Should We Trust Nature More than Ourselves?
Talk · zizekpodcast.com ·
2022-06-02 · 0:39:01 · 5,346 words
ecology-climatehegel-dialecticsideologyreligion-theologytechnology-ai-cyberspaceethicsphilosophy-generalhistory
A panel discussion between Slavoj Žižek and Yuval Noah Harari, moderated by an unknown host, covering the nature/culture distinction, ecological ethics, deep ecology's hidden anthropocentrism, the limits of goodness as a moral guide, Buddhism's complicity in violence, and the dangers of biotechnological manipulation of human beings. The conversation ranges from Hegel's dialectic of ideas turning into their opposites, to Stalin's alleged attempt to breed human-ape hybrids, to a joke about the 'dialectical synthesis' of money in communism. Throughout, both speakers largely agree while Žižek sharpens distinctions and introduces characteristic inversions.
every located moment in this recording, click one to read it
The ideas in it 9
in the order they first come up; click a row for what he does with the idea here
as “Je sais bien, mais quand même”
The fetishist formula ('I know very well, but nevertheless...') used here to capture the gap between intellectual acceptance of ecological crisis and lived affective denial.
as “everyday ideology”
The unreflective, background assumption embedded in ordinary life, here, the spontaneous belief that nature has a stable, regular pattern which humans violate through hubris.
The ideological fiction Žižek rejects: the idea that nature possesses an inherent regular rhythm that human activity disturbs, rather than nature being constitutively chaotic.
The Buddhist-derived injunction, seized on by Himmler from the Bhagavad Gita, to perform one's duty without identifying with the act, used by Žižek to show how non-attachment can enable atrocity.
as “anattman”
The Buddhist doctrine of no-self (non-substantial subject), which Žižek shows was weaponized to justify soldiers observing violence as a 'dance of phenomena' rather than their own act.
Žižek's diagnosis of deep ecology: beneath its false modesty (we are just one species among many), it actually posits humans as universal beings responsible for all of nature, which is a more extreme form of human dominion.
The philosophical concept of free will as an illusion generated by cognitive processes, invoked here as a question about whether freedom is real or merely apparent.
The paradox that biotechnological attempts to upgrade human capacities (intelligence, discipline) will selectively suppress others (compassion, spirituality, artistic sensitivity), effectively downgrading the human.
The Stalinist pseudo-Hegelian formula that resolves contradictions not through genuine synthesis but through brute social division, deployed here as a joke about money in communism and projected onto future techno-class division.
Stories he reaches for 3
Žižek reveals that Heinrich Himmler's sacred book was the Bhagavad Gita because it teaches acting with distance, not identifying with one's act, which Himmler explicitly cited as how a Nazi officer should maintain his humanity while killing Jewish children.
“which was the sacred book of Heinrich Himmler? It was Bhagavad Gita. Because it teaches you this acting with a distance.”
In a Central Committee debate on whether communism will have money, right-wingers (Bukharinites) say yes, left-wingers (Trotskyites) say no. Stalin intervenes: 'You are both wrong, there will be a dialectical synthesis: there will be money and there will not be money.' When pressed to explain, he says: 'It's simple. Some people will have money, other people will not.'
“there will be a dialectical synthesis of opposites: there will be money and there will not be money… Some people will have money, other people will not.”
In the late 1920s, Stalin was convinced by a biologist to create a perfect worker by cross-breeding humans and apes: intelligent enough to work but too stupid to rebel. A delegation was sent to Congo, female apes were imported, and four strong Russian farmers were made to copulate with them. It did not work.
“Stalin was convinced by some stupid biologist…to create a perfect worker which can read, write elementarily, but is too stupid to organize socially, to rebel, by coupling humans and apes.”
Works invoked 2
Bhagavad Gita other
Žižek uses the Gita's doctrine of acting with distance (nishkama karma) to show how a text dedicated to duty without attachment became Himmler's justification for Nazi atrocity; deployed as a foil illustrating ideology's capacity for complicity.
Žižek quotes Hegel's introduction, that philosophy can only grasp the present order when it begins to disintegrate, as the Hegelian principle he endorses against Marxist positive planning.
People invoked 10
Steven Weinberg positive
Žižek approvingly quotes Weinberg's line that without religion, good people would be good and bad people would be bad, but religion is needed to make good people do bad things.
Francis Fukuyama negative
His 'end of history' thesis is listed as the most recent example of an emancipatory extreme that turned into its opposite, 'haha, we are now where we are.'
Mentioned as the representative of the right-wing position (money in communism) in the Stalin joke about dialectical synthesis.
Yuval Noah Harari positive
Žižek repeatedly agrees with Harari, calls him a friend, and says he speaks clearly and seriously despite accusations of being too popular; he builds his own points by extending or sharpening Harari's arguments.
Trotskyites are mentioned as the left-wing position (no money in communism) in the Stalin dialectical synthesis joke.
Heinrich Himmler negative
Žižek uses Himmler's use of the Bhagavad Gita to illustrate how non-attachment doctrine enables atrocity; Himmler serves as the limit-case of ideology enabling a good person to do terrible things.
D. T. Suzuki negative
The famous Zen popularizer among 1960s hippies who fully supported Japanese militarism in the 1930s-40s, using no-self doctrine to dissolve the soldier's moral agency; cited as evidence of Buddhism's complicity with violence.
Joseph Stalin negative
Cited repeatedly: for the human-ape breeding experiment, for the pseudo-dialectical money joke, and as the prototype of the 21st-century biotechnological totalitarian; used to illustrate how ideology and power combine to produce grotesque outcomes.
Karl Marx positive
Žižek identifies himself as 'an old Marxist' but argues that today Hegel is more useful than Marx because Marx still had a positive plan for the future, which Žižek now views as naive.
Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel positive
Žižek explicitly says 'I am a Hegelian today' and endorses the formula 'back from Marx to Hegel'; he uses Hegel's dialectic of ideas turning into their opposites as his primary analytical tool throughout.
What it argues
nature as indifferent and chaotic rather than normativesuffering as the proper criterion of ethical judgmentdeep ecology's hidden anthropocentrismextreme ideas turning into their opposites (Hegelian dialectic)Buddhism's complicity with militarism and violencebiotechnological manipulation and the downgrading of humanityfetishist disavowal: knowing but not believing ecological truth
Dialectical moves 6
“if we have a Mother Nature, this mother is a dirty bitch”
Nature is not a nurturing maternal force but indifferent and catastrophic; the reversal deflates the ideological idealization of nature.
“beneath this false modesty—we are just among the species—we are really the universal beings, the one who should be responsible for everything”
Deep ecology's humility is the inverted form of a more radical anthropocentrism: by assigning humans the duty to protect all of nature, it positions them as nature's sovereign.
“freedom, ah-ah, you get terror… emancipation—you get Stalinism… end of history… haha, we are now where we are”
Each emancipatory extreme actualized as its own negation, confirming Hegel's law that an idea pushed to its limit inverts into its opposite.
“we should do no killing, except when by modest killing we prevent more killing—that's what Nazis were saying basically”
The utilitarian exception principle, even within Buddhism's anti-violence framework, converges with the Nazi logic of redemptive killing, showing that the exception negates the principle.
