respect to this site for leaving the comment section open.

You are wrong Yuval. There is no greater danger than losing one’s freedom.

"you will own nothing and be happy" translates to the elite thinking "we will own everything and be happy"!

It is possible to be a nationalist with a global outlook but also to act in the interests of your own nation when it is faced with ruin.

I'm surprised, frankly, that TED deigned to allow us to express our opinions on this video. How thoughtful of them!

It has been our sad experience that as soon as someone gains that which they think is authority they immediately begin to practice unrighteous dominion over the souls of mankind.

“Intelligence is the ability to solve problems, consciousness is the ability to feel things”

When Harari says Nations are fictional i love the silence in the US room. Lol

I'm a conservative from Nebraska and I loved this. I disagree about the necessity of globalism and with the notion that it would ever happen peacefully. However, I think THIS is the conversation that should be happening right now, rather than all the lies and half trues pushed on us from biases media sources. Thank you!

I really like the host, he is so expressive and genuinely involved and interested! Later i found out he is actually the owner of TED :)

"Either nationalise the economy of globalise the political system" That's the best explanation I've heard yet of why modern politics is so tightly aligned across the West

At a surface level, a lot of his ideas have merit BUT there are two incredibly important points unaccounted for: 1) Globalism has tremendously greater risks than rewards to the every day person if the people running the globalist show are corrupt 2) The human condition is flawed because of generational trauma. Until there is a transformation in how we approach and recondition trauma (Ex. Overcome greed, learn how to manage fear etc - which will never be perfect but we need to see massive change) then a human’s personal condition who is in charge will continue to infiltrate and influence public policy. We aren’t ready for big government that crushes the middle class until there is more healing in our world.

“There has been amazing development in "computer intelligence" over the last 50 years and exactly zero development in "computer consciousness" and there is no indication that computer are going to become conscious any time soon ....” - that was the punch line!

This interviewee wasn't enough to investigate the topic thoroughly. Get multiple people on that can debate from different perspectives, then it might do the topic justice.

Not trying to create drama but When he said we are in the best era of our history, my mind immediately took me to my country (Afghanistan). In the best era of our history, our girls cannot go to school (The Taliban do not let them), our minority groups are being killed (Hazara people), the vast majority of our nation is under the poverty line! Having said this, I remember Harrari's TED talk where he said that human beings' extraordinary achievement is always achieved collectively not individually. That is the point!!! We, as Afghans, have never been a united nation/collection. That is why in the best era of the history of mankind, we are still a bunch of desperate people!!!

Happy to see both of them in this wonderful conversation. Yoal noah and mind your English teacher.

You should never underestimate the power of human stupidity...

Does anyone else remember when it was the grass-roots left which was anti-globalism and the right were the supporters of international-corporatism? My how things have changed over the past 15 years.

If you live in your mind there is no role for homeosapiiens but if in your heart then theres a role and it's to evolve to higher levels of conciousness. We can go higher than feeling,that's why we are here.People have to go to living in the heart.

This conversation is blowing my mind..

I've never heard someone shill so hard for the Greater Israel Project. This guy preaches the power of people believing in a good story - and in his vision of global governance, it requires everyone to set aside their own stories to believe in one created by the powers that shouldn't be. Nationalism can solve global issues, because it's in the best interest of every nation to survive. Every nation can see what it needs to do to solve their own problems and I am sure most nations want to move in the direction of saving the planet. We don't need a NWO to tell us what story to believe in.

It may be my best one-hour spent for months ! Thank you ! Brilliant !

I cannot believe I legit just watched an hour long interview 🤣

wow...such an insightful conversation...learning a lot... thank you

I believe important point of this discussion is not to decide whether you need to become a "globalist" or a "nationalist", rather that we begin discussing the importance of global communication to solve the global challenges which are looming on the horizon.

The problem is we have put unethical self serving people predominantly in positions of power and leadership. The solution is to put selfless (service to others) people in the major roles of leadership. Those sort of people would be open to transparency and the truth. If this could be done on both a global and local level I think it would be quite remarkable what humanity could achieve.

i really attend your dialogue consciously, and very interesting, so i decide to follow then after yours. thank you !

