Hello, everyone. It's a bit funny, because I did write that humans will become digital, but I didn't think it will happen so fast and that it will happen to me. But here I am, as a digital avatar, and here you are, so let's start. And let's start with a question. How many fascists are there in the audience today?
Zdravo svima. Malo je smešno jer sam pisao kako će ljudi da postanu digitalni, ali nisam mislio da će tako brzo da se desi i da će meni da se desi. Ali, evo me u vidu digitalnog avatara, a eto i vas, pa zato počnimo. I započnimo pitanjem: koliko fašista ima u publici danas?
(Laughter)
(Smeh)
Well, it's a bit difficult to say, because we've forgotten what fascism is. People now use the term "fascist" as a kind of general-purpose abuse. Or they confuse fascism with nationalism. So let's take a few minutes to clarify what fascism actually is, and how it is different from nationalism.
Pa, malo je teško reći jer smo zaboravili šta je fašizam. Ljudi trenutno koriste termin „fašista“ kao neki vid opšteprimenljive uvrede. Ili mešaju fašizam sa nacionalizmom. Zato, odvojimo nekoliko minuta da razjasnimo šta je zapravo fašizam i po čemu se razlikuje od nacionalizma.
The milder forms of nationalism have been among the most benevolent of human creations. Nations are communities of millions of strangers who don't really know each other. For example, I don't know the eight million people who share my Israeli citizenship. But thanks to nationalism, we can all care about one another and cooperate effectively. This is very good. Some people, like John Lennon, imagine that without nationalism, the world will be a peaceful paradise. But far more likely, without nationalism, we would have been living in tribal chaos. If you look today at the most prosperous and peaceful countries in the world, countries like Sweden and Switzerland and Japan, you will see that they have a very strong sense of nationalism. In contrast, countries that lack a strong sense of nationalism, like Congo and Somalia and Afghanistan, tend to be violent and poor.
Blaži oblici nacionalizma su među najdobroćudnijim ljudskim tvorevinama. Nacije su zajednice miliona stranaca koji se zaista međusobno ne poznaju. Na primer, ja ne poznajem osam miliona ljudi koji dele sa mnom izraelsko državljanstvo. Međutim, zahvaljujući nacionalizmu, svi možemo da brinemo jedni za druge i da efikasno sarađujemo. Ovo je veoma dobro. Neki ljudi, poput Džona Lenona, zamišljali su da bi bez nacionalizma svet bio miroljubivi raj. Međutim, daleko je izvesnije da bismo bez nacionalizma živeli u plemenskom haosu. Pogledate li današnje najprosperitetnije i najmirnije države na svetu, države poput Švedske, Švajcarske i Japana, videćete da oni imaju veoma snažan osećaj nacionalne pripadnosti. Nasuprot tome, države kojima nedostaje snažan osećaj nacionalne pripadnosti, poput Konga, Somalije i Avganistana, nasilnije su i siromašnije.
So what is fascism, and how is it different from nationalism? Well, nationalism tells me that my nation is unique, and that I have special obligations towards my nation. Fascism, in contrast, tells me that my nation is supreme, and that I have exclusive obligations towards it. I don't need to care about anybody or anything other than my nation. Usually, of course, people have many identities and loyalties to different groups. For example, I can be a good patriot, loyal to my country, and at the same time, be loyal to my family, my neighborhood, my profession, humankind as a whole, truth and beauty. Of course, when I have different identities and loyalties, it sometimes creates conflicts and complications. But, well, who ever told you that life was easy? Life is complicated. Deal with it.
Dakle, šta je fašizam i u čemu se razlikuje od nacionalizma? Pa, nacionalizam mi kaže da je moja nacija jedinstvena i da imam posebne dužnosti prema mojoj naciji. Fašizam, nasuprot tome, mi kaže da je moja nacija superiorna i da imam isključive obaveze prema njoj. Ne moram da marim za bilo koga ili za bilo šta osim moje nacije. Obično, naravno, ljudi imaju višestruke identitete i odanosti različitim grupama. Na primer, mogu da budem dobar patriota, odan svojoj državi i da istovremeno budem odan svojoj porodici, svom komšiluku, svojoj profesiji, čovečanstvu u celosti, istini i lepoti. Naravno, kada imam različite identitete i odanosti, to ponekad stvara sukobe i komplikacije. Međutim, dobro, ko vam je ikad rekao da je život lak? Život je komplikovan. Nosite se s tim.
