Yuval Noah Harari: How to Survive the 21st Century- Davos 2020

well first I introduce myself I'm Erica dich the order there is a little misleading I'm the chairman of Bain & Company and I welcomed you to the session on how to survive the 21st century I started by saying that this is not a new topic and mentioned that 18 years ago marking Ries the britons astronomer royal published a book on the topic and he gave civilization a 50/50 chance of surviving the 21st century he published another book this year or actually last year and his concerns have only grown he cited technology and environmental catastrophe as reasons now being over 30 it is highly unlikely that I will survive the 21st century and someday he's especially when I hear about the fires in Australia over here yet another example of our data and getting used to manipulate us officiously I find myself kind of glad of that but I fear that the next generations may live to see horrific things but perhaps not especially if we start to really get serious about the exists enchi lish OU's that are coming now into plain sight with us today is Yvonne o Ferrari he's a best-selling author of three books the latest is 21 lessons for 21st century he's historian and if you lost firm he has thought long and hard about three existential challenges nuclear war ecological collapse and technological disruption also with us is Mark Bruton also an historian he's been the prime minister of the Netherlands for 10 years in 2019 the World Economic Forum Competitiveness Report ranked the Netherlands and fourth globally and first in Europe it's a pretty good report card for a nation with some real challenges that are relevant to the topic we were going to be talking about today as many of you know about a third of the countries below seal the Dutch are famous for their dykes and there was a famous for the little boy who plugged the leak in one of those dykes when we until until help arrived there are not enough little boys to just plug the threats that surround us today but perhaps we can learn something from such devotion to a common good which this is whatever trade to kick things off your val is going to share some of his current thought thank you so hello everyone I hope you hear me okay if not just make a sign as we enter the third decade of the 21st century humanity faces so many issues and questions that it's really hard to know what to focus on so I would like to use the next 20 minutes to help us focus of all the different issues we face three problems pose existential challenges to our species these three existential challenges are nuclear war ecological collapse and technological disruption we should focus on them now nuclear war and ecological collapse are already familiar threats so let me spend some time explaining the less familiar threat posed by technological disruption in Davos we hear so much about the enormous promises of Technology and these promises are certainly real but technology might also disrupt human society and the very meaning of human life in numerous ways ranging from the creation of a global useless class to the rise of data colonialism and of digital dictatorships first we might face upheavals on the social and economic level automation will soon eliminate millions upon millions of jobs and while new job will certainly be created it is unclear whether people will be able to learn the necessary new skills fast enough suppose you're 50 years old truck driver and you just lost your job to a self-driving vehicle now there are new jobs in designing software or in teaching yoga to engineers but how does a 50 years old truck driver reinvent himself or herself as a software engineer or as a yoga teacher and people will have to do it not just once but again and again throughout their lives because the automation revolution will not be a single watershed event following which the job market will settle down into some new equilibrium rather it will be a cascade of ever bigger disruptions because AI is nowhere near its full potential all jobs will disappear new jobs will emerge but then the new jobs will rapidly change and vanish whereas in the past humans has had to struggle against exploitation in the 21st century the really big struggle will be against irrelevance and it's much worse to be irrelevant than to be exploited those who fail in the struggle against irrelevance would constitute a new useless class people who are useless not from the viewpoint of the friends and family of course but useless from the viewpoint of the economic and political system and this useless class will be separated by an ever-growing gap from the ever more powerful elite the AI revolution might create unprecedented inequality not just between classes but also between cont in the 19th century a few countries like Britain and Japan industrialized first and they went on to conquer and exploit most of the world if we aren't careful the same thing will happen in the 21st century with AI we are already in the midst of an AI arms race with China in the USA leading the race in most countries being left far far behind unless we take action to distribute the benefits and power of AI between all humans AI will likely create immense wealth in a few high-tech hubs while other countries will either go bankrupt all will become exploited data colonies now we are in talking about a science fiction scenario of robots rebelling against humans we are talking about far more primitive AI which is nevertheless enough to disrupt the global balance just think what will happen to developing economies once it is cheaper to produce textiles or cars in California than in Mexico and what will happen to politics in your country in 20 years when somebody in San Francisco or in Beijing knows the entire medical and personal history of every politician every judge and every journalist in your country including all the sexual escapades all their mental weaknesses in all their corrupt dealings will it still be an independent country or will it become a data colony when you have enough data you don't need to send soldiers in order to control a country alongside inequality the other major danger we face is the rise of digital dictatorships that will monitor everyone all the time this danger can be stated in the form of a