The more and more I watch him falling love with this guy.. The style of thinking. the art of thinking and the art of explaining things in scientific way nobody can better than him

This idea that the main political argument today is between globalism and nationalism is a misframing of the argument. No one has a problem with global trade, communication, or interactions. The problem with globalism is the actors in the globalist movements and the fact they wish to rule for their own sakes rather than the sake of the people of the globe. It's much like the problem with the EU. If the EU would work like the US, in the way the various states relate to the nation, I think the EU would not have the problems with acceptance it does today. The EU operates as a bureaucratic Oligarchy, not a democratic republic. This video speaks to this issue by speaking of individualism (nationalism) vs collectivism (globalism).kzfaq.info/get/bejne/prWHpaZ8tZqaj6s.html

Power attracts the worst, and corrupts the best.

Thank You TED from Bangladesh.

I'd like to see a conversation on Authoritarianism next.

The most clever question was raised by the woman from Ghana; "Isn't this just another justification for western nations to rule the world?". I have read Sapiens and think Harari is simplifying in order to create a sympathetic message. That nations just are imaginations, not reality are simply not true. Nations have built up institutions that ensures the welfare of its people. Most nations have some sort of social contracts which means that you contribute with tax and get something back. The more transparant and efficient these institutions are, the more sucsessfull will a nation be. This is not imaginations, it is reality! We need global regulations - I agree on that. But a global government will probably be an authoritarian government that either will develop to a dictatorship governed by multinational cooperations in constant wars with regional upraisings. Harari is a prophet, because he only use the sciense that is useful for him. He use very little social and political sciense and the vast amount of socialanthropological knowledge that is available to explain human social behaviour and draw conlusions for what is possible from this knowledge.

when Jonathan Haidt asks a question from Yuval Noah Harari like it is so normal in everyday life :) :)

the last point about our internal ecology was worth watching the whole video. You earned my respect.

Incredibly interesting chat guys, thanks!

Technology and economics seem to be the dominant forces rather than human being . Technology must be at our service not our masters

This guy Yuval is fantastic. Even though he's really left wing he throws out loads of facts and logic instead of just insulting the other side.

This talk is wonderful.. like a for want of a better word.. religion of ethics and technology and humanism. 🙏🏾

Just off the ‘top of my head’ I could have ten wonderfully comfy beds in ten great bedrooms, but that would not help me sleep any better. I would sleep better if I know I myself would not have to solve all my own problems -like caring for myself with illness old age .....There are people out there who think others having more means them having less. Not just money and things, but time, influence, enjoyable experiences.... Atomization and alienation are not self hypnotising states ! They come out of historical , economic ,realities - given places and times .... Harare is clearly a deep thinking and humane person and it is worth reading him. But the changes he advocates need conscious determination and cooperation to realize, as well as good will, attention to feelings states and a great deal of knowledge and awareness. Inspiration AND determination. I wish the internet were abuzz with inspiration to ‘make it happen’ but I suspect that existential crisis may need to get ratcheted up quite a bit before ‘the big boys let go of their expensive and dangerous ‘toys’ and let cooperation and common welfare decide our future.

There is one obvious solution, everybody knows it, but most people are afraid to say it out loud: We need to restructure our local economy, or even rethink what an economy is.

Exactly. Intelligence, Consciousness are one of the few dimension/way to perceive this complicated world. Sad part is that we look through only one lens viz mostly intellect.

"It's not a right or left issue. It's a globalist vs nationalist issue."Mind blown.

A global government would be a very dangerous thing. You can't just say its necessary to solve some problems but ignore those it will create. Once you have just 1 governing body, you've completely lost the ability for self-correcting policies due to comparing and contrasting between different regions. That's why smaller government is good. It allows a kind of darwinian process to occur, where people can vote twice on what's preferable: first in an election and second with their feet. I seriously worry a global government will make disastrous decisions but be too cocky and closed minded to admit it.

Nationalism gives a people a sense of patriotism, culture, an identity. When nation's come together to preserve our ecosystem so we both survive brings about a mindset that we are one. Globalism (NWO) is a beast that will destroy both ...

"What cannot suffer is not real" makes sense

The discussion about the topic of nationalism vs globalism is an intellectually stimulating one. The guest has done a fine job articulating many of the points relevant to such a topic. However, given the journey he has undertaken acquiring valuable knowledge over the years, and especially since he had given many talks directly relating to religion, it is surprising that he did not answer properly the question about the purpose of life. He surely knows that a more complex answer exists, to such a profoundly existential question, than the one he provided.

I am in love with the way this mans mind processes thoughts.

That cube microphone is a very good idea!

So ti turns out Harari is an Epicurean. “What is Sapiens purpose? To liberate itself from suffering.”