Fascism is what happens when people try to ignore the complications and to make life too easy for themselves. Fascism denies all identities except the national identity and insists that I have obligations only towards my nation. If my nation demands that I sacrifice my family, then I will sacrifice my family. If the nation demands that I kill millions of people, then I will kill millions of people. And if my nation demands that I betray truth and beauty, then I should betray truth and beauty. For example, how does a fascist evaluate art? How does a fascist decide whether a movie is a good movie or a bad movie? Well, it's very, very, very simple. There is really just one yardstick: if the movie serves the interests of the nation, it's a good movie; if the movie doesn't serve the interests of the nation, it's a bad movie. That's it. Similarly, how does a fascist decide what to teach kids in school? Again, it's very simple. There is just one yardstick: you teach the kids whatever serves the interests of the nation. The truth doesn't matter at all.
Do fašizma dolazi kada ljudi pokušaju da ignorišu komplikacije i pokušaju da suviše pojednostave život za sebe. Fašizam negira sve identitete osim nacionalnog identiteta i insistira da ja imam obaveze samo prema mojoj naciji. Ako moja nacija zahteva da žrtvujem moju porodicu, onda ću da žrtvujem moju porodicu. Ako nacija zahteva da ubijem milione ljudi, onda ću da ubijem milione ljudi. A ako moja nacija zahteva da izdam istinu i lepotu, onda treba i da izdam istinu i lepotu. Na primer, kako fašista ocenjuje umetnost? Kako fašista odlučuje da li je film dobar ili loš? Pa, veoma, veoma, veoma je prosto. Zaista postoji samo jedno merilo: ako film služi interesima nacije, onda je to dobar film; ako film ne služi interesima nacije, onda je to loš film. To je to. Slično, kako fašista odlučuje šta treba deca da uče u školi? Opet, veoma je prosto. Postoji samo jedno merilo: podučavate decu bilo čemu što služi nacionalnom interesu. Istina uopšte nije važna.
Now, the horrors of the Second World War and of the Holocaust remind us of the terrible consequences of this way of thinking. But usually, when we talk about the ills of fascism, we do so in an ineffective way, because we tend to depict fascism as a hideous monster, without really explaining what was so seductive about it. It's a bit like these Hollywood movies that depict the bad guys -- Voldemort or Sauron or Darth Vader -- as ugly and mean and cruel. They're cruel even to their own supporters. When I see these movies, I never understand -- why would anybody be tempted to follow a disgusting creep like Voldemort? The problem with evil is that in real life, evil doesn't necessarily look ugly. It can look very beautiful. This is something that Christianity knew very well, which is why in Christian art, as [opposed to] Hollywood, Satan is usually depicted as a gorgeous hunk. This is why it's so difficult to resist the temptations of Satan, and why it is also difficult to resist the temptations of fascism.
Sad, užasi Drugog svetskog rata i Holokausta nas podsećaju na jezive posledice ovog načina razmišljanja. Međutim, obično kada govorimo o manama fašizma, radimo to na neefikasan način jer često prikazujemo fašizam kao odvratno čudovište, a da zaista ne objašnjavamo šta je bilo tako zavodljivo u vezi s njim. Pomalo liči na način na koji holivudski filmovi prikazuju negativce - Voldemora ili Saurona ili Darta Vejdera - kao ružne, zle i okrutne. Oni su okrutni čak i prema sopstvenim podržavaocima. Kad odgledam ove filmove, uopšte ne razumem - zašto bi bilo koga privlačilo da prati odvratnog ljigavca poput Voldemora? Problem sa zlom je što u stvarnom životu zlo nužno ne izgleda ružno. Može da izgleda veoma lepo. To je nešto čega je hrišćanstvo bilo veoma svesno, zbog čega je u hrišćanskoj umetnosti, nasuprot Holivudu, Satana često prikazan kao prelepi zavodnik. Zbog toga je tako teško odoleti Sataninim iskušenjima i zbog toga je takođe teško odoleti iskušenjima fašizma.