simple equation which I think might be the defining equation of life in the 21st century B times C times D equals R which means biological knowledge multiplied by computing power multiplied by data equals the ability to hack humans ah if you know enough biology and you have enough computing power and data you can hack my body and my brain and my life and you can understand me better than I understand myself you can know my personality type my political views my sexual preferences my mental weaknesses my deepest fears and hopes you know more about me than I know about myself and you can do that not just to me but to everyone a system that understands us better than we understand ourselves can predict our feelings and decisions can manipulate of feelings and decisions and can ultimately make decisions for us now in the past many tyrants and governments wanted to do it but nobody understood biology well enough and nobody had enough computing power in data to hack millions of people neither the Gestapo nor the KGB could do it but soon at least some corporations and governments will be able to systematically hack all the people we humans should get used to the idea that we are no longer mysterious Souls we are now hackable animals that's what we are the power to how human beings can of course be used for good purposes like providing much better healthcare but if this power falls into the hands of a 21st century Stalin the result will be the worst totalitarian regime in human history and we already have a number of applicants for the job of 21st century storming just imagine North Korea in 20 years when everybody has to wear a biometric bracelet which constantly monitors your blood pressure your heart rate your brain activity 24 hours a day you listen to his speech on the radio by the great leader and they know what you actually feel you can clap your hands and smile but if you're angry they know you'll be in the gulag tomorrow morning and if we allow the emergence of such total surveillance regimes don't think that the rich and powerful in places like Davos will be safe just ask Jeff Bezos in Stalin's USSR the state monitored members of the Communist elite more than anyone else the same will be true of future total surveillance regimes the higher you are in the hierarchy the more closely you will be watched do you want your CEO or your president to know what you really think about them so it in the interest of all humans including the elites to prevent the rise of such digital dictatorships and in the meantime if you get a suspicious words of message from some Prince don't open it now even if we indeed prevent the establishment of digital dictatorships the ability to hack humans might still underline the very meaning of human freedom because as humans will rely on AI to make more and more decisions for us Authority will shift from humans to algorithms and this is already already today billions of people trust the Facebook algorithm to tell us what is new the Google algorithm tells us what is true netflix tells us what watch and the Amazonian Alibaba algorithms tell us what to buy in the not so distant future similar algorithms might tell us where to work and whom to marry and also decide whether to hire us for a job whether to give us a loan and whether the central bank should raise the interest rate and if you ask why you will not given a loan on why the bank didn't raise the interest rate the answer will always be the same because the computer says no and since the limited human brain lacks sufficient biological knowledge computing power and data humans will simply not be able to understand the computers decisions so even in supposedly free countries humans are likely to lose control over our own lives and also lose the ability to understand public policy already now how many humans really understand the financial system maybe 1% to be very generous in a couple of decades the number of humans capable of understanding the financial system will be exactly zero now we humans are used to thinking about life as a drama of decision-making what will be the meaning of human life when most decisions are taken by algorithms we don't even have philosophical models to understand such an existence the usual bargain between philosophers and politicians is that philosophers have a lot of fanciful ideas and politicians patiently explain that they lacked the to implement these ideas now we are in an opposite situation we are facing philosophical bankruptcy the twin revolutions of info tech and biotech are now giving politicians and business people the means to create heaven or hell but the Philosopher's are having trouble conceptualizing what the new heaven and the new hell will look like and that's a very dangerous situation if we fail to conceptualize the new heaven quickly enough we might be easily misled by naive utopias and if we fail to conceptualize the new hell we clean up we might find ourselves entrapped there with no way out finally technology might disrupt not just our economy in politics and philosophy but also our biology in the coming decades AI and biotechnology will give us godlike abilities to re-engineer life and even to create completely new life-forms after four billion years of organic life shaped by natural selection we are about to enter a new era of inorganic life shaped by intelligent design our intelligent design is going to be the new driving force of the evolution of life and in using our new divine powers of creation we might make mistakes on a cosmic scale in particular governments corporations and arms are likely to use technology to enhance human skills that they need like intelligence and discipline while neglecting other human skills like compassion artistic sensitivity and spirituality the result might be a race of humans who are very intelligent and very disciplined but lack compassion lank autistics Timothy and lank spiritual depth of course this is not a prophecy these are just possibilities technology is never deterministic in the 20th century people used industrial technology to build very different kinds of societies fascist dictatorships communist regimes liberal democracies the same thing will happen in the 21st century ai and biotech will certainly transform the world but we can use them to create