“I no longer see me as an autonomy person with a will hurting you. It's just I observe a dance of phenomena where I don't know how, your body somehow falls on my knife.”
Buddhist non-attachment, taken to its logical conclusion, dissolves moral responsibility by dissolving the subject, making atrocity imperceptible as atrocity.
“there will be a dialectical synthesis of opposites: there will be money and there will not be money… Some people will have money, other people will not”
Stalin's pseudo-dialectical 'synthesis' is not a genuine resolution of opposites but a brute social division masquerading as philosophical reconciliation, and the same structure will reproduce itself in the techno-class split.
Claims 10
rejects
The idea that nature has a stable pattern that humans disturb must be radically rejected; nature itself is constitutively chaotic, and our energy sources (coal, oil) are products of natural mega-catastrophes.the naturalist ideology of a violated natural order
asserts
What we perceive as natural is always part of a cultural process; the notion of nature has changed radically from medieval to modern scientific conceptions.nature as cultural construct (without full idealism)
asserts
The terrifying psychological need to attribute meaning to catastrophe (e.g., Holocaust as divine punishment for secularization) shows that the hardest task is accepting the utter meaninglessness of disaster.the psychology of meaning-making in the face of catastrophe
reframes
Deep ecology, far from being modest about humanity's place in nature, secretly presupposes humans as universal beings responsible for all of nature—a more extreme anthropocentrism.deep ecology's claimed modesty
asserts
Buddhism, the religion most dedicated to ending suffering, found ways to justify atrocity through its doctrines of non-attachment and no-self; even the best-intentioned ideology can be weaponized for violence.Buddhism's complicity with militarism
asserts
Following Hegel rather than Marx is the appropriate stance today: we can diagnose how ideas turn into their opposites, but we cannot and should not project positive plans for the future.the limits of political planning and the superiority of Hegelian diagnosis over Marxist projection
asserts
Every major emancipatory project—the French Revolution, European progress, the October Revolution, Fukuyama's end of history—has turned into its opposite, confirming the Hegelian law that extreme ideas actualize as their negation.the Hegelian dialectic of historical reversals
asserts
Biotechnological enhancement will likely produce a new class division: some controlling the machines and others being controlled, a 'dialectical synthesis' in which some will have enhancement and others will not.the class consequences of biotechnology and AI
asserts
The ecological plans most masked as progressive—such as injecting carbon monoxide to regulate the atmosphere—carry unpredictable secondary consequences that could run counter to their intentions.geoengineering and ecological intervention
asserts
Passionate sexual love is a justified exception to the rule against extremism because it enacts a genuine ontological commitment to a particular other over universal indifference.erotic love as ethically legitimate extremism
Quotes 10
“if we have a Mother Nature, this mother is a dirty bitch, let's face it.”Slavoj Žižek · nature as indifferent and catastrophic, not nurturing
“it's even better to conceive your terrifying fate as punishment because at least things have meaning. The difficult thing is to admit no meaning.”Slavoj Žižek · the psychological need for meaning in the face of catastrophe
“which was the sacred book of Heinrich Himmler? It was Bhagavad Gita. Because it teaches you this acting with a distance.”Slavoj Žižek · Buddhist non-attachment co-opted by Nazi ideology
“without religion, good people would be good and bad people would be bad. You need something like religion to make good people do bad things.”Slavoj Žižek · religion as enabler of atrocity by the well-intentioned
“what we perceive as natural is always part of a cultural process.”Slavoj Žižek · nature as culturally mediated perception
“beware of those who preach too much good.”Slavoj Žižek · warning against excessive moralism as a cover for atrocity
“thought, philosophy, can only grasp the present order when it begins to disintegrate. And future we cannot say anything.”Slavoj Žižek · Hegel's owl of Minerva: philosophy as retrospective, not prophetic
“Some people will have money, other people will not.”Slavoj Žižek · Stalin's dialectical synthesis as brute class division
“that formula today should be back from Marx to Hegel.”Slavoj Žižek · Žižek's Hegelian turn away from Marxist positive projection
“we live off natural disasters.”Slavoj Žižek · coal and oil as products of geological catastrophe; nature as constitutively catastrophic
Transcript 40 turns
unknown
You have three minutes to tell us whether or not we should have more faith in the human and less trust in nature.
You have three minutes to tell us whether or not we should have more faith in the human and less trust in nature.
unknown
Well um two things to say about nature. One is that nature doesn't care about us in particular. I mean if an asteroid would hit planet Earth tomorrow morning and all life on Earth will be destroyed, nature wouldn't care about it. It would just go on as usual. Planets and stars explode all the time and physics just goes on. Uh the second point is that you know it's really I never really know what to say about this seeming binary division between humans and nature because you can never violate the laws of nature. Nothing that humans or anybody else can do can break the laws of nature. Anything which is possible is by definition also natural. Whether it's genetic engineering, whether it's the internet, whether it's vaccinations, it's all natural. Uh because you know the laws of nature are not like the laws of a state. That a state makes a law, let's say you can't drive more than kilometers per hour. That's the law of the state. And you nevertheless drive kilometers per hour and a policeman stops you and gives you a ticket, a fine. It doesn't work like that with nature. Nature it doesn't give us some kind of law and then we break it, I don't know we do genetic engineering, and then it punishes us for it. It just doesn't work like that. So um I again I think we should be suspicious both of humans and of nature. And the big question to ask about anything is not whether it is natural—everything is natural. The big question to ask is whether it causes suffering, it causes harm. Wars are natural, but they are still bad. And uh climate change is bad not because it's somehow against nature, but because it potentially would cause immense suffering to humans and to other sentient beings. So that's the big question.
Well um two things to say about nature. One is that nature doesn't care about us in particular. I mean if an asteroid would hit planet Earth tomorrow morning and all life on Earth will be destroyed, nature wouldn't care about it. It would just go on as usual. Planets and stars explode all the time and physics just goes on. Uh the second point is that you know it's really I never really know what to say about this seeming binary division between humans and nature because you can never violate the laws of nature. Nothing that humans or anybody else can do can break the laws of nature. Anything which is possible is by definition also natural. Whether it's genetic engineering, whether it's the internet, whether it's vaccinations, it's all natural. Uh because you know the laws of nature are not like the laws of a state. That a state makes a law, let's say you can't drive more than kilometers per hour. That's the law of the state. And you nevertheless drive kilometers per hour and a policeman stops you and gives you a ticket, a fine. It doesn't work like that with nature. Nature it doesn't give us some kind of law and then we break it, I don't know we do genetic engineering, and then it punishes us for it. It just doesn't work like that. So um I again I think we should be suspicious both of humans and of nature. And the big question to ask about anything is not whether it is natural—everything is natural. The big question to ask is whether it causes suffering, it causes harm. Wars are natural, but they are still bad. And uh climate change is bad not because it's somehow against nature, but because it potentially would cause immense suffering to humans and to other sentient beings. So that's the big question.
unknown
Fascinating. Okay. Well Slavoj uh what do you think? Do you think we should have more faith in humans? Do you think we should trust nature less? Do you want to tell Yuval he's wrong?
Fascinating. Okay. Well Slavoj uh what do you think? Do you think we should have more faith in humans? Do you think we should trust nature less? Do you want to tell Yuval he's wrong?
