We are playing God | Slavoj Žižek and Yuval Noah Harari on CRISPR, AI, and the future of humanity
Debate · The Institute of Art and Ideas ·
2025-07-15 · 0:24:28 · 3,281 words
ecology-climatehegel-dialecticstechnology-ai-cyberspaceideologyhistoryphilosophy-general
Žižek critiques the 'extremism' of deep ecology as a form of hidden anthropocentrism and argues for a Hegelian caution regarding future-oriented political projects, citing historical reversals like the French Revolution and Stalinism. He then transitions to a discussion on biogenetics and the 'post-natural' era, using the movie Moonfall as a thought experiment to question the nature of reality and life, before handing the floor to Yuval Harari to discuss the ethical limits of human enhancement.
every located moment in this recording, click one to read it
The ideas in it 5
in the order they first come up; click a row for what he does with the idea here
Cited as the sole exception to social agreement, characterized by its 'evil' nature in that it ruins a satisfied, happy single life by imposing a particular bond on a universal background.
as “extremism of so-called deep ecology”
The paradoxical claim that by asserting human modesty and equality with nature, deep ecology actually centers humanity as the sole responsible universal subject, retaining an extreme anthropocentrism.
A methodological shift away from Marx's teleological planning toward Hegel's caution, emphasizing that philosophy can only grasp the present order as it disintegrates, not predict a substantially better future.
as “thought philosophy can only grasp the present order when it begins to disintegrate”
Hegel's formula from the introduction to the Philosophy of Right, used to argue that we cannot positively predict the future, only understand the present through its decay.
as “post-natural era”
The current epoch where biogenetics and brain sciences allow us to retroactively alter the definition of life, moving beyond the spontaneous experience of nature as a thick background (Erde).
Stories he reaches for 1
Žižek interrupts polite introductions to highlight the hidden hostility ('sharpening a knife in the back') beneath social niceties, using it to frame his 'exception' regarding intense love.
“No, all these nice introductions is that she is he is sharpening a knife in the back.”
Works invoked 2
Philosophy of Right book
Hegel's work, specifically its introduction, is cited for the formula that philosophy grasps the present order only when it disintegrates, supporting Žižek's cautionary stance.
Moonfall film
Described as a 'horrible movie' and 'bad movie,' but loved for its 'basic idea' that the Moon is an AI-controlled artificial object, which serves as a crucial illustration of the post-natural condition.
People invoked 8
Jacques Lacan positive
Implicitly referenced through the concept of 'intense sexual love' and the 'Buddhist smile' vs. the particular bond, core Lacanian themes.
Francis Fukuyama negative
Cited in the context of 'happy nineties' and 'end of history' as a precursor to current instability, illustrating the pattern of emancipatory plans turning into their opposites.
Yuval Noah Harari positive
Frequent interlocutor; Žižek agrees with his points, asks for his word, and hands the floor to him, indicating a respectful collaborative dynamic.
Mentioned as 'not a highly respected political philosopher' but credited with the concept of 'Erde' (Earth) as the thick background of life, which biogenetics is eroding.
Jürgen Habermas negative
Cited as a 'liberal conservative' whose solution to biogenetic threats is to put limits on science, a view Žižek implies is insufficient or naive compared to his own 'extreme thesis.'
Cited as the result of the Soviet Union's attempt at emancipation, and as the first to consciously try to create a specific race of workers through modesty and protest suppression.
Karl Marx negative
Used as a foil for the current moment; Žižek argues we must move 'back from Marx' because Marx still believed in a plan for a substantially better society, which Hegel does not.
Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel positive
Žižek declares himself a 'Hegelian today,' citing Hegel's Philosophy of Right to argue against predictive political planning and for caution regarding the future.
Transcript 20 turns
unknown
And now for the first time in history political regimes, human ideologies, human mythologies have the potential to really shift the evolution of life and to even place it on a completely new path.
And now for the first time in history political regimes, human ideologies, human mythologies have the potential to really shift the evolution of life and to even place it on a completely new path.
unknown
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?