very different kinds of societies and if you are afraid of some of the possibilities I've mentioned you can still do something about it but to do something effective we need global cooperation all the three existential challenges we face our global problems that demand global solutions whenever any leader says something like my country first we should remind that leader that no nation can prevent nuclear war or stop ecological collapse by itself and no nation can regulate AI and bio engineering by itself almost every country will say hey we don't want to develop killer robots or to genetically engineer human babies will the good guys but we can't trust our rivals not to do it so we must do it first if we allow such an arms race to develop in fields like AI and bioengineering it doesn't really matter who wins the arms race the loser will be humanity unfortunately just when global cooperation is more needed than ever before some of the most powerful leaders and countries in the world are now deliberately undermining global cooperation leaders like the US president tell us that there is an inherent contradiction between nationalism and globalism and that we should choose nationalism and reject globalism but this is a dangerous mistake there is no contradiction between nationalism and globalism because nationalism isn't about hating foreigners nationalism is about loving your compatriots and in the 21st century in order to protect the safety in the future of your compatriots you must cooperate with foreigners so in the 20th century the 21st century sorry good nationalists must be also globalists now globalism does it mean establishing a global government abandoning all national traditions or opening the border to unlimited immigration rather globalism means a commitment to some global rules rules that don't deny the uniqueness of each nation but only regulate relations between nations and a good model is the football World Cup the World Cup is a competition between nations and people often show fierce loyalty to their national team but at the same time the World Cup is also an amazing display of global harmony France can't play football against Croatia unless the French and creations agree on the same rules for the game and that's globalism in action if you like the World Cup you're already a globalist now hopefully nations could agree on global rules not just for football but also for how to prevent ecological collapse how to regulate dangerous technologies and how to reduce global inequality how to make sure for example that AI benefits Mexican textile workers and not only American software engineers now of course this is going to be much more difficult than football but not impossible because the impossible well we have already accomplished the impossible we've already escaped the violent jungle in which we humans have lived throughout history for thousands of years humans lived under the law of the jungle in a condition of omnipresent war the law of the jungle said that for every two nearby countries there is a plausible scenario that they will go to war against each other next year under this law peace meant only the temporary absence of war when there was peace between sane Athens and Sparta or France and Germany it meant that now they are not at war but next year they might be and for thousands of years people had assumed that it was impossible to escape this law but in the last few decades Humanity has managed to do the impossible to break the law and to escape the jungle we've built the rule-based liberal global order that despite many imperfections has nevertheless created the most prosperous and most peaceful era in human history the very meaning of the word peace has changed peace no longer means just the temporary absence of war peace now means the employees ability of war there are many countries in the world which you simply cannot imagine going to war against each other next year like France and Germany there are still wars in some part of the world I come from the Middle East so believe me I know this perfect well but it shouldn't blind us to the overall global picture we are now living in a world in which war kills fewer people than suicide and gunpowder is far less dangerous to your life than sugar most countries with some notable exceptions like Russia don't even fantasize about conquering and annexing their neighbors which is why most countries can afford to spend maybe just about 2% of the GDP on defense while spending far far more on education and healthcare this is not a jungle unfortunately we've gotten so used to this wonderful situation that we take it for granted and we are therefore becoming extremely careless instead of doing everything we can to strengthen the fragile global order countries neglected and even deliberately undermine it the global order is now like a house that everybody inhabits and nobody repairs it can hold on for a few more years but if we continue like this it will collapse and we will find ourselves back in the jungle of omnipresent war we've forgotten what it's like but believe me as a historian you don't want to go back there it's far far worse than you imagined yes our species has evolved in that jungle and lived and even prospered there for thousands of years but if we returned there now with the powerful new technologies of the 21st century our species will probably annihilate itself of course even if we disappear it will not be the end of the world something will survive us perhaps the rats will eventually take over and rebuild civilization perhaps then the rats will learn from our mistakes but a very much hope that we can rely on the leaders assembled here and not on the rights thank you Thank You uvula that was very thought-provoking and challenging introduction and pretty frightening let's hope the rats don't get the upper hand and with that in mind let me turn to you Prime Minister you're head of a government responsible for the well-being of millions of people and in 2019 alone you have signed multi-partner strategic agreements in both climene's and a nai and then also you're one of the leaders of the EU which is the first organization to think really about data and privacy and to come out with this bold green initiative based not on scaring people but really as a