Fascism makes people see themselves as belonging to the most beautiful and most important thing in the world -- the nation. And then people think, "Well, they taught us that fascism is ugly. But when I look in the mirror, I see something very beautiful, so I can't be a fascist, right?" Wrong. That's the problem with fascism. When you look in the fascist mirror, you see yourself as far more beautiful than you really are. In the 1930s, when Germans looked in the fascist mirror, they saw Germany as the most beautiful thing in the world. If today, Russians look in the fascist mirror, they will see Russia as the most beautiful thing in the world. And if Israelis look in the fascist mirror, they will see Israel as the most beautiful thing in the world. This does not mean that we are now facing a rerun of the 1930s.
Zbog fašizma ljudi sebe vide kao pripadnike najlepše i najvažnije stvari na svetu - nacije. I onda ljudi misle: „Dobro, učili su nas da je fašizam ružan. Međutim, kad pogledam u ogledalo, vidim nešto veoma lepo, pa ne mogu da budem fašista, zar ne?“ Greška. To je problem kod fašizma. Kada pogledate u fašističko ogledalo, vidite sebe kao mnogo lepše nego što zaista jeste. Tokom 1930-ih, kad bi Nemci pogledali u fašističko ogledalo, videli bi Nemačku kao nešto najlepše na svetu. Ako bi danas Rusi pogledali u fašističko ogledalo, videli bi Rusiju kao nešto najlepše na svetu. I ako bi Izraelci pogledali u fašističko ogledalo, videli bi Izrael kao nešto najlepše na svetu. Ovo ne znači da smo trenutno suočeni sa reprizom 1930-ih.
Fascism and dictatorships might come back, but they will come back in a new form, a form which is much more relevant to the new technological realities of the 21st century. In ancient times, land was the most important asset in the world. Politics, therefore, was the struggle to control land. And dictatorship meant that all the land was owned by a single ruler or by a small oligarch. And in the modern age, machines became more important than land. Politics became the struggle to control the machines. And dictatorship meant that too many of the machines became concentrated in the hands of the government or of a small elite. Now data is replacing both land and machines as the most important asset. Politics becomes the struggle to control the flows of data. And dictatorship now means that too much data is being concentrated in the hands of the government or of a small elite.
Fašizam i diktature mogu da se vrate, ali će da se vrate u novom obliku, obliku koji je daleko relevantniji za novu tehnološku stvarnost XXI veka. U drevna vremena, zemlja je bila najvažniji posed na svetu. Politika, samim tim, bila je borba za kontrolu zemlje. A diktatura je značila da svu zemlju poseduje jedan vladar ili manji oligarh. A u moderno vreme, mašine su postale važnije od zemlje. Politika je postala borba da se kontrolišu mašine. A diktatura je značila da je preveliki broj mašina postao koncentrisan u rukama vlade ili malobrojne elite. Sada podaci uzimaju mesto zemlje i mašina kao najvažnijeg poseda. Politika postaje borba da se kontroliše protok podataka. A diktatura trenutno znači da je prevelika količina podataka koncentrisana u rukama vlade ili malobrojne elite.
The greatest danger that now faces liberal democracy is that the revolution in information technology will make dictatorships more efficient than democracies.
Najveća opasnost s kojom je trenutno suočena liberalna demokratija je to što će revolucija u informacionoj tehnologiji učiniti diktature efikasnijim od demokratija.
In the 20th century, democracy and capitalism defeated fascism and communism because democracy was better at processing data and making decisions. Given 20th-century technology, it was simply inefficient to try and concentrate too much data and too much power in one place.
U XX veku, demokratija i kapitalizam su porazili fašizam i komunizam jer je demokratija bila bolja u obradi podataka i donošenju odluka. Uz tehnologiju XX veka, prosto je bilo neefikasno pokušavati koncentrisati preveliku količinu podataka i previše moći na jedno mesto.
But it is not a law of nature that centralized data processing is always less efficient than distributed data processing. With the rise of artificial intelligence and machine learning, it might become feasible to process enormous amounts of information very efficiently in one place, to take all the decisions in one place, and then centralized data processing will be more efficient than distributed data processing. And then the main handicap of authoritarian regimes in the 20th century -- their attempt to concentrate all the information in one place -- it will become their greatest advantage.