Very much in line with Toaism ❤️

This video is exactly the problem! It says, there are only 2 options. Dividing us again. look at the comments. "Nationalism is Bad" "Globalism is Bad." I happen to think that a Global economy is good and a National culture is good. We need to try and find multiple solutions. This is not the highlander, There can be more then one.

Power corrupts, the more we centralize it, the more we loose our wills to a small elite.

I must make a presentation for university about this topic. Thanks for sharing.

Both of these books were excellent!

most uncomfortable microphone ever

The thing about exploring these topics is, the more you dig deeper, the more you realize that you understand almost nothing about almost everything.

Great talk. Appreciate TED trying this approach. Most of what Mr Harari spoke about I agree with. I would like to suggest that Mr Harari investigate the "Cosmic Drama" that is affecting every soul on earth. This battle between good and evil is our reality, it must be won within each individual person. Then as we individual humans gain understanding and control over ourselves, we can become able to love others from any nation and work together to solve problems that are too great for individuals or nations to tackle alone. This spiritual battle is described best through the teaching known as the Divine Principle revealed by Rev. Dr Sun Myung Moon. Also, Mr. Harari's comment that humans have no useful purpose exposes a huge missing piece of the puzzle of his life. Again, the purpose of life is answered clearly in the Divine Principle. Thank you.

really mind blowing conversation. I praise fro bottom of my heart. Thank you

I enjoyed the interesting statistics by Harari at the beginning of the talk, but if 1914 should teach us something, than it is for sure at the very least: "never underestimate the stupidity and megalomania of unelected political leaders who are striving for creating big European empires". Nobody denies that we need global conversation and cooperation on several issues. But firstly, this cooperation needs then to occur really GLOBALLY, not continentally - to move political power to big regional entities like the EU is in fact counterproductive for global issues because it will lead to big power conflicts between the blocks of political and military power on a global scale. And secondly, even though there are global issues and their number might be increasing, the big bulk of the political decisions should ever more be decided in manageablly-sized political entities. Because huge global and continental political entities cannot be democratically controlled and concentrate way too much power and economic resources in the hands of very few. Huge political entities always end up sooner or later to become imperialistic dictatorships.

Nationalism vs. globalism is to me a no brainer, it is Nationalism!

AMAZING talk!

this is one of the best ted talks.

I think what many people here in the comments are getting wrong is that globalization is a PROCESS, not an end-point. I think we are way too caught up thinking that we can only have one or the other, while the fact is that we can always have, and have always had, both. A lot of good and bad have come from globalisation, and the same goes for nationalism. Shouldn't we focus on the balance between the two other than choosing one?

First question was great. How do you spot your own illusions?

I am truly impressed with the way the author in this video discusses some of the most important and pressing issues that are affecting humans across the globe. I agree with some individuals that we need a new political order whereby an increasing number of people begins to basically lean toward the idea of global citizenship at the expense of one's ethnicity. But one thing has always remained consistent over eons of time: humans have this tendency to remain aloof and to distrust our fellow humans who live beyond the mountains or across the plains whilst doing everything within our political, economic or diplomatic means to counter the threats( real or imagined) which is coming from a government or ruling regime across the border or from a country miles away from us geographically.

Hi is Amazing and great teacher. Visionary for the best. Thank you. Yuval .

Hmmm, I wonder why instead of a universal basic income, there isn't an idea about universal basic land-ownership, and people get educated to grow their own food, trade locally, and rely on each other and not big brother?

