By Invitation | Russia and Ukraine

Yuval Noah Harari argues that what’s at stake in Ukraine is the direction of human history

Humanity’s greatest political achievement has been the decline of war. That is now in jeopardy

By Yuval Noah HarariFeb 9th 2022 (Updated Feb 11th 2022)Share

At the heart of the Ukraine crisis lies a fundamental question about the nature of history and the nature of humanity: is change possible? Can humans change the way they behave, or does history repeat itself endlessly, with humans forever condemned to re-enact past tragedies without changing anything except the décor?

One school of thought firmly denies the possibility of change. It argues that the world is a jungle, that the strong prey upon the weak and that the only thing preventing one country from wolfing down another is military force. This is how it always was, and this is how it always will be. Those who don’t believe in the law of the jungle are not just deluding themselves, but are putting their very existence at risk. They will not survive long.

Another school of thought argues that the so-called law of the jungle isn’t a natural law at all. Humans made it, and humans can change it. Contrary to popular misconceptions, the first clear evidence for organised warfare appears in the archaeological record only 13,000 years ago. Even after that date there have been many periods devoid of archaeological evidence for war. Unlike gravity, war isn’t a fundamental force of nature. Its intensity and existence depend on underlying technological, economic and cultural factors. As these factors change, so does war.

Evidence of such change is all around us. Over the past few generations, nuclear weapons have turned war between superpowers into a mad act of collective suicide, forcing the most powerful nations on Earth to find less violent ways to resolve conflict. Whereas great-power wars, such as the second Punic war or the second world war, have been a salient feature for much of history, in the past seven decades there has been no direct war between superpowers.

During the same period, the global economy has been transformed from one based on materials to one based on knowledge. Where once the main sources of wealth were material assets such as gold mines, wheat fields and oil wells, today the main source of wealth is knowledge. And whereas you can seize oil fields by force, you cannot acquire knowledge that way. The profitability of conquest has declined as a result.

Finally, a tectonic shift has taken place in global culture. Many elites in history—Hun chieftains, Viking jarls and Roman patricians, for example—viewed war positively. Rulers from Sargon the Great to Benito Mussolini sought to immortalise themselves by conquest (and artists such as Homer and Shakespeare happily obliged such fancies). Other elites, such as the Christian church, viewed war as evil but inevitable.

In the past few generations, however, for the first time in history the world became dominated by elites who see war as both evil and avoidable. Even the likes of George W. Bush and Donald Trump, not to mention the Merkels and Arderns of the world, are very different types of politicians than Attila the Hun or Alaric the Goth. They usually come to power with dreams of domestic reforms rather than foreign conquests. While in the realm of art and thought, most of the leading lights —from Pablo Picasso to Stanley Kubrick—are better known for depicting the senseless horrors of combat than for glorifying its architects.

As a result of all these changes, most governments stopped seeing wars of aggression as an acceptable tool to advance their interests, and most nations stopped fantasising about conquering and annexing their neighbours. It is simply not true that military force alone prevents Brazil from conquering Uruguay or prevents Spain from invading Morocco.

The parameters of peace

The decline of war is evident in numerous statistics. Since 1945, it has become relatively rare for international borders to be redrawn by foreign invasion, and not a single internationally recognised country has been completely wiped off the map by external conquest. There has been no shortage of other types of conflicts, such as civil wars and insurgencies. But even when taking all types of conflict into account, in the first two decades of the 21st century human violence has killed fewer people than suicide, car accidents or obesity-related diseases. Gunpowder has become less lethal than sugar.

Scholars argue back and forth about the exact statistics, but it is important to look beyond the maths. The decline of war has been a psychological as well as statistical phenomenon. Its most important feature has been a major change in the very meaning of the term “peace”. For most of history peace meant only “the temporary absence of war”. When people in 1913 said that there was peace between France and Germany, they meant that the French and German armies were not clashing directly, but everybody knew that a war between them might nevertheless erupt at any moment.

In recent decades “peace” has come to mean “the implausibility of war”. For many countries, being invaded and conquered by the neighbours has become almost inconceivable. I live in the Middle East, so I know perfectly well that there are exceptions to these trends. But recognising the trends is at least as important as being able to point out the exceptions.

The “new peace” hasn’t been a statistical fluke or hippie fantasy. It has been reflected most clearly in coldly-calculated budgets. In recent decades governments around the world have felt safe enough to spend an average of only about 6.5% of their budgets on their armed forces, while spending far more on education, health care and welfare.