strategy for growth what's your take on this on the road ahead well thank you and I'd be first of all say I'm slightly more optimistic I'm the eternal optimist in the room always but here I'm slightly more optimistic because I believe that is a strategic and also a societal and economic imperative let's say a urgency to make sure that B it's artificial intelligence or be it this big issue of climate change that we get a let's get a grip on it but I will also briefly address some of the big issues just being mentioned because of course they are rightly mentioned and we have to mitigate them but first very briefly why is this very is this fierce urgency of now on artificial intelligence and on climate change and climate change because of course we want to mitigate the warming of our world and address the co2 emissions that's clear but at the same time there is a huge economic possibility lots of new jobs being created I see this in my country where we see now growing investments because of the energy transition and climate change itself but of course you need therefore a strategy you need society to be on board we in the best Dutch way had everybody on boards in this debate as you mentioned creates a big climate agreement in June last year which we now implementing which is affordable and achievable but this also creates the jobs necessary in the future I believe the same is true for artificial intelligence possibilities this will present in terms for example of cancer research in terms of for example being able to have precision farming with a smaller co2 footprint and at the moment autonomous driving energy transition itself in all these areas we need interfacial tension I believe it is a more a bigger transformation than the invention of the internet itself if we do it right because things can go horribly wrong that means also we have to focus when it comes to climate change on climate adaptation we will host in October next this year the big climate adaptation summit being one third of the camp after after country being below sea level and we need to do this as we always say God created the earth the Dutch created the Netherlands so we want to showcase this to the world how to work on climate adaptation in terms of artificial intelligence of course this crucial that we change the educational system it has to adapt to what is happening in the area of artificial intelligence we need to have the European human centric approach and leading us here that's a thing this is crucial and standards for example in the terms of data and privacy is very important here and then I come to the big issues being addressed very briefly one yes we have to stay anchored in a not a lateral global world system but then it doesn't help to constantly be Trump not that you were doing this but I know how that's doing the Davos sessions we like to beat Trump it doesn't it doesn't help at all he is president United States I believe that he rightly addresses some of the big issues in terms of the function of the UN NATO the WTO so let's make use of the fact that he is president to change these global organizations because you're right we can never deal with these issues in bilateral ways the strongman trump era home in basel narrow xi jinping they cannot in a bind that little way in a traditional way deal with the global issues secondly I want to ask attention to the role of the Free Press there is a risk that with Facebook and all the other big companies were drawing all the advertising money into the internet now that it is running against the traditional newspapers and the traditional news outlets but he needs journalism to be able for example we have all seen this small clip with Obama saying very strange stuff which was a created clipper then you see it seems like it is really Barack Obama it mentioned that this clip will be aired on television one or two days before the election with some of the national politicians being in that small clip on on the internet or on television that might have a huge impact on election outcome so you need free press at these moments to be able to explain to the people what is really happening but that's cost money so one of the police I have is big business here in Davos don't put all your money in the internet advertising make sure that our newspapers our news outlets also our TV stations also the future will be able to pay sensible and and real salaries to our journalists to be able to do this I believe this crucial and finally I think what will help me of course is when you have a established democracy because in an established democracy with no third party systems that in itself will create a tradition in your society of debating all the fair's issues and views etc and that is to the core of what we as human beings are we like to debate and you come from Israel Israel is one big debate in society and and most of our established democracies are thrive on debates rife on opposing views but that is also educating young people to be able to distinguish between the crazy stuff and the real stuff to be able to come to their own conclusions on big societal issues so an established democracy will be very helpful here and that's why I am so motivated to keep them running in the Netherlands thank you that was optimistic but not optimistic enough for me so let me throw a question in here for both of you completely support free press I agree that innovation has done a lot for health care and a lot of other things and democracy but technology is still marching on and and you know I was reminded of when you've always talking of I mentioned to you about before of two books that were written in the first after 20th century that kind of predicted humanity's future one was George Orwell's 1984 where the population was controlled by this fearsome dictatorship and surveillance was everywhere the thought police was going after they knew what you were thinking and they were going to persecute you and that's kind of like the digital dictatorship that you've all talked about the other book which in some ways is more scary is Huxley's brave new world where by contrast the population is bred or programmed to want what the world state is willing to provide them so they buy what the algorithm tells them that they should want they do what