Međutim, ne radi se o zakonu prirode da je centralizovana obrada podataka uvek manje efikasna od raspodeljene obrade podataka. S usponom veštačke inteligencije i mašinskog učenja, mogla bi da postane izvodljiva obrada ogromne količine informacija veoma efikasno na jednom mestu, da se sve odluke stave na jedno mesto i tako bi centralizovana obrada podataka bila efikasnija od raspodeljene obrade podataka. I tada bi glavni nedostatak autoritarnih režima iz XX veka - njihov pokušaj da koncentrišu sve informacije na jedno mesto - postao njihova najveća prednost.
Another technological danger that threatens the future of democracy is the merger of information technology with biotechnology, which might result in the creation of algorithms that know me better than I know myself. And once you have such algorithms, an external system, like the government, cannot just predict my decisions, it can also manipulate my feelings, my emotions. A dictator may not be able to provide me with good health care, but he will be able to make me love him and to make me hate the opposition. Democracy will find it difficult to survive such a development because, in the end, democracy is not based on human rationality; it's based on human feelings. During elections and referendums, you're not being asked, "What do you think?" You're actually being asked, "How do you feel?" And if somebody can manipulate your emotions effectively, democracy will become an emotional puppet show.
Još jedna tehnološka opasnost koja preti budućnosti demokratije je spajanje informacione tehnologije sa biotehnologijom, a to bi moglo da rezultira stvaranjem algoritama koji me poznaju bolje nego što ja poznajem sebe. A čim dobijete takve algoritme, spoljni sistemi, poput vlade, ne samo da mogu predvideti moje postupke; takođe mogu da manipulišu mojim osećanjima, mojim emocijama. Diktator možda neće moći da mi pruži dobro zdravstvo, ali može da učini da ga volim i da učini da mrzim opoziciju. Demokratiji će da bude teško da preživi takav razvoj jer, naposletku, demokratija nije zasnovana na ljudskoj racionalnosti; zasnovana je na ljudskim osećanjima. Tokom izbora i referenduma, ne pitaju vas: „Šta mislite?“ Zapravo vas pitaju: „Kako se osećate?“ A ako neko može efikasno da manipuliše vašim emocijama, demokratija će da postane emocionalna lutkarska predstava.
So what can we do to prevent the return of fascism and the rise of new dictatorships? The number one question that we face is: Who controls the data? If you are an engineer, then find ways to prevent too much data from being concentrated in too few hands. And find ways to make sure the distributed data processing is at least as efficient as centralized data processing. This will be the best safeguard for democracy. As for the rest of us who are not engineers, the number one question facing us is how not to allow ourselves to be manipulated by those who control the data.
Dakle, šta možemo da uradimo da sprečimo povratak fašizma i uspon novih diktatura? Prvo pitanje s kojim smo suočeni glasi: ko kontroliše podatke? Ako ste inženjer, onda pronađite način da sprečite da prevelika količina podataka bude koncentrisana u premalo ruku. I pronađite načine da obezbedite da raspodeljena obrada podataka bude bar jednako efikasna kao i centralizovana obrada podataka. To će da bude najbolji branik demokratije. Što se tiče nas ostalih koji nismo inženjeri, prvo pitanje s kojim smo suočeni jeste kako da ne dozvolimo da nama manipulišu oni koji kontrolišu podatke.
The enemies of liberal democracy, they have a method. They hack our feelings. Not our emails, not our bank accounts -- they hack our feelings of fear and hate and vanity, and then use these feelings to polarize and destroy democracy from within. This is actually a method that Silicon Valley pioneered in order to sell us products. But now, the enemies of democracy are using this very method to sell us fear and hate and vanity. They cannot create these feelings out of nothing. So they get to know our own preexisting weaknesses. And then use them against us. And it is therefore the responsibility of all of us to get to know our weaknesses and make sure that they do not become a weapon in the hands of the enemies of democracy.