We tend to take it for granted, but it is an astonishing novelty in human history. For thousands of years, military expenditure was by far the biggest item on the budget of every prince, khan, sultan and emperor. They hardly spent a penny on education or medical help for the masses.

The decline of war didn’t result from a divine miracle or from a change in the laws of nature. It resulted from humans making better choices. It is arguably the greatest political and moral achievement of modern civilisation. Unfortunately, the fact that it stems from human choice also means that it is reversible.

Technology, economics and culture continue to change. The rise of cyber weapons, AI-driven economies and newly militaristic cultures could result in a new era of war, worse than anything we have seen before. To enjoy peace, we need almost everyone to make good choices. By contrast, a poor choice by just one side can lead to war.

This is why the Russian threat to invade Ukraine should concern every person on Earth. If it again becomes normative for powerful countries to wolf down their weaker neighbours, it would affect the way people all over the world feel and behave. The first and most obvious result of a return to the law of the jungle would be a sharp increase in military spending at the expense of everything else. The money that should go to teachers, nurses and social workers would instead go to tanks, missiles and cyber weapons.

A return to the jungle would also undermine global co-operation on problems such as preventing catastrophic climate change or regulating disruptive technologies such as artificial intelligence and genetic engineering. It isn’t easy to work alongside countries that are preparing to eliminate you. And as both climate change and an AI arms race accelerate, the threat of armed conflict will only increase further, closing a vicious circle that may well doom our species.

History’s direction

If you believe that historic change is impossible, and that humanity never left the jungle and never will, the only choice left is whether to play the part of predator or prey. Given such a choice, most leaders would prefer to go down in history as alpha predators, and add their names to the grim list of conquerors that unfortunate pupils are condemned to memorize for their history exams.

But maybe change is possible? Maybe the law of the jungle is a choice rather than an inevitability? If so, any leader who chooses to conquer a neighbour will get a special place in humanity’s memory, far worse than your run-of-the-mill Tamerlane. He will go down in history as the man who ruined our greatest achievement. Just when we thought we were out of the jungle, he pulled us back in.

I don’t know what will happen in Ukraine. But as a historian I do believe in the possibility of change. I don’t think this is naivety—it’s realism. The only constant of human history is change. And that’s something that perhaps we can learn from the Ukrainians. For many generations, Ukrainians knew little but tyranny and violence. They endured two centuries of tsarist autocracy (which finally collapsed amidst the cataclysm of the first world war). A brief attempt at independence was quickly crushed by the Red Army that re-established Russian rule. Ukrainians then lived through the terrible man-made famine of the Holodomor, Stalinist terror, Nazi occupation and decades of soul-crushing Communist dictatorship. When the Soviet Union collapsed, history seemed to guarantee that Ukrainians would again go down the path of brutal tyranny – what else did they know?

But they chose differently. Despite history, despite grinding poverty and despite seemingly insurmountable obstacles, Ukrainians established a democracy. In Ukraine, unlike in Russia and Belarus, opposition candidates repeatedly replaced incumbents. When faced with the threat of autocracy in 2004 and 2013, Ukrainians twice rose in revolt to defend their freedom. Their democracy is a new thing. So is the “new peace”. Both are fragile, and may not last long. But both are possible, and may strike deep roots. Every old thing was once new. It all comes down to human choices.■

Copyright © Yuval Noah Harari 2022.
_______________

Yuval Noah Harari is a historian, philosopher and author of “Sapiens” (2014), “Homo Deus” (2016) and the series “Sapiens: A Graphic History” (2020-21). He is a lecturer in the Hebrew University of Jerusalem’s history department and co-founder of Sapienship, a social-impact company.

Show original message

New Thinking Allowed with Jeffrey Mishlove This video is a special release from the original Thinking Allowed series that ran on public television from 1986 until 2002. It was recorded in about 1994. Malidoma Patrice Some is a shaman of the Dagara tribe from the west African nation of Bakiri Faso (formerly Upper Volta).  He is author of Ritual: Power, Healing and Community and Of Water and the Spirit. Dr. Some describes his own initiation into the shamanistic practices of the Dagara people.  He suggests that the elders of the Dagara community were skilled in creating doorways through which practitioners could pass into other dimensions of reality — the dimension of pure life energy and the dimension of the ancestors.  In a very moving fashion, he describes his sense of loving unification with the beings that inhabit these dimensions Now you can watch all of the programs from the original Thinking Allowed Video Collection, hosted by Jeffrey Mishlove. Subscribe to the new Streaming Channel (https://thinkingallowed.vhx.tv/) and watch more than 350 programs now, with more, previously unreleased titles added weekly. New!! Free month of the classic Thinking Allowed streaming channel for New Thinking Allowed subscribers only. Use code THINKFREELY.