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?
unknown
So, I mean trying to answer your question 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 is 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 more ethical I am. And it's exactly the opposite. Most of the time morality good real morality can be found 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 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 where you kind of pushed to to a situation when you have to choose in history 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 is offering you this choice kill a million people and to save 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 coming 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 demands 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
So, I mean trying to answer your question 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 is 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 more ethical I am. And it's exactly the opposite. Most of the time morality good real morality can be found 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 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 where you kind of pushed to to a situation when you have to choose in history 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 is offering you this choice kill a million people and to save 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 coming 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 demands 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
unknown
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.
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.
Slavoj Žižek
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. No, all these nice introductions is that she is he is sharpening a knife in the back. No, seriously. The reason I agree is that 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 ima 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 that's my This is now turning into relationship advice. No, more serious more serious answer based on what Yuval just said I would say that here I would warn also against 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 ecology. Deep
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. No, all these nice introductions is that she is he is sharpening a knife in the back. No, seriously. The reason I agree is that 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 ima 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 that's my This is now turning into relationship advice. No, more serious more serious answer based on what Yuval just said I would say that here I would warn also against 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 ecology. Deep
unknown
deep ecologists okay sorry. No
deep ecologists okay sorry. No
Slavoj Žižek
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 here of all other parts of nature. Not only animals, not only plants, but even they speak about the rights of rivers, of beautiful 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 rivers mountains whatever they they they don't know they have rights because 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 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 consequence be. So yes we should be radical ecologists but always be aware of this that the long-term consequences can run against. That's why immediately I give him the word just that's why I am a Hegelian today. I think the formula today should be back back from Marx to 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 example, I think he exaggerates there, but French Revolution. Freedom haha 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 nineties end of history and so on haha we are now where we are. So the my basic approach would be be aware 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
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 here of all other parts of nature. Not only animals, not only plants, but even they speak about the rights of rivers, of beautiful 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 rivers mountains whatever they they they don't know they have rights because 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 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 consequence be. So yes we should be radical ecologists but always be aware of this that the long-term consequences can run against. That's why immediately I give him the word just that's why I am a Hegelian today. I think the formula today should be back back from Marx to 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 example, I think he exaggerates there, but French Revolution. Freedom haha 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 nineties end of history and so on haha we are now where we are. So the my basic approach would be be aware 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
unknown
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 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.
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 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.
Slavoj Žižek
So but then that got me thinking Yuval if you don't mind me asking you this so then it got me thinking well the the question was about you know should we treat the Earth as a resource. And
So but then that got me thinking Yuval if you don't mind me asking you this so then it got me thinking well the the question was about you know should we treat the Earth as a resource. And
unknown
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 phenomena. 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 um complicated is that we are on the verge perhaps of creating the first inorganic life forms. After billion years of evolution you know it's a very very long time 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
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 phenomena. 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 um complicated is that we are on the verge perhaps of creating the first inorganic life forms. After billion years of evolution you know it's a very very long time 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
unknown
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 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 to really shift the evolution of life and to even place it on a 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 maybe wanted to re-engineer human biology but he couldn't. He dreamt 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 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 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 technologies 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 um 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 apart from this platitude yeah yeah nature we are all nature we are all need 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 twenties 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
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 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 to really shift the evolution of life and to even place it on a 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 maybe wanted to re-engineer human biology but he couldn't. He dreamt 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 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 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 technologies 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 um 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 apart from this platitude yeah yeah nature we are all nature we are all need 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 twenties 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
unknown
think apes and typical male chauvinism women apes. Of course. What can 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. Well I was going to say and that's how I came to be a biologist. Yeah yeah yeah. And then Stalin had to discover that this scientist was really a British spy, you know the story. But what I'm saying is that Stalin was already forget about so-called egalitarianism of communism. What egalitarianism?
think apes and typical male chauvinism women apes. Of course. What can 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. Well I was going to say and that's how I came to be a biologist. Yeah yeah yeah. And then Stalin had to discover that this scientist was really a British spy, you know the story. But what I'm saying is that Stalin was already forget about so-called egalitarianism of communism. What egalitarianism?