Neprijatelji liberalne demokratije imaju metod. Hakuju naša osećanja. Ne naše imejlove, ne naše bankovne račune - hakuju naša osećanja straha, mržnje i taštine, kako bi onda koristili ta osećanja da polarizuju i unište demokratiju iznutra. Ovo je zapravo metod koji je prva uvela Silicijumska dolina da bi nam prodavali proizvode. Međutim, sad neprijatelji demokratije koriste baš ovaj metod da nam prodaju strah, mržnju i taštinu. Ne mogu stvarati ova osećanja ni iz čega. Stoga upoznaju naše postojeće slabosti. I potom ih koriste protiv nas. Stoga je dužnost svih nas da spoznamo naše slabosti i da se postaramo da one ne postanu oružja u rukama neprijatelja demokratije.
Getting to know our own weaknesses will also help us to avoid the trap of the fascist mirror. As we explained earlier, fascism exploits our vanity. It makes us see ourselves as far more beautiful than we really are. This is the seduction. But if you really know yourself, you will not fall for this kind of flattery. If somebody puts a mirror in front of your eyes that hides all your ugly bits and makes you see yourself as far more beautiful and far more important than you really are, just break that mirror.
Spoznaja naših slabosti takođe će da nam pomogne da izbegnemo zamku fašističkog ogledala. Kao što smo ranije objasnli, fašizam eksploatiše našu taštinu. Zbog njega vidimo sebe kao mnogo lepše nego što zaista jesmo. Radi se o zavođenju. Ali, ako uistinu poznajete sebe, nećete pasti na ovaj vid laskanja. Ako vam neko pred oči stavi ogledalo koje sakriva sve vaše ružne delove, a zbog čega sebe vidite daleko lepšim i daleko važnijim nego što zaista jeste, samo razbijte to ogledalo.
Thank you.
Hvala vam.
(Applause)
(Aplauz)
Chris Anderson: Yuval, thank you. Goodness me. It's so nice to see you again. So, if I understand you right, you're alerting us to two big dangers here. One is the possible resurgence of a seductive form of fascism, but close to that, dictatorships that may not exactly be fascistic, but control all the data. I wonder if there's a third concern that some people here have already expressed, which is where, not governments, but big corporations control all our data. What do you call that, and how worried should we be about that?
Kris Anderson: Juval, hvala ti. Za ime boga. Tako je lepo videti te opet. Dakle, ako sam te dobro razumeo, upozoravaš nas na dve velike opasnosti. Jedna je mogući novi uspon zavodljivih oblika fašizma, ali blisko tome, diktature koje možda ne bi bile baš fašističke, već bi kontrolisale sve podatke. Pitam se postoji li treća briga koju su neki ljudi ovde već izrazili, a to su ne vlade, već velike korporacije koje kontrolišu sve podatke. Kako nazivaš to i koliko bi trebalo da budemo zabrinuti zbog toga?
Yuval Noah Harari: Well, in the end, there isn't such a big difference between the corporations and the governments, because, as I said, the questions is: Who controls the data? This is the real government. If you call it a corporation or a government -- if it's a corporation and it really controls the data, this is our real government. So the difference is more apparent than real.
Juval Noa Harari: Pa, naposletku, nema naročito velike razlike između korporacija i vlada jer, kao što sam rekao, pitanje glasi: ko kontroliše podatke? To je stvarna vlada. Ako to nazivate korporacijom ili vladom - ako je korporacija ta koja zaista kontroliše podatke, to je naša stvarna vlada. Dakle, razlika je pre prividna nego stvarna.
CA: But somehow, at least with corporations, you can imagine market mechanisms where they can be taken down. I mean, if consumers just decide that the company is no longer operating in their interest, it does open the door to another market. It seems easier to imagine that than, say, citizens rising up and taking down a government that is in control of everything.
KA: Međutim, nekako, bar s korporacijama, možemo da zamislimo mehanizme tržišta kojima ih možemo svrgnuti. Mislim, ako potrošači prosto odluče da firma više ne posluje u njihovom interesu, to otvara vrata za novo tržište. Čini se da je lakše to zamisliti nego, recimo, građane koji ustaju i svrgavaju vladu koja kontroliše sve.
YNH: Well, we are not there yet, but again, if a corporation really knows you better than you know yourself -- at least that it can manipulate your own deepest emotions and desires, and you won't even realize -- you will think this is your authentic self. So in theory, yes, in theory, you can rise against a corporation, just as, in theory, you can rise against a dictatorship. But in practice, it is extremely difficult.