“No one ever told me that grief felt so like fear. I am not afraid, but the sensation is like being afraid. The same fluttering in the stomach, the same restlessness, the yawning. I keep on swallowing.

At other times it feels like being mildly drunk, or concussed. There is a sort of invisible blanket between the world and me. I find it hard to take in what anyone says. Or perhaps, hard to want to take it in. It is so uninteresting. Yet I want the others to be about me. I dread the moments when the house is empty. If only 

― C.S. Lewis, A Grief Observed

Clive Staples Lewis (November 29, 1898 – November 22, 1963) was a British writer and lay theologian. He held academic positions in English literature at both Oxford University and Cambridge University. Wikipedia

In 2011, Occupy organizers spoke with In These Times about challenges and opportunities. Ten years later, we look back on the decentralized, grassroots uprising.

IN THESE TIMES EDITORS SEPTEMBER 17, 2021 (inthesetimes.com)

PUBLISHED IN
OCTOBER 2021

Adecade has passed since activists first camped in New York’s Zuccotti Park as part of Occupy Wall Street, calling attention to our wildly inequitable — and undemocratic — financial and political systems. The protests soon spread across the United States. But despite the punditry and analysis Occupy provoked, its legacy remains murky. While many cite the movement’s lack of clear demands as a failure, others laud its legacy of radical politics and coalition building, even if it didn’t yield immediate returns. 

More important than anything is consciousness. Politics can only change after consciousness changes.

–Sam Jewler, Occupy D.C.

“The thing about democracy,” activist Jesse Myerson told In These Times, is that ​“it takes forever and it requires a lot of diligence.”

In 2011, Jeremy Gantz wrote:

How do you respond to someone who says Occupy protesters don’t represent the 99%, that they’re marginal and more radical than most people?

Caitlin Manning, Occupy Oakland: I have problems with the 99% rhetoric. Cops are part of the 99%. [Cops] are not our friends [or] part of our movement. The Tea Party is part of the 99%, but they’re not part of the movement.

Jesse Myerson, Occupy Wall Street: I take the opposite view. Austerity budgets, demanded by the Wall Street fat cats … threaten the jobs and pensions of cops. [Tea Party folks are] losing their jobs as well. There is a moral beauty and a quiet nobility in standing with people who don’t stand with you.

How crucial is a stable protest site for building community and the movement more broadly?

Sam Jewler, Occupy D.C.: These places are not just ​“places”; these are our communities that we’ve built.

Natalie Wahlberg, Occupy Chicago: That’s what [we hope] to achieve by establishing a permanent encampment and community — a parallel society that reflects the values of our movement, of our hope for our future.

What is the downside of the highly egalitarian General Assemblies?

Myerson: The downside is that it becomes inefficient. Which is fine. Our country’s democracy is a facade, behind which there’s this ugly plutocracy where the wealthy control the government. Setting up this alternative, radical democracy draws a stark contrast to the type of democracy offered by the 1%.

Wahlberg: Even though our democracy is painful and slow, people want to be involved. I think that just speaks to the empowerment they feel of being part of a movement that actually listens to them.

Should this movement try to shift the Democratic Party left?

Wahlberg: The Democratic Party has shown itself to be broken and that’s one of the reasons the Occupy movement started. We have no voice; we have no representation.

Myerson: We can’t be held hostage by this lesser-of-two-evils way of thinking about elections, because then our votes can be taken for granted.

Manning: This is about creating a new society from the ground up.

Is there any legislation you would like to see passed?

Myerson: I would be incredibly surprised if any legislative endorsement came out of Occupy Wall Street. Tons of people are working on legislative initiatives and none of them are going to be successful until we can extricate our democratic politics from the control of wealth.

Jewler: More important than anything legislative is consciousness. Politics can only change after consciousness changes.