the algorithm tells them they should be happy doing in a way it's this native utopia that you talked about neither author by the way mentioned algorithms because the word as it exists now in the current Hughes didn't exist but unlike the books protagonist we do know that we're being manipulated you mentioned that when you said why we need three frets you've mentioned that when he talked about where we are with algorithms and the question is really whether we would whether we're going to let this continue so should be for example demand that all algorithms that make or influence decisions our matter of public record or at least subject to some regulator who actually can unmask at least or understand how they working and explaining well you tell me maybe just briefly I believe that in the end you once the people your country to be the regulators collectively take 1984 we have for a global regulator that then lets countries we try to do that in terms of regulating artificial intelligence to make sure that privacy is protected that data is protected and yes I agree you need regulation there and at the moment that is going on to make sure that for example Europe European Union is the biggest data mined in whole in all world and off the body everybody would like to mind that data so this crucial that you have regulation in place but at the end too strong this regulation is in its independent thinking people in all classes of society and that is at the core of our societal system and I mean to a certain extent this issue of you being manipulated to buy certain stuff is not new and we know that in even the 19th century and magazines you would find advertising geared to Europe particular preferences that is not too different from what is happening nowadays in algorithms on the Internet of course it was all fashions but trying to somehow be able to to channel your message to a particular audience is not different from what happens in a traditional media and the 90s and 20th century advertising whatever but you don't want a things like Cambridge analytical that there was this impression that on what you were doing in the internet or facebook was basically being geared to certain messages given to you which would then almost confuse you to vote in favor or against the brexit referendum or whatever I think a reality it was not that sophisticated if he sometimes thing but of course these risks are there so you need some form of regulation but in the end let's not be too scary about it because if he startled regulators - happily then it will that email he post a question who is controlling the regulator because that man or a woman will have a lot of power if I can be a bit more scary nevertheless you know the AI revolution is barely an infant you know five years ago nobody talked about AI except first a few scientists and that what we submitted in the 2016 election with occasional attica that's nothing I mean we'll still haven't passed the crucial watershed the real watershed is the union of AI with biometrics at present still the vast majority of data being mined and people being hacked it's not based on by biological knowledge on my biological data it's based on where I click where I go what I buy and things like that it's still outside the body the real line in the sand is when biometric sensors become ubiquitous and it's happening and the data starts coming from within the body and they can access your heart your brain not just your credit card and it's not near its full capacity it's going to get much much more sophisticated so it's going to also to be much more difficult to regulate it especially because even if like the European Union you have a law saying that if an algorithm makes a decision about me like not hiring me for a job I have the right to know why which is very crucial but to me it seems completely ineffectual because the way algorithms make decisions about us is based on enormous amount of data points when a human decides not to hire me for a job it's usually based on two three salient data points and I can understand why hey you're gay you're Jewish we don't want you a the discrimination you can do that that's easy but an algorithm with the big thing about big data in AI you take thousands tens of thousands of data points each contributing a very small percentage and that's how it makes decisions now you can have the right to get all these all the information so they'll give me a big book of a thousand pages with lots of numbers this is why the algorithm didn't hire for a job you wanna know why do I do with that so the thing is just the way the decisions are being made in the world is going to change algorithms make decisions in a different way than humans let me take it from here I acknowledge what both of you said and pick it right up from here you're both historians and history is littered with empires and and whirls that sort of look back and said if only would have we have would have done that at that moment the world would have looked different now I think we are at that moment I don't think oh yeah we talk about the things we work we talk about multilateralism but but there are countries who tell us that they don't actually want to cooperate on the standards of the world there are people who will tell us that I don't want to change the way I make profits and there is no regulator right now I'm doing that so this might be the moment in time where we needed to think just well we know that people start to cooperate when they face a common enemy and you know my question to both of you from slightly different points of view how do we how do we get a real or perceived common enemy out of those real challenges it faces and you know you took a lot about the fictions that unites people and religions and Nations you travel the world let me ask you first and then you're a minister so you know with nuclear war and ecological collapse it's relatively easy because it's obvious it's a threat to everybody nobody is going to win a nuclear war but with technological disruption it's much more difficult because there are a lot some people corporations and governments think and with some good reason that they can win an AI arms race and they can control the world economy or the world political system with that so it's much more