Slavoj Žižek
Stalin was the first who consciously tried to create a specific race of workers who just work with modest shitty food without protest and so on. But now I come to the crucial point. Nature culture. I follow closely Yuval what you are saying all this about life from zero point so-called life then nature culture and so on. And would you agree now I put my extreme thesis. That we live effectively in a I agree with him in an absolutely unique era where if this progress in biogenetics brain sciences will go on not only we are entering into post-human era but in some sense also in post-natural era. Because in our spontaneous experience at least nature has some what Heidegger not a highly respected political philosopher but called Erde the Earth this thick background of our lives. Now I will go to the lowest point that I can and most of you will break any contact with me. I loved a movie which is a bad movie. But I loved the idea. Don't kill me. Roland Emmerich Moonfall. It's horrible movie but I like the basic idea: okay
Stalin was the first who consciously tried to create a specific race of workers who just work with modest shitty food without protest and so on. But now I come to the crucial point. Nature culture. I follow closely Yuval what you are saying all this about life from zero point so-called life then nature culture and so on. And would you agree now I put my extreme thesis. That we live effectively in a I agree with him in an absolutely unique era where if this progress in biogenetics brain sciences will go on not only we are entering into post-human era but in some sense also in post-natural era. Because in our spontaneous experience at least nature has some what Heidegger not a highly respected political philosopher but called Erde the Earth this thick background of our lives. Now I will go to the lowest point that I can and most of you will break any contact with me. I loved a movie which is a bad movie. But I loved the idea. Don't kill me. Roland Emmerich Moonfall. It's horrible movie but I like the basic idea: okay
unknown
the Moon is approaching Earth endangering Earth and some astronauts
the Moon is approaching Earth endangering Earth and some astronauts
Slavoj Žižek
go there find a deep hole go in and discover that Moon is really an artificial object built by artificial intelligence to control us that this rugged earthly rugged rugged flatland on the on the top is just to create the impression. But isn't it the lesson that now is precise question for you Yuval you may disagree with me I'm not sure if I agree with myself but that once we have life this retroactively changes also in our view not in reality what life the first life is. It's because life becomes just a combination of transparent algorithms biological and so on and so on. And that's my problem with would you agree Yuval with liberal conservatives I cannot call them in another way like Jürgen Habermas whose solution is since brain sciences today by penetrating our brain and manipulating our DNA are threatening our ethical self-understanding we should put a limit on science. Now I expect the answer. Now I have what what you said trust in humans and faith you know faith in humans. Yes. Okay I have faith in you to provide the answer. Yeah yeah. Yuval take it away. I lot of questions and I don't have like these ready-made answers. One thing I can say is that I my biggest fear is that in this attempt to upgrade humans we will actually downgrade ourselves. In what precise sense? Sorry I would like to hear this is crucial
go there find a deep hole go in and discover that Moon is really an artificial object built by artificial intelligence to control us that this rugged earthly rugged rugged flatland on the on the top is just to create the impression. But isn't it the lesson that now is precise question for you Yuval you may disagree with me I'm not sure if I agree with myself but that once we have life this retroactively changes also in our view not in reality what life the first life is. It's because life becomes just a combination of transparent algorithms biological and so on and so on. And that's my problem with would you agree Yuval with liberal conservatives I cannot call them in another way like Jürgen Habermas whose solution is since brain sciences today by penetrating our brain and manipulating our DNA are threatening our ethical self-understanding we should put a limit on science. Now I expect the answer. Now I have what what you said trust in humans and faith you know faith in humans. Yes. Okay I have faith in you to provide the answer. Yeah yeah. Yuval take it away. I lot of questions and I don't have like these ready-made answers. One thing I can say is that I my biggest fear is that in this attempt to upgrade humans we will actually downgrade ourselves. In what precise sense? Sorry I would like to hear this is crucial
unknown
now. 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 brain they would like to amplify certain human qualities that they need like discipline and like even intelligence everybody talks about intelligence. Ah but they don't need other human qualities like compassion or like artistic sensitivity um or like spirituality. If you're 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 an 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 consequences that it's very 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 our DNA because 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. To continue watching
now. 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 brain they would like to amplify certain human qualities that they need like discipline and like even intelligence everybody talks about intelligence. Ah but they don't need other human qualities like compassion or like artistic sensitivity um or like spirituality. If you're 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 an 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 consequences that it's very 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 our DNA because 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. To continue watching
unknown
this video,
this video,
unknown
click the link in the top left or in the description below.
click the link in the top left or in the description below.
unknown
With a free trial, you can enjoy the full talk and thousands more.
With a free trial, you can enjoy the full talk and thousands more.
unknown
Thank you for being part of the conversation.
Thank you for being part of the conversation.