Slavoj Žižek
No, I have a big problem here because where are the knives? I basically agree with what Yuval just said. I mean no because I know he is often accused of being like too popular, but I think he is saying things nonetheless in a clear, serious way. And what more fascinates me is to what extent even if we rationally accept this and know, we don't really believe into it. I think this is even, I wonder if you would agree, what in psychoanalysis we call fetishist split, in French *Je sais bien, mais quand même*. I know this how things are, but somehow in me I am not convinced. I think that's the problem with ecology. Yeah, I know what science says, but you know you go outside here, sun is shining, nature... So, quickly, quickly, uh yes, I agree with him. First, all is nature, of course. But here comes one, I hope Yuval will agree, a tricky point. We nonetheless deep in our, I call it as an old Marxist, everyday ideology, we nonetheless usually associate with nature a certain more or less regular pattern, rhythm. So that—and this is what I radically reject—this idea that there is some natural pattern and we humans with our hubris, excessive exploitation or what, we are disturbing this pattern. More on this later, I would just like to remind you along the lines of what Yuval hinted I think. Listen, are—just think about what are today our main sources of energy still: coal and oil. Can you even imagine what mega-catastrophes must have happened on our Earth for us to have this? We are a consequence of natural, I mean a consequence, we live off natural disasters. Just the last thing, I wonder how Yuval will respond, I read recently in—it's even in the big media—that now according to the latest news even this vision of global warming is too optimistic because it somehow implies that there will be a new regular pattern, just a little bit worse: temperatures higher, a couple of cities, big cities under the sea, but it will be a new pattern. The predictions now says what if—and it happens often in nature—what if there will be no new pattern, but as it happens in nature again, for a long time we will live in a much more radically chaotic universe. So nature is everything, just to finish, I know you can count on my other minutes, but let's not forget that in some sense—don't be afraid, I'm a naturalist, I'm not—I am not an idealist—that nature is everything. All the catastrophes also come from nature, so, sorry for a small vulgarity, if we have a Mother Nature, this mother is a dirty bitch, let's face it.
No, I have a big problem here because where are the knives? I basically agree with what Yuval just said. I mean no because I know he is often accused of being like too popular, but I think he is saying things nonetheless in a clear, serious way. And what more fascinates me is to what extent even if we rationally accept this and know, we don't really believe into it. I think this is even, I wonder if you would agree, what in psychoanalysis we call fetishist split, in French *Je sais bien, mais quand même*. I know this how things are, but somehow in me I am not convinced. I think that's the problem with ecology. Yeah, I know what science says, but you know you go outside here, sun is shining, nature... So, quickly, quickly, uh yes, I agree with him. First, all is nature, of course. But here comes one, I hope Yuval will agree, a tricky point. We nonetheless deep in our, I call it as an old Marxist, everyday ideology, we nonetheless usually associate with nature a certain more or less regular pattern, rhythm. So that—and this is what I radically reject—this idea that there is some natural pattern and we humans with our hubris, excessive exploitation or what, we are disturbing this pattern. More on this later, I would just like to remind you along the lines of what Yuval hinted I think. Listen, are—just think about what are today our main sources of energy still: coal and oil. Can you even imagine what mega-catastrophes must have happened on our Earth for us to have this? We are a consequence of natural, I mean a consequence, we live off natural disasters. Just the last thing, I wonder how Yuval will respond, I read recently in—it's even in the big media—that now according to the latest news even this vision of global warming is too optimistic because it somehow implies that there will be a new regular pattern, just a little bit worse: temperatures higher, a couple of cities, big cities under the sea, but it will be a new pattern. The predictions now says what if—and it happens often in nature—what if there will be no new pattern, but as it happens in nature again, for a long time we will live in a much more radically chaotic universe. So nature is everything, just to finish, I know you can count on my other minutes, but let's not forget that in some sense—don't be afraid, I'm a naturalist, I'm not—I am not an idealist—that nature is everything. All the catastrophes also come from nature, so, sorry for a small vulgarity, if we have a Mother Nature, this mother is a dirty bitch, let's face it.
unknown
There we go, finally, just
There we go, finally, just
Slavoj Žižek
the opposite. But everything is also culture. Not in the idealist sense, but in the sense, just look at the history of the notion of nature, how it changes. Nature was in medieval times something totally different than modern nature from sciences today, something different. Now, I am not saying nature is just a cultural construct, I'm just saying that what we perceive as natural is always part of a cultural process.
the opposite. But everything is also culture. Not in the idealist sense, but in the sense, just look at the history of the notion of nature, how it changes. Nature was in medieval times something totally different than modern nature from sciences today, something different. Now, I am not saying nature is just a cultural construct, I'm just saying that what we perceive as natural is always part of a cultural process.
unknown
So on one hand you've called it a bitch and on the other hand you've sort of said, well, you know, but is it?
So on one hand you've called it a bitch and on the other hand you've sort of said, well, you know, but is it?
Slavoj Žižek
Well, my first very—but I've spoken too long... Oh, okay...
Well, my first very—but I've spoken too long... Oh, okay...
unknown
Yuval, do you want to step in?
Yuval, do you want to step in?
Slavoj Žižek
No, no, no! Okay, I will just finish and then... My God, what—when I said I've spoken too long, don't you have manners? This is called a rhetorical offer. You are supposed to tell me no, no, no, just go on. Sorry, all the tempo here... What I want say is as Yuval says, my God, the really difficult thing is to accept this—even the word indifference is too much. In some stupid sense nature just is. And let's go to the end. Let's say that not because of some comet, but because of how we will screw things up, we ruin most of the nature. This will be maybe even a minor event even for the Earth itself. In different forms life will go on and so on and so on. You know, the problem is to accept this utter meaninglessness of catastrophe. I will tell you, Yuval can confirm it if he heard about it, it's from human history. I met a member of them, they are minor in Israel, but not minor minor, there are tens of thousands of them, partisans of certain reading of Holocaust claiming that it's a punishment for the Jews because European Jews got too secular, too integrated, it's divine punishment. In the sense I understand them, not agree with them, you know, it's even better to conceive your terrifying fate as punishment because at least things have meaning. The difficult thing is to admit no meaning. Now I shut up and... No, I think we already commented on that. I think what that we are not going to have a lot of of fights here, as as you can see, but I completely agree. Um you know, war is natural, murder is natural, rape is natural, and it's all bad. So um the and you can't
No, no, no! Okay, I will just finish and then... My God, what—when I said I've spoken too long, don't you have manners? This is called a rhetorical offer. You are supposed to tell me no, no, no, just go on. Sorry, all the tempo here... What I want say is as Yuval says, my God, the really difficult thing is to accept this—even the word indifference is too much. In some stupid sense nature just is. And let's go to the end. Let's say that not because of some comet, but because of how we will screw things up, we ruin most of the nature. This will be maybe even a minor event even for the Earth itself. In different forms life will go on and so on and so on. You know, the problem is to accept this utter meaninglessness of catastrophe. I will tell you, Yuval can confirm it if he heard about it, it's from human history. I met a member of them, they are minor in Israel, but not minor minor, there are tens of thousands of them, partisans of certain reading of Holocaust claiming that it's a punishment for the Jews because European Jews got too secular, too integrated, it's divine punishment. In the sense I understand them, not agree with them, you know, it's even better to conceive your terrifying fate as punishment because at least things have meaning. The difficult thing is to admit no meaning. Now I shut up and... No, I think we already commented on that. I think what that we are not going to have a lot of of fights here, as as you can see, but I completely agree. Um you know, war is natural, murder is natural, rape is natural, and it's all bad. So um the and you can't
unknown
get morality and ethics out of the laws of nature. And most nature does is often a star in ethical debates and political debates, but um this is just mythological stories that people say. When people say we should act, we should do X because X is natural, it's almost always a cultural or a political or mythological argument. It's not really an argument about nature. You know, personally as a gay man, I heard many times this claim that homosexuality is unnatural. And and again, as as I said in the beginning, anything which is possible is also natural. It's in line with the laws of nature. If homosexuality was not in line with the laws of nature, it just couldn't exist. And then but it doesn't mean automatically that everything that is natural is also good. So what we need is just to stop using this argument whether something is good or bad because it's natural or because it's unnatural, and move on to other arguments. And I personally would would think that the main issue is whether something causes harm, whether something causes suffering to sentient beings, to humans and also to other beings. Um and that should be at the focus of all ethical debates. Ethical debates are not about obeying certain laws, not the laws of nature, not the laws of God, not the laws of a state. Ethics ultimately is about suffering.
