Take a photo of a barcode or cover
4.0 AVERAGE
4.0 AVERAGE
There are so many things that are incredibly perceptive in this book. I‘m struck by how timely much of what Harari writes about AI feels timely, despite this book publication in 2018.
However, the one area that I took issue with was the discussion on immigration. I recognize that I am about 7 years late to the party, but I think you could take issue with the things Harari wrote in that section even knowing what we knew in 2018.
My core issue with this chapter was that he gave more credence to the anti-immigrant viewpoint than it‘s worth. Back then and since, we have seen time and again that this type of rhetoric is generally used by either inherently racist or morally bankrupt political parties that have nothing else to offer their country‘s citizens that could actually improve their lives. This of course frequently works for them as immigrants are a group without any voting rights and generally don’t have a strong constituency among the voting population. Not acknowledging this fact and presenting their arguments as holding equal water with pro-immigrant arguments only serves to fuel the anti-democratic populism that Harari clearly has much contempt for.
My other issues with this chapter include:
• Choosing the word assimilation: Given that the word has fallen out of favor in the migration discourse in favor of integration, I wonder why Harari chose to use it. Does he really favor the loss of your original culture that it implies?
• Defining assimilation: While „accepting the core norms and values of the host country“ sounds all well in good, what does this actually look like in practice? As an immigrant and freshly minted German citizen, this is something that I see very concretely every day. We can all agree that speaking the host country‘s language is important, but am I not integrated into the country if I speak English in my own home with my family? If that’s fine, would it also be fine if my native language was Turkish, Arabic, or Vietnamese? This is just one example of many - you don’t want to get me started on Abendbrot.
• Possibly the bigger oversight regarding assimilation that Harari does not want to address is that there is in many (Western) countries the assumption (conscious or not) that citizens of their country are white and other racist attitudes that could motivate animosity towards PoC immigrants. This is something that people of color experience every day, and to claim that they should think on a broader timescale than their own lives is absurd.
• Discussing the issues facing current-day African American descendants of the enslaved in a section about immigration: no, absolutely not.
However, the one area that I took issue with was the discussion on immigration. I recognize that I am about 7 years late to the party, but I think you could take issue with the things Harari wrote in that section even knowing what we knew in 2018.
My core issue with this chapter was that he gave more credence to the anti-immigrant viewpoint than it‘s worth. Back then and since, we have seen time and again that this type of rhetoric is generally used by either inherently racist or morally bankrupt political parties that have nothing else to offer their country‘s citizens that could actually improve their lives. This of course frequently works for them as immigrants are a group without any voting rights and generally don’t have a strong constituency among the voting population. Not acknowledging this fact and presenting their arguments as holding equal water with pro-immigrant arguments only serves to fuel the anti-democratic populism that Harari clearly has much contempt for.
My other issues with this chapter include:
• Choosing the word assimilation: Given that the word has fallen out of favor in the migration discourse in favor of integration, I wonder why Harari chose to use it. Does he really favor the loss of your original culture that it implies?
• Defining assimilation: While „accepting the core norms and values of the host country“ sounds all well in good, what does this actually look like in practice? As an immigrant and freshly minted German citizen, this is something that I see very concretely every day. We can all agree that speaking the host country‘s language is important, but am I not integrated into the country if I speak English in my own home with my family? If that’s fine, would it also be fine if my native language was Turkish, Arabic, or Vietnamese? This is just one example of many - you don’t want to get me started on Abendbrot.
• Possibly the bigger oversight regarding assimilation that Harari does not want to address is that there is in many (Western) countries the assumption (conscious or not) that citizens of their country are white and other racist attitudes that could motivate animosity towards PoC immigrants. This is something that people of color experience every day, and to claim that they should think on a broader timescale than their own lives is absurd.
• Discussing the issues facing current-day African American descendants of the enslaved in a section about immigration: no, absolutely not.
informative
inspiring
reflective
slow-paced
I like anything he writes.
dark
informative
reflective
medium-paced
Początek był chyba najtrudniejszy do przejścia. Pierwsze kilka rozdziałów nie do końca do mnie trafiło, ale kolejne już dużo ciekawsze i skłaniające do myślenia, najbardziej zapamiętam rozdział o terroryzmie i religii.
challenging
informative
reflective
medium-paced
informative
reflective
Buena reflexión de fondo. Aunque por momentos me perdí en la forma.
adventurous
challenging
informative
reflective
slow-paced
I enjoy this author!
Here are a few of my favorite clips:
For thousands of years homo-sapiens behaved as an ecological serial killer, now it is morphing into an ecological mass murderer.
