are doing, he and his far right ministers in the most far right government israels ever seen, they are changing the system, so the knesset, the parliament, has ultimately much more control, more power over the Supreme Court. Theyre not doing away with the Supreme Court, theyre just changing the way judges would be elected. Its very simple. If i would sit here with netanyahu, i would ask him, please explain to me the mechanism that if 61 knesset members raise their hands and say arabs dont have Voting Rights, explain to me the mechanism that prevents this anti democratic law from coming into effect. Thats the question. Were i netanyahu clearly, im not but if i were, id say, yuval, get real, this is democracy. 61 represents a democratic mandate in the israeli system. 120 knesset members. If i can command 61, then the peoples will must be followed. And im going to quote you people who are involved in this debate, Justice Minister yariv levin, for example. He says the Supreme Court overturning the knesset� s law, which is a possibility because theyre considering it right now, that is, the judicial reform law, would be, quote, a fatal blow to democracy and the rule of the people. Thats his interpretation of exactly what is happening now. This is, i think, a complete misunderstanding of what democracy means. Democracy means that if you win the mandate of the people, you can form the government, you can do so many things. You can declare war, you can make peace, you can raise taxes, lower taxes, so many things. But you cannot change the basic rules of the game, and you cannot take peoples basic human rights. Democracy is not majority dictatorship, its a system that guarantees the freedom and equality of everybody. But sometimes. Otherwise, you know, the first person who wins the elections now says, ok, 61 mks, im now king for life. Sometimes the rules of the game need to be changed. Yes. But this is an argument, actually, if you think about it deeply, as an argument pretty much for the status quo. Youve become a bit of a sort of centrist who defends the entrenched status quo, arguably the elites who happen to have power today. As many would say in israel, its the judges who have enjoyed power for a very long time. Again, you need to change the system sometimes, but through a large consensus, not through a tiny, momentary majority. And the depiction ofjudges, again, as this kind of elite clique that takes care only of its own interests, this goes back to this Populist Perception that humans dont care aboutjustice, about truth, they only want power. This is a very cynical view. Again, we sometimes need to change the system, but if you make a fundamental change in the democratic system, you need a larger consensus than just a tiny majority. We, earlier, talked about toxicity. You said in recent years you have seen a much greater toxicity in the debate, in the way stories are exchanged and the fact that we cannot find consensus and common purpose. Arent you part of the problem . Im just looking at things youve written about the israeli situation in the recent past. Please. In haaretz, just a couple of months ago, you talked about, a shocking situation in israel where the country is becoming anti semitic. Yes. You also accused netanyahu and his ministers of demonising left wingers, of becoming, quote, a messianic dictatorship. Mmm hmm. Well, if were talking about inflammatory language, i cant imagine much more inflammatory language to use in israel, thejewish state, than the language you use. Well, i would say that the netanyahu government has forgotten whatjews have learned for 2,000 years and are betraying the deepest value ofjudaism. On an immediate scale, they are trying to change the system in israel. I think on the bigger perspective, theyre inventing a newjudaism. For 2,000 years, jews were the champions of Minority Rights. Jews were very often, you know, just 1 of the population. And their message was, even though we have just 1 of the population, it is ok to be different from the majority, to think differently, to behave differently. Now, the netanyahu government is trampling over Minority Rights and adopting an ideology and this is very forceful language but i stand behind it they are adopting an ideology ofjewish supremacy. I just wonder whether your language is a little dangerous and whether it reflects, if i may say so, a certain lack of empathy on your part. Im just trying to think of the other side of the argument in israel. Many of those on the other side of the argument are ultra 0rthodox jewish israelis haredim, as theyre called, inside the country. Youre a gay israeli. Maybe you lack empathy for that minority albeit growing minority in israel. You talk about anti semitism in israel itself. Yes thats clearly going to massively upset a huge number ofjewish people. Im not telling them to change the way that they live but i am addressing the kind of ideas that they want to impose on the country, and they say so openly. The netanyahu government basically abandons the Two State Solution for the Israeli Palestinian conflict and maybe the most important policy that they are, again, openly. But these kinds of prophecies youre making which do amount, in the end, to your prediction and youre famous for your futurology and your predictions you seem to be predicting that there could be a conflict, some sort of Civil War Betweenjews in israel. Theres an argument to say that when you start positing that kind of scenario, youre making it more likely. I think that part of myjob again, as an historian, as a public intellectual is to speak as clearly as i can from a long term perspective about what im seeing, and what im seeing again, its notjust a danger, internal danger to Jewish Society in israel, its a danger of israel becoming a racist state, adopting racist ideology of jewish supremacy. Becoming, or is it already there . Again, until now, of course, there was a lot of racism in israel but there was also a pushback against it. And the official position, at least of most governments, opposed it. Now, you know, you have in the Coalition Government thejewish power party. The head of thejewish power party, who was convicted in an Israeli Court of incitement to racism, is our minister of national security. 