get morality and ethics out of the laws of nature. And most nature does is often a star in ethical debates and political debates, but um this is just mythological stories that people say. When people say we should act, we should do X because X is natural, it's almost always a cultural or a political or mythological argument. It's not really an argument about nature. You know, personally as a gay man, I heard many times this claim that homosexuality is unnatural. And and again, as as I said in the beginning, anything which is possible is also natural. It's in line with the laws of nature. If homosexuality was not in line with the laws of nature, it just couldn't exist. And then but it doesn't mean automatically that everything that is natural is also good. So what we need is just to stop using this argument whether something is good or bad because it's natural or because it's unnatural, and move on to other arguments. And I personally would would think that the main issue is whether something causes harm, whether something causes suffering to sentient beings, to humans and also to other beings. Um and that should be at the focus of all ethical debates. Ethical debates are not about obeying certain laws, not the laws of nature, not the laws of God, not the laws of a state. Ethics ultimately is about suffering.
unknown
Okay. Well, but Slavoj, you also indicated this, you understood at least on some level that there where that sort of human compulsion to think of, you know, nature as being good, as being the law, as being some sort of, you know, humans being um you know, contravening against it. So okay, fair enough, let's say we we all agree, you know, nature isn't all by definition good. But where does that compulsion come from, do you think? You know, what is it that makes us all sort of rationally know that, you know, yes sure this is how it is, and yet when you see something that you think is unnatural, you know, the hairs rise on the back of your arms and your neck and you think ooh I don't know about that. No, you are provoking me to go into a direction of which I am afraid to go. You know why? Because my professional—my professional deviation, I would ask here a reflexive question in the sense of: but is good itself good? In the sense of isn't often the origin of quite horrible things done, they are done on behalf of what some people
Okay. Well, but Slavoj, you also indicated this, you understood at least on some level that there where that sort of human compulsion to think of, you know, nature as being good, as being the law, as being some sort of, you know, humans being um you know, contravening against it. So okay, fair enough, let's say we we all agree, you know, nature isn't all by definition good. But where does that compulsion come from, do you think? You know, what is it that makes us all sort of rationally know that, you know, yes sure this is how it is, and yet when you see something that you think is unnatural, you know, the hairs rise on the back of your arms and your neck and you think ooh I don't know about that. No, you are provoking me to go into a direction of which I am afraid to go. You know why? Because my professional—my professional deviation, I would ask here a reflexive question in the sense of: but is good itself good? In the sense of isn't often the origin of quite horrible things done, they are done on behalf of what some people
Slavoj Žižek
sincerely take to be good? Let's take a provocative example because I'm almost a specialist in it—okay, specialist means I read three popular books on it on—can you imagine a worldview—it's problematic to call it religion—more devoted to end suffering than Buddhism? It's all about—Buddha was a agnostic atheist, he said it doesn't interest me gods, how to diminish suffering and so on. But do you know that immediately after Buddha's death, when in some Indian states Buddhism became a state religion, they had to make the first compromises, you know? And they had, it's horrible, three strategies. One was the classical European one: we should do no killing, except—be careful—except when by modest killing we prevent more killing. Now I go to the extreme here, I not unite them, but that's what—that's what Nazis were saying basically. You know which was the which was the sacred book of of Heinrich Himmler? It was Bhagavad Gita. Because it teaches you this acting with a distance. Don't get identified with your act, and Himmler openly says, that's how a Nazi officer should maintain his humanity even when he is killing Jewish children and so on. The second element that Buddhism took is this idea of uh there is no harsh ontological reality. The the world is just a chaotic uh confusion of phenomena, there is no substantial reality. And they used this to justify war. And I am not a subject. I am anattman, nobody who just observes what goes on. The one who, if you are old enough, whom you maybe even remember, Daisetz Teitaro Suzuki in the 60s, the great popularizer of Buddhism. He was popular with hippies in the 60s; in late 30s and 40s it's a slightly different story: he fully supported Japanese militarism. And he used, sorry to be personal, can I—this example: we are at war. Okay. If I'm in old substantialist metaphysics, I stab you with a knife. But I will find it difficult because nonetheless I don't know what's with me wrong, but I consider you a human being who can suffer and so on. But he said if I enter the Buddhist nirvana, then I no longer see me as an autonomy person with a will hurting you. It's just I observe a dance of phenomena where I don't know how, your body somehow falls on my knife. Right. No, I—you know my point here, how even the religion which was most dedicated to ending suffering found way to justify it fully. So I claim if you really want to fight suffering, uh then uh beware of those who preach who preach too much good. Who was that physicist who wrote a very—real one—who said Steven Weinberg? He said something wonderful. Now I've written books about Judaism, Christianity, I see emancipatory dimension in them, but I am basically an atheist. He said without religion, he simplifies it, good people would be good and bad people would be bad. You need something like religion to make good people do bad things. If history confirms anything, it's this. That's fascinating. What I understood as that was kind of, you know, my question was so then why where does this compulsion come from to sort of attribute goodness to nature or whatever? And I wonder if it's, you know, as you as you sort of highlighted, I wonder if it's just the fact that we can't have a conversation with nature. We don't know if it's good or bad, but the assumption is this thing happens to us thus it must be good. Our second theme is about whether or not we should treat the Earth as a resource for commodities and elements that benefit humans, and should we use the natural resources of the Earth from rainforests to lithium mines without regards to the impact? Of course, a very hot topic, if you excuse the pun. Yuval, um what are your thoughts on that? Is the Earth just a mine for us to mine? So, I mean um to trying to answer your question and and also to comment on what we just heard. Um yeah, we can use it, but but carefully. I mean the main point I think about nature and being part of nature, that it is also extremely complicated. And we don't understand it. That's the most important thing to know is that we don't understand it properly. We don't understand ourselves properly. And this also goes back to this question of you can take any idea, and if you push it far enough, you will end with killing millions of people. You can take the idea of to prevent suffering and justify war. You can take Christianity with the ideal of love and universal love, and in the name of love you have the Inquisition, and the Crusades, and burning people and killing heretics. Because of love. So because of the immense complexity, I think of nature, morality is moderation. Many people have this wrong idea—and you see it in almost all religions and all ideologies—that you start with with a good idea and then people think the more extreme I can push this idea the