(support@craighamiltonglobal.com)

The Princess of Disks

A young woman indicated by the Princess of Disks would be a quiet, reserved person – sometimes shy. She will be practical and capable, though rarely seeking the limelight. I used to know a stage manager who always came up as a Princess of Disks – she loved the glitz of the theatre as long as she could stay behind the scenes – having, of course, created them first!

She’s a gentle person who, like the Queen of Disks, is much concerned with domestic matters, and with Nature and growth. As a result, sometimes when this card comes up we may be looking at somebody who is expecting a child. The Princess of Cups often represents conception, the Princess of Disks shows the pregnancy and the Ace of Wands will then indicate the birth.

The Princess of Disks woman is a reliable and diligent person, trustworthy and hard-working. She is faithful by nature, and deals badly with conflict. She likes life to unfolds in an ordered fashion. In fact, she contemplates life very thoroughly, being sensitive to the needs of others, and sympathetic to their feelings.

Despite her quiet exterior, she has a huge resource of strength and support to offer to those who need it. She is also an excellent practical manager with marked proficiency in dealing with money and accounting. This will, however, generally be expressed in the home environment where she is at her most content.

When the card comes up to indicate a period in somebody’s life, rather than the person herself, we will be looking at a young woman on the threshold – of life, marriage, motherhood, though rarely on the threshold of some major career ambition. That step would be more readily indicated by the Princess of Wands.

(via angelpaths.com and Alan Blackman)

“Maybe your soul mate is the person who forces your soul to grow the most.”

–Molly Parker as Rabbi Ari, Six Feet Under, Season 2

New Thinking Allowed with Jeffrey Mishlove David Lorimer is the Programme Director of the Scientific and Medical Network. He has edited several books, including The Spirit of Science: From Experiment to Experience, Thinking Beyond the Brain: A Wider Science of Consciousness, and The Circle of Sacred Dance: Peter Deunov’s Paneurythmy. He has also authored a number of books including Survival: Death As a Transition, Resonant Mind: Life Review in the Near-Death Experience, and A Quest for Wisdom: Inspiring Purpose on the Path of Life. In this wide-ranging conversation, he describes the history and work of the Scientific and Medical Network, emphasizing the need for scientists to see beyond the limits of a pure materialist metaphysics. He describes the work of the eighteenth century scientist/mystic, Emmanuel Swedenborg – with a particular focus on Swedenborg’s vivid descriptions of the afterlife. He explains the ethical implications of research on near-death experiences. New Thinking Allowed host, Jeffrey Mishlove, PhD, is author of The Roots of Consciousness, Psi Development Systems, and The PK Man. Between 1986 and 2002 he hosted and co-produced the original Thinking Allowed public television series. He is the recipient of the only doctoral diploma in “parapsychology” ever awarded by an accredited university (University of California, Berkeley, 1980). (Recorded on April 16, 2021)

New Thinking Allowed with Jeffrey Mishlove James Tunney, LLM, is an Irish barrister who has lectured on legal matters throughout the world. He is a poet, a scholar, and author of The Mystery of the Trapped Light: Mystical Thoughts in the Dark Age of Scientism plus The Mystical Accord: Sutras to Suit Our Times, Lines for Spiritual Evolution; also Empire of Scientism: The Dispiriting Conspiracy and Inevitable Tyranny of Scientocracy, TechBondAge: Slavery of the Human Spirit, and Human Entrance to Transhumanism: Machine Merger and the End of Humanity. His website is http://www.jamestunney.com. Here he explores the controversies concerning the artistic genius of one of the greatest science fiction writers of the twentieth century. There are those who insist that his creations were the result of drug-induced paranoic fantasies. Others describe him as a visionary, mystic, gnostic, and even a prophet. While acknowledging Dick’s psychological disturbances and addictions, he explains that they, alone, cannot account for the brilliant creative output of many decades. He sees P. K. Dick as a prophet primarily. New Thinking Allowed host, Jeffrey Mishlove, PhD, is author of The Roots of Consciousness, Psi Development Systems, and The PK Man. Between 1986 and 2002 he hosted and co-produced the original Thinking Allowed public television series. He is the recipient of the only doctoral diploma in “parapsychology” ever awarded by an accredited university (University of California, Berkeley, 1980). He is also the 1st Prize winner of the 2021 Bigelow Institute essay competition regarding the best evidence for survival of human consciousness after permanent bodily death. (Recorded on November 8, 2021)