0ur Finance Minister has gone on record calling to completely destroy a palestinian town, to wipe it off the map after there was an attack on israelis there. Yes, i should say weve had associates of the leaders youre referring to on this programme and they have defended the language they have used. Yes so, lets just ask one last question about israel. You still live there. Yes. You have written this recently ive never seriously considered leaving israel. I doubt whether i could go on working, though, in a place lacking any meaningful protection for Minority Rights and freedom of expression. Does that mean you are actively considering leaving . Because this is an issue for many israelis, right . Yes, absolutely. Again, if i feel that there is no longer sufficient protection in the country for Minority Rights and for freedom of speech, i will have to move elsewhere because i will not be able to continue operating from such a place. Before we end, i want to move from that very personal situation you find yourself in to something much bigger and wider, but also something that matters a great deal to you that is, our Digital World and, in particular, the ever hastening sort of arrival of artificial intelligence. You have suggested that you find this fundamentally dangerous. We talked about the importance of storytelling earlier on, and you seem to be saying that al threatens the authenticity of the stories that we humans tell ourselves. Yeah. I mean, a there are a lot of dangers with al. People are often drawn to these kinds of hollywoodian scenarios of robots running in the street, shooting people or somebody creating. Yeah, autonomous machines that have gone rogue. Thats the idea. Yes. And there is a danger there but i think there are also many dangers of a not trying to destroy us but taking control of the world and hacking our civilisation. And our civilisation is built ultimately on storytelling. But isnt even what youve just said a fundamental misunderstanding of where we are today with al because youre, again, assuming a level of autonomy that isnt there yet. Yes, we have generative a that can write text, it can even create music, create visual images. But fundamentally, it still depends on the algorithms ultimately, the responsibility of human beings. No. Thats the big difference between a and every Previous Technology in history. Ai is by definition, what makes ai artificial intelligence, it can learn new things by itself. Yes, its initially created by us. Within limits. Within limits. Your critics say youre in danger of anthropomorphising ai. I dont. Giving it a level of autonomy that it doesnt have. Again, im not saying it has consciousness, that it has desires, that it has feelings absolutely not. But a the most important thing to know about it, its the First Technology in history that can make decisions by itself and can create new ideas by itself. Atom bombs couldnt decide who to bomb. Autonomous weapons can. Printing presses couldnt write books, they could just copy our ideas. A can create new books, new ideas, new music, new everything. And its already beginning right now. So, already, when you apply to a bank to get a loan, increasingly, its an ai making the decision about you. In a few years, they could take over much of the financial system. In a funny sort of way, im with you less interested in talking about the dangers of autonomous Military Vehicles and all that sort of thing, im more interested in talking about what it does for human beings sapiens mental health. Exactly because you seem to be very concerned that we humans, as a is developed and evolves and becomes ever more sophisticated, we humans are going to be overwhelmed with a sense of redundancy. Thats one of the dangers. But in an even more fundamental way, you know, we live cocooned by culture. From the moment we are born, we are shaped by fairy tales and music and art and mythology and political ideologies and so forth. Until now, they were always created by human minds. Now, there is an alien intelligence, a non human intelligence, which will increasingly create more and more of the stories, the music, the images, even the mythologies and ideologies. What would it mean to grow up, to be a Human In A World Inside An Alien Culture which increasingly shapes me and everybody else around me . This is not the kind of clear cut, destructive scene we dont know. Its basically like just as an analogy, yes . Just imagine that somebody tells us that there is an Invasion Fleet coming from another planet with highly intelligent beings. Theyll be here, lets say, in five years. They will take over. They can cure cancer, they can solve climate change, they