Yuval Noah Harari: "The debate on gender is strangely similar to that of the early Christians on the Trinity"

Israeli historian and professor Yuval Noah Harari during a reading in Antwerp, Monday, January 27, 2020.KRISTOF VAN ACCOM (AFP / Getty Images)

With the publication in the United States of his book

in 2015, the Israeli historian and philosopher Yuval Noah Harari placed himself in the forefront of public intellectuals, a position he consolidated with

(2017) and

(2018). Harari's central theme is the idea that what drives human society in general has been the ability of our species to believe in what he calls fictions, those things - be they gods or nations - whose power resides in that exist in our collective imagination; our faith in them enables us to cooperate as a society. The vast scope of Harari's texts, spanning from the prehistoric past to the distant and dark future, has made him something of a walking Rorschach test. "The common misconception of me," says Harari, who at age 45 has just published, as a co-author,

(Debate, 2021), within a series of adaptations of his work to the graphic novel, "is that I am the prophet of the last judgment, or quite the opposite, that I think everything is wonderful."

It is possible that both are true.

"When the book goes on sale, I stop controlling ideas," he says.

Question

.

Some of the great ideas about humanity that you have helped popularize - that fictions and social constructions have political power, or that

may be approaching obsolescence for technological reasons - have existed in various forms long before write about them.

What do you think your way of conveying them has to be so compelling?

More information

'Sapiens', by Yuval Noah Harari, told in comic

Answer

. One hypothesis is that my field is history, and many recent attempts to create this kind of grand synthesis have been made from biology and evolution or from economics and the social sciences. In recent decades it seemed that the humanities had given up and that trying to construct complex stories had become almost taboo. But the perspective of the humanities is essential. Many philosophical questions that have preoccupied humanity for thousands of years are becoming practical. Before, philosophy was a kind of luxury: you could dedicate yourself to it or not. Now it is necessary to answer crucial philosophical questions about what is humanity or the nature of good to decide what to do, for example, with the new biotechnologies. That is to say,maybe I have reached people because I come from the perspective of history and philosophy, and not from biology or economics. Also, my central idea is simple. It is the authority of fictions, the fact that, to understand the world, we must take them very seriously. The story in which we believe shapes the society we build.

Having human enemies is important for an engaging story.

That doesn't exist with climate change

Yuval noah harari

Q. 

When you are working on something that involves reaching general conclusions about humanity, is it difficult to determine if those conclusions are banal?

A. 

Well, I have found that the more banal they are, the more they impress people.

Q. 

Is that the secret?

A.

 All this I say about fiction stories was one of the most important things I learned in the first year of my BA in History.

He thought it was commonplace and that everyone knew about it.

And it turned out that for many people it was a great discovery to know that these social constructions and intersubjective reality existed.

I thought it was the most banal thing in the world.

Q.

 Seeing that what you considered the most banal in the world ends up being incredibly popular, has it made you cynical?

A.

 No. All it means is that communication fails between large sectors of the scientific community and large sectors of the population.

Things that science and experts have known for many years are still news to people.

So are the things.

By investing 2% of the World GDP we could prevent the climate catastrophe.

Is doable

Yuval noah harari

P. 

One field in which the scientific community has been able to communicate clearly is the dimension of the climate crisis, and what scientists and many others are saying is that it is an incredibly urgent problem.

Why, then, do you believe that the global political will to tackle the problem in the way that lurking catastrophes requires is still lacking?

R.

 To make an engaging story, it is important to have human enemies. With climate change, that doesn't exist. And our minds have not evolved to absorb this kind of history. When we evolved as hunter-gatherers, it was never considered that we could change the climate in a way that was detrimental to us, so that was a story we weren't interested in. What interested us was that some members of the tribe were planning to kill us. So we have a narrative problem with climate change. Luckily, we still have time to fix it. According to the most reliable information I have read, if we now start investing 2% of the world's annual GDP in developing sustainable technologies and infrastructure, it should be possible to prevent a climate catastrophe. And the best thing about 2% is that, although it is a lot of money,it is perfectly doable. If we needed 20% I would tell you that it is impossible, that it is too late. But 2%? Reallocating 2% of the budget from one game to another is the job of any politician. We know how to do it. We must not fall into the apocalyptic position that we are running out of time and it is the end of the world, but rather focus on something more practical: 2% of the budget. No more is needed.

Q. 

Can you create a captivating story with the reallocation of 2% of world GDP?

R.

 Talking about 2% of GDP is not very impressive, but that is precisely what is good about it.

It is hopeful.

We don't have to transform the entire economy and go back to living in a cave.

It is enough that we reallocate 2%.

It is done.

It seems like a very powerful message to me.

And there are other stories.

If we look at movements like Greta Thunberg and all the young people, what they are telling the world is that we are sacrificing them on the altar of our greed and our irresponsibility.

They are not talking about something confusing like the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.

It is a human drama in which the old sacrifice the young.

Q. 

I know that you are asked this question or another similar one many times, but how do you interpret that your works are so popular in Silicon Valley?

As you have pointed out, there are people there whose work has very dangerous consequences.

It is not possible that its polarity in that world is mere coincidence.

R. 