JNH: Pa, nismo još uvek stigli dotle, ali, opet, ako vas korporacija zaista poznaje bolje nego što vi poznajete sebe - bar da može da manipuliše vašim najdubljim emocijama i žudnjama, pa vi nećete čak ni biti svesni - mislićete da ste to autentični vi. Dakle, u teoriji, da, u teoriji možete da ustanete protiv korporacije, baš kao što, u teoriji, možete da ustanete protiv diktature. Međutim, u praksi izuzetno je teško.
CA: So in "Homo Deus," you argue that this would be the century when humans kind of became gods, either through development of artificial intelligence or through genetic engineering. Has this prospect of political system shift, collapse impacted your view on that possibility?
KA: Dakle, u knjizi „Homo Deus“ raspravljaš da će ovo da bude vek u kom će ljudi da postanu bogovi na neki način, bilo putem razvoja veštačke inteligencije ili putem genetskog inženjeringa. Da li je ovaj vid preokreta političkog sistema, kolapsa, uticao na tvoje viđenje te mogućnosti?
YNH: Well, I think it makes it even more likely, and more likely that it will happen faster, because in times of crisis, people are willing to take risks that they wouldn't otherwise take. And people are willing to try all kinds of high-risk, high-gain technologies. So these kinds of crises might serve the same function as the two world wars in the 20th century. The two world wars greatly accelerated the development of new and dangerous technologies. And the same thing might happen in the 21st century. I mean, you need to be a little crazy to run too fast, let's say, with genetic engineering. But now you have more and more crazy people in charge of different countries in the world, so the chances are getting higher, not lower.
JNH: Mislim da je zbog toga ona još izglednija, i izglednije je da će brže da se desi, jer u kriznim vremenima, ljudi su spremni da rizikuju kako inače ne bi. I ljudi su spremni da isprobaju sve vidove visokorizičnih tehnologija sa visokim dobicima. Dakle, ovi vidovi kriza bi mogli da posluže istoj svrsi kao dva svetska rata u XX veku. Dva svetska rata su uveliko ubrzala razvoj novih i opasnih tehnologija. A isto bi moglo da se desi u XXI veku. Mislim, morate da budete malčice ludi da delujete ishitreno, recimo, sa genetskim inženjeringom. Međutim, trenutno imate sve više ludih ljudi koji upravljaju različitim državama u svetu, pa šanse postaju veće, a ne manje.
CA: So, putting it all together, Yuval, you've got this unique vision. Roll the clock forward 30 years. What's your guess -- does humanity just somehow scrape through, look back and say, "Wow, that was a close thing. We did it!" Or not?
KA: Dakle, da sve zaokružimo, Juval, imaš tu jedinstvenu viziju. Premotajmo sat 30 godina unapred. Šta pretpostavljaš - da li se čovečanstvo nekako zamalo provlači, osvrće se unazad i kaže: „Uh, to je bilo zamalo. Uspeli smo!“ Ili ne?
YNH: So far, we've managed to overcome all the previous crises. And especially if you look at liberal democracy and you think things are bad now, just remember how much worse things looked in 1938 or in 1968. So this is really nothing, this is just a small crisis. But you can never know, because, as a historian, I know that you should never underestimate human stupidity.
JNH: Do sad smo uspevali da prevaziđemo prethodne krize. A naročito ako pogledate liberalnu demokratiju i pomislite da su stvari trenutno loše, samo se setite koliko su gore stvari izgledale 1938. ili 1968. godine. Dakle, ovo uistinu nije ništa, ovo je tek mala kriza. Ali, nikad ne možete da znate jer, kao istoričar, znam da nikad ne bi trebalo da potcenjujete ljudsku glupost.
(Laughter) (Applause)
(Smeh) (Aplauz)
It is one of the most powerful forces that shape history.
Ona je jedna od najsnažnijih sila koje oblikuju ljudsku istoriju.
CA: Yuval, it's been an absolute delight to have you with us. Thank you for making the virtual trip. Have a great evening there in Tel Aviv. Yuval Harari!
KA: Juval, apsolutno je zadovoljstvo što si nam se pridružio. Hvala na virtuelnom putovanju. Želim ti prijatno veče tamo u Tel Avivu. Juval Harari!
YNH: Thank you very much.
JNH: Mnogo vam hvala.
(Applause)
(Aplauz)