sincerely take to be good? Let's take a provocative example because I'm almost a specialist in it—okay, specialist means I read three popular books on it on—can you imagine a worldview—it's problematic to call it religion—more devoted to end suffering than Buddhism? It's all about—Buddha was a agnostic atheist, he said it doesn't interest me gods, how to diminish suffering and so on. But do you know that immediately after Buddha's death, when in some Indian states Buddhism became a state religion, they had to make the first compromises, you know? And they had, it's horrible, three strategies. One was the classical European one: we should do no killing, except—be careful—except when by modest killing we prevent more killing. Now I go to the extreme here, I not unite them, but that's what—that's what Nazis were saying basically. You know which was the which was the sacred book of of Heinrich Himmler? It was Bhagavad Gita. Because it teaches you this acting with a distance. Don't get identified with your act, and Himmler openly says, that's how a Nazi officer should maintain his humanity even when he is killing Jewish children and so on. The second element that Buddhism took is this idea of uh there is no harsh ontological reality. The the world is just a chaotic uh confusion of phenomena, there is no substantial reality. And they used this to justify war. And I am not a subject. I am anattman, nobody who just observes what goes on. The one who, if you are old enough, whom you maybe even remember, Daisetz Teitaro Suzuki in the 60s, the great popularizer of Buddhism. He was popular with hippies in the 60s; in late 30s and 40s it's a slightly different story: he fully supported Japanese militarism. And he used, sorry to be personal, can I—this example: we are at war. Okay. If I'm in old substantialist metaphysics, I stab you with a knife. But I will find it difficult because nonetheless I don't know what's with me wrong, but I consider you a human being who can suffer and so on. But he said if I enter the Buddhist nirvana, then I no longer see me as an autonomy person with a will hurting you. It's just I observe a dance of phenomena where I don't know how, your body somehow falls on my knife. Right. No, I—you know my point here, how even the religion which was most dedicated to ending suffering found way to justify it fully. So I claim if you really want to fight suffering, uh then uh beware of those who preach who preach too much good. Who was that physicist who wrote a very—real one—who said Steven Weinberg? He said something wonderful. Now I've written books about Judaism, Christianity, I see emancipatory dimension in them, but I am basically an atheist. He said without religion, he simplifies it, good people would be good and bad people would be bad. You need something like religion to make good people do bad things. If history confirms anything, it's this. That's fascinating. What I understood as that was kind of, you know, my question was so then why where does this compulsion come from to sort of attribute goodness to nature or whatever? And I wonder if it's, you know, as you as you sort of highlighted, I wonder if it's just the fact that we can't have a conversation with nature. We don't know if it's good or bad, but the assumption is this thing happens to us thus it must be good. Our second theme is about whether or not we should treat the Earth as a resource for commodities and elements that benefit humans, and should we use the natural resources of the Earth from rainforests to lithium mines without regards to the impact? Of course, a very hot topic, if you excuse the pun. Yuval, um what are your thoughts on that? Is the Earth just a mine for us to mine? So, I mean um to trying to answer your question and and also to comment on what we just heard. Um yeah, we can use it, but but carefully. I mean the main point I think about nature and being part of nature, that it is also extremely complicated. And we don't understand it. That's the most important thing to know is that we don't understand it properly. We don't understand ourselves properly. And this also goes back to this question of you can take any idea, and if you push it far enough, you will end with killing millions of people. You can take the idea of to prevent suffering and justify war. You can take Christianity with the ideal of love and universal love, and in the name of love you have the Inquisition, and the Crusades, and burning people and killing heretics. Because of love. So because of the immense complexity, I think of nature, morality is moderation. Many people have this wrong idea—and you see it in almost all religions and all ideologies—that you start with with a good idea and then people think the more extreme I can push this idea the
unknown
more ethical I am. And it's exactly the opposite. Most of the time morality, good real morality can be find in the moderate areas, not in the extremes. And also another point, whenever—and I think this is—there are almost no laws in history, but I think this is almost a universal law in history. Whenever somebody tells you we need to kill a million people in order to save five million people, that's always propaganda, that's always wrong. I know that philosophers have come up with these trolley problems, a kind of very extreme scenarios when you kind of pushed to to a situation when you have to choose. In his—philosophers had to think very, very hard to come up with these imaginary scenarios because they almost never happen in reality. At least not on a big scale of history. You always have more options. When somebody
more ethical I am. And it's exactly the opposite. Most of the time morality, good real morality can be find in the moderate areas, not in the extremes. And also another point, whenever—and I think this is—there are almost no laws in history, but I think this is almost a universal law in history. Whenever somebody tells you we need to kill a million people in order to save five million people, that's always propaganda, that's always wrong. I know that philosophers have come up with these trolley problems, a kind of very extreme scenarios when you kind of pushed to to a situation when you have to choose. In his—philosophers had to think very, very hard to come up with these imaginary scenarios because they almost never happen in reality. At least not on a big scale of history. You always have more options. When somebody
unknown
is offering you this choice, kill a million people and to save five million, you always have to step back and reframe the question. They are pushing you into an ethical trap. In history there are always options. Like you look at now at the war in Ukraine. So you have somebody come and framing the question as a binary option: look, either NATO does whatever I demand or I invade Ukraine and inflict terrible suffering on millions of people. It's your choice. These are the only two options. And the most important thing to realize is that don't accept this framing. This is not true. There are always more options. Even if NATO refuses your demand, it doesn't mean that the only remaining option is to inflict terrible suffering on millions of people. And the same approach should be with regard to utilizing the resources of the Earth. That we need a broad approach. We need to understand that the actions we take, yes, we can use this to help some people, but it may harm—the same action may harm other people, may harm a lot of animals. And let's see if we can find a middle way and if there are other options and not just the extremes. What are your thoughts on that? Again, it's getting boring because where where is the knife? I agree. I agree. I hope Yuval, that's what I expect from friends, now all this nice introduction is that she is he is sharpening a knife behind my back. No, seriously. The reason I agree is that uh this—but okay, I would propose one exception: intense sexual love. In some sense, and that's why I like it, it's, you know in what sense it is evil? It's not this Buddhist smile, I love you all and so on. It's—imagine okay, imagine you are a happy single man, woman, whatever, and you have a relatively satisfied life. You meet with friends, you have a good job, maybe here and there a one-night stand. Life is okay. Then you fall passionately with love. It will ruin all your life. And it's precisely the position of: I love you. You take a particular human being, no, and basically I don't... But this is not
is offering you this choice, kill a million people and to save five million, you always have to step back and reframe the question. They are pushing you into an ethical trap. In history there are always options. Like you look at now at the war in Ukraine. So you have somebody come and framing the question as a binary option: look, either NATO does whatever I demand or I invade Ukraine and inflict terrible suffering on millions of people. It's your choice. These are the only two options. And the most important thing to realize is that don't accept this framing. This is not true. There are always more options. Even if NATO refuses your demand, it doesn't mean that the only remaining option is to inflict terrible suffering on millions of people. And the same approach should be with regard to utilizing the resources of the Earth. That we need a broad approach. We need to understand that the actions we take, yes, we can use this to help some people, but it may harm—the same action may harm other people, may harm a lot of animals. And let's see if we can find a middle way and if there are other options and not just the extremes. What are your thoughts on that? Again, it's getting boring because where where is the knife? I agree. I agree. I hope Yuval, that's what I expect from friends, now all this nice introduction is that she is he is sharpening a knife behind my back. No, seriously. The reason I agree is that uh this—but okay, I would propose one exception: intense sexual love. In some sense, and that's why I like it, it's, you know in what sense it is evil? It's not this Buddhist smile, I love you all and so on. It's—imagine okay, imagine you are a happy single man, woman, whatever, and you have a relatively satisfied life. You meet with friends, you have a good job, maybe here and there a one-night stand. Life is okay. Then you fall passionately with love. It will ruin all your life. And it's precisely the position of: I love you. You take a particular human being, no, and basically I don't... But this is not
unknown
turning
turning
unknown
into a relationship guide.