The main problem with his reasoning is that he too readily conflates global cooperation and global governance, so he will talk about an issue that requires cooperation, and then immediately concludes that this means we need a global government. The root of this mistake is in thinking that problems can only be solved by governments, and so a global problem needs global governance. This is despite how he actually goes on to talk about a basic problem with increased government power (28:41), which is that in his words, the political system "cannot do a lot of good, but can do a lot of harm" - for example it's easy for a gov to start a war, but difficult for it to reduce inequality. As hinted by the host's question, an alternative way to look at problem solving is to do it by science, technology, industriousness, invention etc - people coming together to solve problems and improve conditions, because people want to solve problems and improve conditions. Government is not a necessary ingredient here, and arguably just slows down and gets in the way of people who are trying to solve the problems. Further to the point of government very easily causing harm, but finding it difficult to do good, Harari gives a chilling response to Jonathan Haidt's question (at 26:00). Haidt asks why he thinks the global gov would be good, since we can look around the world and see that government corruption is the rule rather than the exception, and so why would we expect the global government to be like Denmark rather than Russia. Harari responds _"we don't have workable democratic models for government on a global scale, most likely it wouldn't look like Denmark_ ["like Denmark" meaning democratic and non-corrupt] _so maybe it would look more like ancient China, but we need to have the ability to force through difficult decisions on the global level"._ This sounds like a belief tailor-made for causing harm on a mass scale. Please note his use of the word _force_ together with "on the global level". Personally, I don't think it's a good idea to have a regime which he himself says/implies would probably be non-democratic and corrupt, with absolute power (as in ancient China) over everyone in the world, and the ability and will to use force to make people do what they want them to do. Just look at the recent history of China or Russia to see how many millions were essentially sentenced to death for the supposed greater good. The other main problem he has is that he doesn't seem to see how it is in the individual's self-interest to solve a problem shared by the group, despite repeatedly giving examples which go against this idea. 19:10 _"you don't get socialists denying climate change, but if you want to be a nationalist in the 21st century then you must deny the problem of climate change, because nationalism has no solution"._ This is a prime example of his faulty reasoning. It's like saying "Imagine you're on a sinking ship, and the only chance for survival is for everyone to work together to fix the ruptured hull. The person whose main priority is saving themselves and their family will deny that the ship is sinking because they can't fix the hole by themselves, and so they will do nothing". Of course this is absurd reasoning. *Above all else, it is the individual's self-interest which most strongly motivates them to cooperate* with the other individuals to solve the problem and fix the hole in the hull; likewise, it is in the self-interest of individual nations to work together to solve climate change. He then goes on to specifically say (52:40) how it is poorer nations like Ghana or Bangladesh who have the strongest incentives to solve a problem such as climate change, which seems to go against his idea that a nationalist attitude will result in denying climate change, but rather he clearly talks about solving global problems in terms of national self-interest. He further undermines his own point by talking about nuclear weapons (57:30). He says how in the mid-20th century many people thought there would be a nuclear holocaust, and in facing this problem, nations started to change their approach to politics and war; he even attributes this change as the main factor in reducing international violence and the great reduction in the number of people killed by wars nowadays. He neglects to mention how this was _not_ achieved by global governance, but rather by individual nations realising what was in their own self-interest, and then acting accordingly, whether that was collaborating with other nations or just generally being more peaceful. After all, what even is a "global problem" that he is talking so much about? A global problem is just a problem that affects everywhere. A "global problem" is just another way of saying a national problem for _every nation._ *And why wouldn't a nation want to solve a national problem?*

I have always considered myself a citizen of the world. But the harder this globalism is pushed, the more nationalistic I become!

7:39 the awkward smile of the host. Mr. Harari don't get scared of speaking about politics and the truth. One of the greatest minds 🙌 😅

Thank you very much for bringing more awareness on reality. love from Pakistan

John Haidt in the public, good start :-)

His answer to the question at 36:38 is incredible!

What a brilliant analogy - Comparing our current circumstances to the early Chinese tribes living by the yellow river! Bravo!

"liberate ourselves from suffering" .....that is real progress...thank you for posting

the woman from Ghana, Ashanti queen, so bold and eloquent

It’s a shame Yuval didn’t engage with the point about CFCs in the question at 26:30. That is a recent example of how nation states can work together to solve an important global problem.

I wish this were a debate between this guy and his peers who study future trends who have a different opinion. And by future im talking about the next 20-30 years.

He touched on the solution a few times, but never really elaborates on the concept. People are inspired by a narrative. It is the story and the values it represents that gives people a common purpose. Mythology has given us those meaningful stories in the past. When we develop a common narrative that encapsulates widely held principles we will have the mechanism for a common purpose in the future. The collectivist narrative and the individualist narrative are colliding for the purpose of combining them into a purposeful vision that pleases both ideals. We don't want totalitarianism. We don't want anarchy. We want a negotiated middle ground.

And guess which side Ted is rooting for..

53:05 he is making everyone especially the host so uncomfortable with the sheer amount of truth and reality.

Excellent speech, Harari! Thank you so much, I got inspired by you so much. Opened my mind.

I'm not a proponent of political globalism and I'm not a proponent of nationalism. Why are the people in this video pretending that those two alternatives exhaust the logical space of alternatives?