Many things can be said. One reason why I think my work is popular in those circles is that, although I criticize various things they do and say that some represent a serious danger to humanity, I also emphasize that those things are perhaps the most important thing that is happening in the world. planet. So if we criticize them but also highlight the importance of what they do, it is flattering for them to think that the future of humanity is to some extent in their hands. To be somewhat generous with these characters, I will say that I certainly don't think they are Evil. They have done some good things. I met my husband through the internet, in one of Israel's first gay dating apps, and I am grateful for that because, as a gay man in a small, provincial Israeli town,How was she to meet men? What I would say is that Silicon Valley is not aware of its enormous influence. They have the intention and hope to change the world and have a deep understanding of technology, but not so deep of human history, society, and psychology. Ultimately, as a historian I know that texts can take on a life of their own. If those who wrote the New Testament could see what the Inquisition and the Crusaders did with the ideas of turning the other cheek and that the meek were going to inherit the earth, they would surely roll over in their graves. But that's the story. What are you going to do.but not so deep in history, society, and human psychology. Ultimately, as a historian I know that texts can take on a life of their own. If those who wrote the New Testament could see what the Inquisition and the Crusaders did with the ideas of turning the other cheek and that the meek were going to inherit the earth, they would surely roll over in their graves. But that's the story. What are you going to do.but not so deep in history, society, and human psychology. Ultimately, as a historian I know that texts can take on a life of their own. If those who wrote the New Testament could see what the Inquisition and the Crusaders did with the ideas of turning the other cheek and that the meek were going to inherit the earth, they would surely roll over in their graves. But that's the story. What are you going to do.

Many philosophical questions that have worried for thousands of years are becoming practical

Yuval noah harari

Q.

 Is there an idea that is still germinating and that perhaps you think is too radical for your audience?

R

.

I am going to give you two examples, one large and one small.

When I wrote

what interested me most was what comes after humanism and liberalism.

I thought liberalism and humanism were the best stories mankind has created.

Now we have to leave them behind because of the technological revolutions of the 21st century, which call into question their most basic ideas and assumptions.

However, for the past five years, I have given up on moving in that direction due to political events in much of the world.

Instead I have started to have to fight rear-guard battles to convince people of humanism and liberalism when what I really want is to see what comes next.

Q. 

What's next?

A. 

I'm not sure. I have not managed to advance much beyond what I wrote in

. There he examined how the information revolution is disintegrating to the human being, the foundation of humanism and liberalism. He saw that the new foundation is the flow of data in the world, to the point of changing even the understanding of what an organism is, what a human being is; The human being is no longer this magical, autonomous self, with free will and capable of making decisions about the world. Now, the human being, like all other organisms, is nothing more than an information processing system that flows incessantly. It has no fixed characteristics. What political consequences does this change have? And social? I'm not sure. That is what I would love to investigate.

Q. 

And the small example?

R.

 I'm reading a book that deals with the new theories about transsexual, non-binary people and all that. The book I read just before was talking about the early days of Christianity. And I am struck by how similar the two things are. Much of the current debate on gender is strangely similar to what those early Christians argued about the nature of Jesus Christ and the Trinity. What they were wondering was, in essence, if Jesus Christ was a non-binary person. If Jesus Christ was divine, human, or divine and human, or neither divine nor human. I see in this echoes of many of the current debates about the nature of the human being and the person. Can we be both? Can we just be one? And, if that other does not think like me, then he is a heretic. Actually,the heroes of the early Christians were martyrs and ascetic monks, like the famous Simon, who spent years on top of a column. They were investigating the limits of the human body with what they had at their fingertips. Now, with gender issues, we ask more questions about what we can do with the body, if we can change it this way or that. There are huge differences between the two, but the neurons in my brain began to carry on this conversation about early Christianity and current debates about gender.There are huge differences between the two, but the neurons in my brain began to carry on this conversation about early Christianity and current debates about gender.There are huge differences between the two, but the neurons in my brain began to carry on this conversation about early Christianity and current debates about gender.

Q. 

Fortunately, history teaches us that all debates within Christianity were resolved amicably.

R.

 What happens is that, at that time, all those Christian sects that were debating were tiny, insignificant. But later it turned out that the debates about doctrine, who were the winners and who were the losers, had an immense impact on the evolution of human history. And here's a more serious reflection: I think the reason the debates about transgender people, non-binary people and everything else are so fiery is that people may have a subconscious feeling that the debates of the future will be about what we can do. do with the human body and brain; how can we redesign them, how can we modify them. The first practical reality that we have encountered with these questions is gender. We can say that people are intolerant and very touchy when it comes to sex and gender, but I think,in fact, you know subconsciously that this is the first debate on transhumanism. It talks about what we can do with technology to transform the body, brain and mind of human beings. That is why the debates are so heated.

Q.

 What does the fact that you think of the gender debates say about you and the stories that you find more attractive than the debates on gender - which can very well be interpreted as dealing with human beings who want to be treated like a human being? all the others here and now — are they, in fact, about the anguish about transhumanism in the future?

R. 

That is the question!

Transhumanism is a reflection on what it is to be human.

I mean, there are different types, but one interpretation is that transhumanism maximizes the true possibilities of the human being.

And that, of course, depends on what we think of a human being.

That is the question we want to answer, and it is not easy.

© 2021, The New York Times Company.

Subscribe here

Sign in to continue reading

Just by having an account you can read this article, it's free

Sign upLogin

Thanks for reading EL PAÍS