into a relationship guide.
unknown
But more serious, more serious answer based on what Yuval just said, I would say that here I would warn also, I wonder if Yuval you would agree, another extremism: extremism of so-called deep ecology. Let's avoid misunderstanding: not in this cheap sense they go too far, we cannot abandon everything and so on. But I found hidden in their line of argumentation an extreme anthropocentrism. Where? You know how they argue? They argue like this: not only humans have rights. We live on Earth, we are just one among the species. Who said this, sorry? So-called deep ecologists. Deep deep ecologists, okay sorry, yeah. The idea is this one that we have to learn modesty. We have to learn that we are just one among the living species. So we have to take care also of the well-being—rights they get ambiguous—of all other parts of nature: not only animals, not only plants, but even they speak about the rights of rivers, of beautiful
But more serious, more serious answer based on what Yuval just said, I would say that here I would warn also, I wonder if Yuval you would agree, another extremism: extremism of so-called deep ecology. Let's avoid misunderstanding: not in this cheap sense they go too far, we cannot abandon everything and so on. But I found hidden in their line of argumentation an extreme anthropocentrism. Where? You know how they argue? They argue like this: not only humans have rights. We live on Earth, we are just one among the species. Who said this, sorry? So-called deep ecologists. Deep deep ecologists, okay sorry, yeah. The idea is this one that we have to learn modesty. We have to learn that we are just one among the living species. So we have to take care also of the well-being—rights they get ambiguous—of all other parts of nature: not only animals, not only plants, but even they speak about the rights of rivers, of beautiful
Slavoj Žižek
mountains, and so on and so on. But now back to what Yuval said and I agree with him. But they, animals, okay animals at least make sounds which signal their suffering, but rivers, mountains, whatever, they they they don't know they have rights because in some sense they don't know anything. So what deep ecology means is that beneath this false modesty—we are just among the species—that we are really the universal beings, the one who should be responsible for everything. Here it's hidden another potential of how we humans should really control the Earth. And then you get to all those plans which are often masked as progressively ecological: like to to put more carbon monoxide in the air to prevent—but but I would agree with Yuval, nature is so unpredictable here. We never know what can the secondary non-intended consequences be. So yes, we should be radical ecologists, but always beware of this, that the long-term consequences can run against. That's why immediately agree with him the word just—that's why I am a Hegelian today. I think the formula today
mountains, and so on and so on. But now back to what Yuval said and I agree with him. But they, animals, okay animals at least make sounds which signal their suffering, but rivers, mountains, whatever, they they they don't know they have rights because in some sense they don't know anything. So what deep ecology means is that beneath this false modesty—we are just among the species—that we are really the universal beings, the one who should be responsible for everything. Here it's hidden another potential of how we humans should really control the Earth. And then you get to all those plans which are often masked as progressively ecological: like to to put more carbon monoxide in the air to prevent—but but I would agree with Yuval, nature is so unpredictable here. We never know what can the secondary non-intended consequences be. So yes, we should be radical ecologists, but always beware of this, that the long-term consequences can run against. That's why immediately agree with him the word just—that's why I am a Hegelian today. I think the formula today
unknown
should be back from Marx to
should be back from Marx to
Slavoj Žižek
Hegel. Marx still had a plan: if we do this, this, this, there will be at least a substantially better society. Hegel is not doing this. You know what Hegel says in his most quoted but people don't take it seriously introduction to *Rechtsphilosophie*, to *Philosophy of Right*? He said thought, philosophy, can only grasp the present order when it begins to disintegrate. And future we cannot say anything. We have to be extremely careful about the future. What this practically means is not pacifism, let's do whatever we want, we don't know what will happen. No, it's just that, you know what, where is Hegel at his best in the spirit of what Yuval said? When he takes an extreme idea and demonstrates how unexpectedly in actuality it turns into its opposite. For Hegel, the classical
Hegel. Marx still had a plan: if we do this, this, this, there will be at least a substantially better society. Hegel is not doing this. You know what Hegel says in his most quoted but people don't take it seriously introduction to *Rechtsphilosophie*, to *Philosophy of Right*? He said thought, philosophy, can only grasp the present order when it begins to disintegrate. And future we cannot say anything. We have to be extremely careful about the future. What this practically means is not pacifism, let's do whatever we want, we don't know what will happen. No, it's just that, you know what, where is Hegel at his best in the spirit of what Yuval said? When he takes an extreme idea and demonstrates how unexpectedly in actuality it turns into its opposite. For Hegel, the classical
unknown
example—I think even
example—I think even
Slavoj Žižek
he exaggerates there—but French Revolution: freedom, ah-ah, you get terror. The second half of 20th—of 19th century, it was in Europe, not elsewhere, relative period of half a century of calm, progress, women's rights—you get World War I. Soviet Union, October Revolution, whatever you think, an attempt at emancipation—you get Stalinism. The last example, Fukuyama happy 90s, end of history and so on, haha, we are now where we are. So the my basic approach would be beware that as a rule when you are making big plans things will always in some sense go wrong, and try to take this into account. That's really interesting. I found myself thinking when you were you were saying this idea of, you know, the the deep ecologists of having to take care of everything and somehow that being an extension of our dominion. It sounds an awful lot like the the 2000s rhetoric of America being the police, police of the of the world. This idea that, you know, we have to take responsibility... And now they want to be ecologists, the police of nature. Well, exactly, exactly. So but then that got me thinking, um Yuval, if you don't mind me asking you this. Um so then it got me thinking, well, the question was about, you know, should we treat the Earth as a resource? And perhaps simplistically, I feel as a biologist compelled to say, well, of course, you know, the Earth is a resource to all other organisms. But do they do they exhibit moderation? Is moderation built into nature and then by extension of your initial argument, why, you know, we shouldn't have to extend moderation to nature should we because whatever we want therefore is natural, no? I mean in some systems are in equilibrium and or in homeostasis and you do see moderation in a way built into them and some systems are not, they are completely out of balance, completely out of control. So again here too you can't just say something which would be true of all natural phenomenon. You have a huge variety. But I think what really makes it complicated at this point in history and makes all these questions far more uh uh complicated is that we are on the verge perhaps of creating the first inorganic life forms. After four billion years of evolution—you know, it's a very, very long time, four billion years—and we've seen so many different types of organisms, but actually we've seen just one type of life. All of life from amoebas and dinosaurs to us and to tomatoes, it's just organic biochemistry, that's it. And we are now on the verge perhaps of creating the first inorganic life forms. And um on the one hand it it it strengthens this this feeling that we are doing something unnatural, even though this is not the case. We are perhaps just extending life to more natural realms. But also raises the question of responsibility, of what would be the consequences of what we are doing now. You know if you think about previous religions and previous regimes in history, whether Stalin or whether the Nazis