Do not make the wrongful use of the name of God. What does this mean? Perhaps it means that we should never use the name of God to justify our political interests, our economic ambitions, or our personal hatreds. People hate somebody and say 'God hates him'. People covet a piece of land and say 'God wants it'. The world would be a much better place if we followed the third commandment more devotedly. Leave God out of it and find yourself some other excuse.
Religious faith is not a necessary condition for moral behavior. Morality of some kind is natural. Morality means reducing suffering. Therefore you don't need to believe in a story, you just need to develop a deep appreciation for suffering.
People afraid of losing their truth tend to be more violent than people who are used to looking at the world from several different viewpoints. Questions you cannot answer are usually far better for you than answers you cannot question.
We think we know far more today, but as individuals we know far less. We rely on the expertise of others for almost all our needs. We have 'the knowledge illusion' (Ryan's note: especially around food).
Providing people with more and better information is unlikely to improve matters. Most of our views are shaped by communal group think rather than individual rationality. And we hold onto these views due to group loyalty. Bombarding people with facts and exposing their individual ignorance is likely to backfire. Most people don't like too many facts, and they certainly don't like to feel stupid.
The system is structured so that those who make no effort to know can remain in blissful ignorance. And those who do make an effort will find it very difficult to discover the truth.
In a world in which everything is interconnected, the supreme moral imperative becomes the imperative to know. The greatest crimes in modern history resulted not just from hatred and greed, but even more so from ignorance and indifference.
When a thousand people believe some made up for one month, that's fake news. When a billion people believe it for a thousand years, that's a religion.
Fiction is among the most effective tools in the human toolkit.
It's the responsibility of all of us to invest time and effort in uncovering our biases and in verifying our sources of information.
2 rules of thumb for making sure your information is reliable: 1) If you want reliable information, pay good money for it. 2) If some issue seems exceptionally important to you, make the effort to read the relevant scientific literature (peer reviewed articles, expert articles, etc).
Romantic comedies are to love as porn is to sex and Rambo is to war.
People don't need MORE information. They need the ability to make sense of information. To tell the difference between what is important and what is unimportant. And how to combine many bits of information into a broad picture of the world.
Here are a few of my favorite clips:
For thousands of years homo-sapiens behaved as an ecological serial killer, now it is morphing into an ecological mass murderer.
Do not make the wrongful use of the name of God. What does this mean? Perhaps it means that we should never use the name of God to justify our political interests, our economic ambitions, or our personal hatreds. People hate somebody and say 'God hates him'. People covet a piece of land and say 'God wants it'. The world would be a much better place if we followed the third commandment more devotedly. Leave God out of it and find yourself some other excuse.
Religious faith is not a necessary condition for moral behavior. Morality of some kind is natural. Morality means reducing suffering. Therefore you don't need to believe in a story, you just need to develop a deep appreciation for suffering.
People afraid of losing their truth tend to be more violent than people who are used to looking at the world from several different viewpoints. Questions you cannot answer are usually far better for you than answers you cannot question.
We think we know far more today, but as individuals we know far less. We rely on the expertise of others for almost all our needs. We have 'the knowledge illusion' (Ryan's note: especially around food).
Providing people with more and better information is unlikely to improve matters. Most of our views are shaped by communal group think rather than individual rationality. And we hold onto these views due to group loyalty. Bombarding people with facts and exposing their individual ignorance is likely to backfire. Most people don't like too many facts, and they certainly don't like to feel stupid.
The system is structured so that those who make no effort to know can remain in blissful ignorance. And those who do make an effort will find it very difficult to discover the truth.
In a world in which everything is interconnected, the supreme moral imperative becomes the imperative to know. The greatest crimes in modern history resulted not just from hatred and greed, but even more so from ignorance and indifference.
When a thousand people believe some made up for one month, that's fake news. When a billion people believe it for a thousand years, that's a religion.
Fiction is among the most effective tools in the human toolkit.
It's the responsibility of all of us to invest time and effort in uncovering our biases and in verifying our sources of information.
2 rules of thumb for making sure your information is reliable: 1) If you want reliable information, pay good money for it. 2) If some issue seems exceptionally important to you, make the effort to read the relevant scientific literature (peer reviewed articles, expert articles, etc).
Romantic comedies are to love as porn is to sex and Rambo is to war.
People don't need MORE information. They need the ability to make sense of information. To tell the difference between what is important and what is unimportant. And how to combine many bits of information into a broad picture of the world.