can create new kinds of music. Maybe theyll be good for us, who knows . We will still be very concerned about losing control. Well, this Invasion Fleet is, indeed, on the way but not from another planet, but from california and china, in the laboratories. Theyre already here and they are taking control of more and more parts of the financial system, the cultural system of the world. We are out of time, so we do have to stop there but yuval noah harari, thank you so much for being on hardtalk. Thank you. Hello. Its time to see how the weathers looking over the next week or so, and we are expecting a turn to more autumnal weather widely across the uk. The winds are expected to freshen, really quite gusty through the middle part of the week, and frequent showers are expected. Now, in the short term, still, the air� s coming in from the south in fact, those storms earlier storms there on the Satellite Picture visible across southern parts of the uk. And through the early hours, there will have been a risk of storms, i think, further east, too. But right across the uk, you can see plenty of cloud here and outbreaks of rain. Now, this is actually a cold front. Ahead of it, the air� s relatively warm, so morning temperatures of around 15 degrees. But this Weather Front will be sweeping eastwards across the country during the course of monday, opening up the doors to somewhat fresher atlantic air. So, heres the weather map. In fact, a couple of Weather Fronts crossing the uk. In the morning, i think rain heavy for a time. Perhaps ahead of it in the morning, some sunshine in east anglia and along the north sea coast before that Weather Front reaches you. And then, second half of the day, with these westerlies developing, it will feel fresher. Well lose some of that humidity and itll be a mixture of sunny spells and showers. But despite that, temperatures will still hover around 20 in london, a bit fresher there in belfast and glasgow, around the mid teens. And then, tuesday into wednesday, quite a strong jet stream is expected to push in an ex Tropical Cyclone thats no longer a Tropical Storm or anything like that, its a storm thats swept, actually, across Eastern Parts of canada and the north east of the us. Why is this important . Well, its because its got a lot of tropical moisture within it, or subtropical moisture that is, humidity. So, despite the wind and the rain, its going to bring us and quite a sustained spell of it, because its a wide Weather System those temperatures are still hovering around 20 degrees in some spots. So, really blustery tuesday and wednesday. Gale force winds, i think, widely gusting to 50 miles an hour in places. And i think eventually, on wednesday, the back end of this low pressure, its cold front will sweep across the uk and well see, again, fresher air returning towards Western Areas of the uk. And on thursday, the low pressure� s still with us. I think thats the ex tropical system or whats left of it, the remnants, really. Behind it, this secondary low forms. I think thats going to bring quite a rash of showers and maybe some persistent rain, at least, early in the day across south Eastern Parts. Notice that the north of scotland gets away with a decent day on thursday. At least, thats the current forecast, with some sunshine there in stornoway, whereas across the rest of the country, its that mixed bag sunny spells and frequent showers, and more of the same into friday. Its a slow moving area of low pressure. You can see those showers rotating around the centre of the low. Temperatures 15 in the north, about 18 degrees in the south of the country. So, thats the week ahead. Its certainly looking blustery at times. As we head into the weekend, well see hurricanes or ex hurricanes in the atlantic, Moving Northwards and turning into mid latitude Weather Systems. And sometimes, what these storms tend to do, apart from bringing us spells of wind and rain, they scoop up subtropical air and that subtropical air reaches our shores, so it does mean that temperatures could still creep up a little bit, at least across some parts of the country through the weekend and into next week but i think overall, the weather from now on is going to be a lot more changeable, a lot more like early autumn. Bye bye. Live from london, this is bbc news. More women come forward with allegations about the comedian Russell Brand following an investigation by the sunday times, the times and channel 4s dispatches. Hes denied rape and sexual assault. The struggle to identify victims of the floods in libya as 10,000 remain missing. Three greek Rescue Workers are have been killed trying to get to the scene. Moscow is accused of falsely using genocide law to justify its invasion of ukraine as russia goes before the International Court ofjustice in the hague. And a notorious anti Migrant Campaign Group Registers as a Political Party ahead of next years South African general election. Hello, im sally bundock. A very warm welcome to the programme. More women have come forward with allegations about Russell Brand. The Times Newspaper says several women have contacted its journalists since saturday, when it published the accounts of four women who said the comedian had raped or sexually assaulted them. Mr brand has denied those claims and insisted all his relationships were consensual. David silitto reports. Russell brand, comedian, actor, political commentator accused
comparemela.com © 2020. All Rights Reserved.