he exaggerates there—but French Revolution: freedom, ah-ah, you get terror. The second half of 20th—of 19th century, it was in Europe, not elsewhere, relative period of half a century of calm, progress, women's rights—you get World War I. Soviet Union, October Revolution, whatever you think, an attempt at emancipation—you get Stalinism. The last example, Fukuyama happy 90s, end of history and so on, haha, we are now where we are. So the my basic approach would be beware that as a rule when you are making big plans things will always in some sense go wrong, and try to take this into account. That's really interesting. I found myself thinking when you were you were saying this idea of, you know, the the deep ecologists of having to take care of everything and somehow that being an extension of our dominion. It sounds an awful lot like the the 2000s rhetoric of America being the police, police of the of the world. This idea that, you know, we have to take responsibility... And now they want to be ecologists, the police of nature. Well, exactly, exactly. So but then that got me thinking, um Yuval, if you don't mind me asking you this. Um so then it got me thinking, well, the question was about, you know, should we treat the Earth as a resource? And perhaps simplistically, I feel as a biologist compelled to say, well, of course, you know, the Earth is a resource to all other organisms. But do they do they exhibit moderation? Is moderation built into nature and then by extension of your initial argument, why, you know, we shouldn't have to extend moderation to nature should we because whatever we want therefore is natural, no? I mean in some systems are in equilibrium and or in homeostasis and you do see moderation in a way built into them and some systems are not, they are completely out of balance, completely out of control. So again here too you can't just say something which would be true of all natural phenomenon. You have a huge variety. But I think what really makes it complicated at this point in history and makes all these questions far more uh uh complicated is that we are on the verge perhaps of creating the first inorganic life forms. After four billion years of evolution—you know, it's a very, very long time, four billion years—and we've seen so many different types of organisms, but actually we've seen just one type of life. All of life from amoebas and dinosaurs to us and to tomatoes, it's just organic biochemistry, that's it. And we are now on the verge perhaps of creating the first inorganic life forms. And um on the one hand it it it strengthens this this feeling that we are doing something unnatural, even though this is not the case. We are perhaps just extending life to more natural realms. But also raises the question of responsibility, of what would be the consequences of what we are doing now. You know if you think about previous religions and previous regimes in history, whether Stalin or whether the Nazis
unknown
or whatever, no matter what they did, in the end you could always go back to the human body, to basic human biology. It's like a computer game that you go in the wrong direction and you die and you come back and you start again. And now for the first time in history political regimes, human ideologies, human mythologies have the potential
or whatever, no matter what they did, in the end you could always go back to the human body, to basic human biology. It's like a computer game that you go in the wrong direction and you die and you come back and you start again. And now for the first time in history political regimes, human ideologies, human mythologies have the potential
Slavoj Žižek
to really shift the evolution of life and to
to really shift the evolution of life and to
unknown
even place it on a
even place it on a
unknown
completely new path. And you can imagine a 21st century totalitarian regime, a 21st century Stalin that, you know, Stalin worked mainly with social engineering. He he maybe he wanted to re-engineer human biology, but he couldn't. He dreamed about creating a new man, a new human, the new Soviet, but he only had social engineering. So in the end when the Soviet Union collapsed, you still have human beings like they were in and we start again. In the 21st century, a new Stalin might have the
completely new path. And you can imagine a 21st century totalitarian regime, a 21st century Stalin that, you know, Stalin worked mainly with social engineering. He he maybe he wanted to re-engineer human biology, but he couldn't. He dreamed about creating a new man, a new human, the new Soviet, but he only had social engineering. So in the end when the Soviet Union collapsed, you still have human beings like they were in and we start again. In the 21st century, a new Stalin might have the
unknown
ability first to really re-engineer the body down to the level of DNA and create new human species, and perhaps even to create completely inorganic life forms. So we can imagine millions of years of a new evolutionary track beginning with some 21st century Stalin. And this is extremely frightening, especially because these kinds of people they think in extremes. You know I talk a lot with scientists who are developing these technologies, whether it's CRISPR and genetic engineering, whether it's AI, and most of these people um they think not only in beneficial terms but also in very narrow terms. Like, "I'm doing my research in order to help cure Parkinson's disease." They it's a it's a leap of the imagination to think what would the worst politician on Earth do with the technology that I'm developing. But as a historian rather than as a biologist or as a computer scientist, this is the way my mind thinks. When somebody tells me how they are now using CRISPR uh uh to try and overcome Parkinson, I think, hmm, what would Stalin have done with it? Jump in, Slavoj. Please, because so wonderful now we are moving finally into a—apart from these platitude, "yeah yeah nature, we are all nature, we are all this"—more interesting, these are the crucial questions. First, do you know, Yuval, just to tell you this. I learned from some collection of texts, ideological debates and practical experiments. You know that Stalin tried already to do this? In the late 20s, Stalin was convinced by some stupid biologist that with some machinations—I don't know how—to create a perfect worker which can read, write elementarily, but is too stupid to organize socially, to rebel, by coupling humans and apes. And they tried to do it. He sent a delegation to Congo. They import about gorillas I think, apes. And typical male chauvinism, women apes. Of course. What what else would you do, that's yeah yeah. And then and then they selected four very strong Russian strong farmer men, they made them copulate. Okay, it didn't work and then... Well, I was gonna say and that's how I came to be a biologist. Yeah. Is this really the end of freedom? What is freedom? Is freedom just what we call—some philosophers—the user's illusion? Or... Now I expect the answer. Now I met Yuval, what what you word you said: trust in
ability first to really re-engineer the body down to the level of DNA and create new human species, and perhaps even to create completely inorganic life forms. So we can imagine millions of years of a new evolutionary track beginning with some 21st century Stalin. And this is extremely frightening, especially because these kinds of people they think in extremes. You know I talk a lot with scientists who are developing these technologies, whether it's CRISPR and genetic engineering, whether it's AI, and most of these people um they think not only in beneficial terms but also in very narrow terms. Like, "I'm doing my research in order to help cure Parkinson's disease." They it's a it's a leap of the imagination to think what would the worst politician on Earth do with the technology that I'm developing. But as a historian rather than as a biologist or as a computer scientist, this is the way my mind thinks. When somebody tells me how they are now using CRISPR uh uh to try and overcome Parkinson, I think, hmm, what would Stalin have done with it? Jump in, Slavoj. Please, because so wonderful now we are moving finally into a—apart from these platitude, "yeah yeah nature, we are all nature, we are all this"—more interesting, these are the crucial questions. First, do you know, Yuval, just to tell you this. I learned from some collection of texts, ideological debates and practical experiments. You know that Stalin tried already to do this? In the late 20s, Stalin was convinced by some stupid biologist that with some machinations—I don't know how—to create a perfect worker which can read, write elementarily, but is too stupid to organize socially, to rebel, by coupling humans and apes. And they tried to do it. He sent a delegation to Congo. They import about gorillas I think, apes. And typical male chauvinism, women apes. Of course. What what else would you do, that's yeah yeah. And then and then they selected four very strong Russian strong farmer men, they made them copulate. Okay, it didn't work and then... Well, I was gonna say and that's how I came to be a biologist. Yeah. Is this really the end of freedom? What is freedom? Is freedom just what we call—some philosophers—the user's illusion? Or... Now I expect the answer. Now I met Yuval, what what you word you said: trust in