Really interesting talk. Thank you for posting. The title of the talk is illustrative of where "we" still are in the process of evolving through this. We, at some point, will no longer feel the need to make things into a "this vs. that" narrative. There is a way to sync the two concepts. They are part of the same continuum of thought and are the result of taking different precepts into primary consideration when developing a conclusion. There are several points of agreement between nationalism and globalism, however when framed as a battle, neither participant will be completely open and honest in regards to the validity of the others primary concerns, and will not acknowledge the likely negative outcomes of their proposed solution. You can't hype everybody up for a fight and expect peaceful dialogue.

I can't help admiring the moderator Chris Anderson. His questions are so sharp, clear and timely to keep the discussion focused.

25:55 When you're a fan of both Yuval Noah Harari AND Jonathan Haidt. *fangirl moment*

Such people bring me back hope in humanity! Now I need his books badly! Much wisdom, so brilliant, very wow!

Pragmatic nationalism is where I stand. I would be reasonably happy to move towards a global identity, but there seems to be only one method being tried by the West to make that happen, and that is; "Ok - we will bend to the wants and cultural norms of others, subvert our own culture wherever and whenever asked and acquiesce to whatever demands are made from other cultures - including those less advanced that our own - in the hope that this triggers a reciprocal move from them" And guess what? That doesn't work. We get "Oh look at the weak west - especially their left wing - they will bend over and take it - whenever and wherever we want out of post colonial guilt - let's push this as far and as destructively as we can and before they realise, we have imposed our own brand of cultural toxicity over theirs. So easy for us - they actually invite it" How does that lead to a better world? From where I'm sat it leads to a massive disaster and is in itself the catalyst for conflict brought out of resentment. This method does not work and the kickback from cultures that are part of this "let's acquiesce and see where it gets us" experiment are fighting back against what seems to be a demonstrably terrible idea. The idea of inviting cultures and ideologies that, for example, still treat women as vassals, mutilate children and have penal systems that are frankly barbaric and socially toxic - is now being understood. The EU moving sharply to the right and fracturing is a good example of this. The EU has the huge disadvantage that it started with an unapologetically undemocratic framework that is now falling apart and is becoming the victim of its own lack of democracy and accountability. I'm happy to jump on board the global train if and when someone seems to have a workable plan to get us to the goals people like Yuval Noah quite eloquently express - but the lefts plan to get us there seems too much like Turkeys voting for Christmas to me. And we are seeing hundreds of million of people across Europe and the USA very strongly reject it. UK, USA, Germany, now Austria. This is (I believe) directly the fault of the left wings socialist agenda which brokers no argument and no voice to those who question it in the media or in academia. So it's being questioned in the ballot boxes and the streets of the West.

Global problem solving sure seems to rely on force.

I love listening to Yuval, he helps me take positions quite easily, I carefully listen to everything he has to say and make sure I think the complete opposite.

"We don't have a workable democratic model for global government" - Harari, 2017

One of the best examples on the planet of a man who has done his homework. Excellent interview!

When he says “global cooperation” he means “global control.”

Thanks for this

"What they should focus on is not finding their place in some mysterious cosmic drama, they should focus on understanding what suffering is, what causes it and how to be liberated from it." So he just recommended that everyone should become a Buddhist. That's what happens when a cut and dry intellectual tries to provide existential solutions to the plebian masses :/ Admittedly, religion can solve existential problems that are beyond the capabilities of science, but religion is an adamantine double-edged sword that has spawned as many problems as it has solved. The problem with religion is that even though it is a dynamic system by virtue of being social, it never evolves as quickly as the other social institutions and ends up becoming redundant, a mere tool for the other institutions. And then there's frequently some or the other fanatic who pops out of the woodwork claiming that we need to go "back to the roots," undoing all progress made over the ages. Just because you turn the tree upside down doesn't mean the roots start sprouting leaves & flowers. The majority of the problems in the world will be solved if and only when all the people will learn to control their own emotions and not let themselves be controlled by their primal instincts. Which ofc impossible. So let's say politicians should gain this skill and get an actual soul, with a conscience thrown in at discounted rates. Then we're all set.

I do appreciate the notion of encouraging conversation and I did enjoy this video, but I think it would be better to have two opposing people debate instead of having a single person give over the information as there would be a bias. Keep it up, Ted.

Amazing anticipation of future problems and suggesting solution , especially relevant when you are in this situation of covid Pandemic Real genius . Thank you sir

Ironic from jewish persoin to say that identity is fictional. History of his nation proves that, their identity saved them. They are now a country because of that identity.

Communism vs Freedom I choose FREEDOM