difficult to convince them that everybody is on the same site and the really central issue is is inequality I'm not so worried about a country like the Netherlands I think you'll be okay I'm much more worried about countries like Venezuela about Brazil about India about Indonesia what will they be in 30 50 years when I mentioned the analogy with the Industrial Revolution of the 19th century when a few countries dominated and exploited everybody else it could be much much worse in the 21st century if you have just a few countries that dominate the new divine powers of a iron biotechnology and even if you think about the Netherlands in Europe Europe is hardly in the race at present it is at least with AI it's really China versus the US and neither is a very good option as far as as far as we can tell I mean the u.s. at least until a few years ago at least said that it wants to be the leader of the world and to work for the benefit of everybody now it resigned its role of leader of the world and it openly says we don't care about anybody except ourselves and that's not a leader you don't follow a leader whose motto is me first so I think there is an opportunity here I think the opportunities is a wake-up call that's especially for Europe that you can't rely on the US anymore and you should be maybe a third independent way but as things looking 20/20 from the big 20 tech companies in the world I don't think that any is European let me actually give a word for Europe so I'll share the burden from a business point of view which I've been asked to do as well a very important part in what's going to be going on is the way actually decisions are being made about technology where it's bought and how it gets used and while the US and China have the big platforms that people talk about the technology companies Europe actually is quite unique of the United States it has 5g people who can still actually make 5g working now in America there isn't a single company that can do it today and the reason for that is because when mobile started the United States went a different direction Europe agreed on a single format and they went down the experience curve both cost wise and quality wise all the United States companies were sold to Europeans are disappeared Europeans are consolidated now there's now China Korea and Europe that is an opportunity for Europe in my mind to actually take stepping technology make a huge difference because when you think about the future those who control 5g or make 5g will actually control all the infrastructure in which the technology that we're talking about is gonna big as negative about America as some of you in this room because I still believe America is leader of the free world and I cannot envisage any big global issue being solved without involvement of the USA despite who's president not important at the ends that is still the case but at the same time the European Union is one 1/2 times bigger in its overall size of economy than the US and three or four times bigger than China so the question they are fighting each other the US and China this is not about first place is about second place so let's not forget it and you're right the European Union has many and the European countries have many other advantages and I'd also agree that when talking about AI and particularly when you see what what happened as you put very clearly in your presentation and the risk be involved you need that regulation including transparency and and how to have worldwide standards about transparency that at least you understand that because of the color of your skin or whatever you have been rejected for that job and that you don't have to go through out of the pages of digital data so you need that clearly discernible robot standards on on transparency that's crucial I mean it involvement of companies to help us to create it at the end is a political system which has to take the decision which you need a technological input but I'm very optimistic about European Europe country's being able to do this in the Netherlands we have this AR strategy we're working with all the big tech companies worldwide to build AI clusters in the Netherlands because we know that if we want to stay the fourth most competitive economy in the world and number one in Europe this is crucial because this is transformation transformational yet so yes we have to acknowledge the risks in the downsides of these new technologies but at the same time for the for our societies to come along let's also acknowledge the enormous amount of good this can create in terms of our health cancer is the many things I mentioned earlier because I'm extremely optimistic about what that can do if you're not if I can agree with you on that point and that includes working on global standards that includes maintaining the liberal international World Order but then including making changes to the big global organization where this moment are in many cases not functioning as they should well we have less than one minute and I'm supposed to summarize this so let me actually think I think we have participated and seeing a discussion between a philosopher and a political leader trying to conceptualize a little further what the 21st century might look like there was a little bit of pessimism a little bit of optimism I think a lot of realism as one starts to think about where to take that next and it's important to talk about those things and to realize them so please join me in thanking both speakers for today you

Channel: Yuval Noah Harari

Views: 353,280

Rating: 4.8475075 out of 5

Keywords: world economic forum, davos, wef20, wef2020, technological disruption, ai, nuclear arms race, yuval noah harari

Id: gG6WnMb9Fho

Length: 48min 19sec (2899 seconds)

Published: Fri Jan 24 2020

Reddit Comments

[u/avanak]

Hoezo heeft Rutte het over het klimaat alsof dat het belangrijkste punt van de 21e eeuw is?

Volgens mij is de VVD nog steeds een regeringspartij.

https://www.volkskrant.nl/economie/minder-co2-maar-liever-niet-vandaag-qua-uitstoot-zijn-we-een-land-van-smeerkezen~b77e1b24/

Ik ruik iets: hmmm, is dat hypocrisie?

[u/Rietendak]

Yikes, hebben ze Rutte daar gewoon willekeurig neergezet? Het lijkt alsof hij een vrijwel geheel geïmproviseerd praatje geeft na Harari's toespraak.