unknown
humans
humans
unknown
and faith in—no, faith in
and faith in—no, faith in
unknown
humans. Yes. Okay, I have faith in you to provide the answer. Yeah yeah. Yuval, take it away. I I a lot of questions and I don't have like these ready-made answers. One thing I can say is that my biggest fear is that in this attempt to upgrade humans, we will actually downgrade ourselves. You know the basic problem—yeah. In the sense for instance, if you give corporations and armies for instance the technology to start messing with our DNA, to start messing with our brains, they would like to amplify certain human qualities that they need, like discipline and like even intelligence. Everybody talk about intelligence. But they don't need other
humans. Yes. Okay, I have faith in you to provide the answer. Yeah yeah. Yuval, take it away. I I a lot of questions and I don't have like these ready-made answers. One thing I can say is that my biggest fear is that in this attempt to upgrade humans, we will actually downgrade ourselves. You know the basic problem—yeah. In the sense for instance, if you give corporations and armies for instance the technology to start messing with our DNA, to start messing with our brains, they would like to amplify certain human qualities that they need, like discipline and like even intelligence. Everybody talk about intelligence. But they don't need other
unknown
human
human
Slavoj Žižek
qualities like compassion, or like artistic sensitivity, uh or like spirituality. If you are Stalin and you want workers in the factories or you want soldiers in in your army, so yes, discipline and intelligence are important, but a compassionate soldier—that's problematic. Or a worker who has spiritual goals in life—this is problematic. So even even if there is no intention, malicious intention to destroy these aspects of the human being, they will just be pushed to the side. You know in the human being and the human mind they are so complicated. When you try to amplify something, it usually has so many other unintended consequences. It's much much—and this was true throughout history—it's much easier to manipulate a system than to understand the full consequences of what you're doing. Even forget about bodies and brains. You look at at the ecological system. You build a dam over a river. You understand what you're doing, you want to produce say electricity. But there are so many
qualities like compassion, or like artistic sensitivity, uh or like spirituality. If you are Stalin and you want workers in the factories or you want soldiers in in your army, so yes, discipline and intelligence are important, but a compassionate soldier—that's problematic. Or a worker who has spiritual goals in life—this is problematic. So even even if there is no intention, malicious intention to destroy these aspects of the human being, they will just be pushed to the side. You know in the human being and the human mind they are so complicated. When you try to amplify something, it usually has so many other unintended consequences. It's much much—and this was true throughout history—it's much easier to manipulate a system than to understand the full consequences of what you're doing. Even forget about bodies and brains. You look at at the ecological system. You build a dam over a river. You understand what you're doing, you want to produce say electricity. But there are so many
unknown
consequences that it's very
consequences that it's very
Slavoj Žižek
difficult to foresee because of the complexity of the ecological system. What will be the impact on animals, on plants, on the atmosphere? Even if you want to understand, it's extremely difficult. And it's also true when we try to change our internal ecosystem. We tweak something in our brain, in our mind, in
difficult to foresee because of the complexity of the ecological system. What will be the impact on animals, on plants, on the atmosphere? Even if you want to understand, it's extremely difficult. And it's also true when we try to change our internal ecosystem. We tweak something in our brain, in our mind, in
unknown
our DNA because
our DNA because
unknown
we have some goal: "Oh, this will amplify intelligence." But what will be the other unintended consequences? It's beyond us, especially because we don't understand the human mind. We have some initial beginning of understanding from psychology and psychoanalysis, from brain science, from meditation, but as a first approximation, we don't understand it. And it's extremely dangerous to start manipulating something so precious before you really understand what you're doing. We all, me and Yuval, we all love Stalin as it was clear from reference... Evidently. Evidently. I think when he hinted the problem is not just we will be enslaved by machines and so
we have some goal: "Oh, this will amplify intelligence." But what will be the other unintended consequences? It's beyond us, especially because we don't understand the human mind. We have some initial beginning of understanding from psychology and psychoanalysis, from brain science, from meditation, but as a first approximation, we don't understand it. And it's extremely dangerous to start manipulating something so precious before you really understand what you're doing. We all, me and Yuval, we all love Stalin as it was clear from reference... Evidently. Evidently. I think when he hinted the problem is not just we will be enslaved by machines and so
unknown
on, but that this enslavement will even strengthen the division between humans. There will be those who will somehow, we don't know to what degree, control these programming machines, others who are victims. I think something will happen which reminds me of one of my favorite Stalinist from Stalin's era jokes. In early 30s in Central Committee they debate: will there be money in communism or not? Okay, you have right-wingers, Bukharin partisans, who said of course, in a complex society you need money, you
on, but that this enslavement will even strengthen the division between humans. There will be those who will somehow, we don't know to what degree, control these programming machines, others who are victims. I think something will happen which reminds me of one of my favorite Stalinist from Stalin's era jokes. In early 30s in Central Committee they debate: will there be money in communism or not? Okay, you have right-wingers, Bukharin partisans, who said of course, in a complex society you need money, you
Slavoj Žižek
know, have to be there. Then left-wingers, some Trotskyites still there, say no, money is bourgeois alienation, no money. Then Stalin intervenes and said, "No, you are both bad, right-wing left-wing left-wing deviation. The truth is in the middle. There will be a dialectical synthesis of opposites: there will be money and there will not be money." And then comrade said, "What an ingenious solution, Comrade Stalin, but can you explain us how this will work?" And Stalin's answer is, "It's very simple. Some people will have money, other people will not." And I fear that this will be the result. Some people will control us, we other will be controlled, not free. On that
know, have to be there. Then left-wingers, some Trotskyites still there, say no, money is bourgeois alienation, no money. Then Stalin intervenes and said, "No, you are both bad, right-wing left-wing left-wing deviation. The truth is in the middle. There will be a dialectical synthesis of opposites: there will be money and there will not be money." And then comrade said, "What an ingenious solution, Comrade Stalin, but can you explain us how this will work?" And Stalin's answer is, "It's very simple. Some people will have money, other people will not." And I fear that this will be the result. Some people will control us, we other will be controlled, not free. On that
unknown
beautiful note, if you can join me in thanking our speakers!
beautiful note, if you can join me in thanking our speakers!