Homo Deus

Yuval Noah Harari

!. Whatʼs in it for me? Learn why humans wonʼt rule forever.

The advent of humans and humanityʼs subsequent rule over earth began with
Homo sapiensʼ inventive talent, consciousness and thought. Religion and
humanist philosophy have done their bit to bring this reign into being, placing
humans at the center of creation and thought.

Indeed, with the rapid advancement of science and technology, computers

and artificial intelligence, it seems little can stop us. But might we be digging
our own graves?

These blinks explain the rise of humans and the doctrine of human superiority.
Youʼll see what made us dominate this planet and why we think we are
special. But youʼll also peer ahead and see what threatens our crown – and
could commence the fall of humankind.

Youʼll also learn:

• how scientists can make decisions for rats;
• how the US presidential election illustrates human superiority; and
• why liberalism and nationalism are religions.
 M. What heights we scale! Humanityʼs ambitions change by the day.

For humankind, progress and innovation is nothing new. We have strived for
the stars and reached the moon. We have developed the means to defeat
famine, disease and the effects of war. But as we advance, our ambitions
must be modified.

Letʼs consider how far weʼve come.

We can now check the spread of famine and disease – catastrophes that
killed many in the past.

In France between 1692 and 1694, for example, famine killed 15 percent of
the population (thatʼs about 2.5 million people). The infamous Black Death
pandemic killed between 75 and 200 million in Eurasia in the 1330s. Thatʼs
about a quarter of its entire population.

But nowadays we have mostly overcome famine and disease. In fact, youʼre
more likely to die from obesity than hunger. In 2010, 3 million died worldwide
from obesity. Conversely, malnutrition and famine combined killed only a third
of that total.

Weʼre so advanced that we measure our catastrophes on a different scale.

Take the Ebola crisis. Although itʼs considered a serious modern epidemic, it
killed “only” 11,000 people.

Itʼs much the same with war. Itʼs an exceptional occurrence rather than a
given. You're more likely to die from diabetes (1.5 million deaths in 2012) than
war (120,000 in 2012).
Does this matter? Well, it means that as a species humankind can adjust its
goals. We can aim to live longer or become happier and stronger.

Weʼre on the way. Twentieth century medicine has almost doubled our life
expectancy. Some people even think immortality is possible. We also feel like
we can live more happily. Thatʼs why, according to a 2013 Survey on Drug Use
and Health, over 17 million Americans reported using ecstasy.

Technology is also used to strengthen our bodies. Now paralyzed patients

control bionic limbs through thought alone.

But it's just the start. We can strive higher yet.

b. Humans claimed superiority over animals and proved it through collective

cooperation.

Humans are without doubt the worldʼs most successful creatures. But will we
be able to keep this up?

If we want to know where weʼre headed, we must know where we came from.
What made us so powerful?

Ever since we ceased to be hunter-gatherers, weʼve claimed superiority over

other animals. We started domesticating livestock at about the same time we
turned to agriculture, around 12,000 years ago.

Currently, more than 90 percent of large animals are domesticated. The

downside is that domestication leads to animal suffering. For instance, sows
are confined to gestation crates, barely able to move, and are butchered when
their bodies canʼt take any more. Amazingly, most people are fine with this: it
meets our desire for cheap, plentiful meat.

But what makes us so special that we think we can abuse animals like this?

Look at it this way: we arenʼt metaphysically so different from other animals.

We like to imagine we are somehow different because we conceive of “the

human soul.” Monotheists claim that we're unique in possessing this soul. But
thereʼs no evidence that such a thing exists, or that we can differentiate
ourselves from animals through its existence.

Maybe you think that animals have a “lesser” consciousness? Well, we still
donʼt know if human consciousness is any different from animal
consciousness. After all, modern science still canʼt explain what
consciousness actually is!

Perhaps our world domination can be approached differently. Letʼs reflect on

our ability to cooperate flexibly on a large scale. In the last US election, for
example, nearly 40 million people managed to turn up and vote on an agreed
day, abided by the same rules, and agreed to respect the results.

g. Religion has given us narratives and these encapsulate moral dilemmas.

Cooperation gave us the competitive edge. But what made us put our heads
together in the first place?
This cooperative desire is reflected in shared narratives. When we share
stories, we also share values.

Consider that in the late twelfth century, European leaders united in the Third
Crusade. Their objective? To retake Jerusalem. People from all over Europe
came together to fight as allies. This even included the French and the
English, who ended their own war to do so! What made this possible? Simply
put, they believed in the same Catholic religious narrative. And, consequently,
they thought they'd earn eternal salvation for their efforts.

Religious narratives are equally powerful today, but they have morphed into
some surprising forms.

No-one is going to join you on an expedition to conquer another country

because the Pope told you to do it. Youʼd be laughed at. But this isnʼt because
we donʼt have religion anymore. It just looks different.

Letʼs get back to essentials. What is religion? For starters, letʼs state what it
isnʼt: superstition. Itʼs not about belief in supernatural beings. Religion is belief
in a code of laws that is set apart from human action.

Consequently, liberals or nationalists could be said to be just as religious as

Christians or Muslims. They too believe in a code of moral laws equivalent to
laws of nature. These arenʼt God-given, but their genesis isnʼt created by
humans either. They are, then, also religious.

We still need religion. Science can't answer everything, and it certainly canʼt
provide us with a response to ethical dilemmas.

Say you wanted to build a dam. It could provide energy for thousands, but its
construction would displace many families. Science could tell you how to build
the dam efficiently. But it wonʼt answer key moral questions. Should the dam
be built? Should those families suffer?

To answer questions like this we still need a moral code. We still need religion.

l. Modernity means we can shape our lives. But has meaning been lost?

The pace of change is swift. We can now improve our lives nearly effortlessly.
But have we lost something in the process?

In the modern era, we have gained power by rejecting meaning.

In the past, we believed in divine beings and that the world turned according
to a master plan. This “script” gave life meaning, but it also limited our power
to act. Thatʼs why we accepted that disasters like famine were due to Godʼs
will. Our only response was to pray, instead of investigating further.

Now we have rejected the idea that such a script exists. We know that famine
is caused by a series of interrelated and measurable events.

We have gained power and can write our own scripts. We can, if we desire,
invest in technologies to prevent future famines.

However, there's a societal repercussion; modern society is based on endless

growth.

For instance, funded research can improve society. Say a company wanted to
make a new fertilizer. For research, the company needs bank credit. But a
bank will only help if it believes it can profit in the long-term. For this belief to
hold true, the economy needs to keep growing. If not enough people buy the
new fertilizer, the bankers asks themselves, how will they ever make a return
on their investment?

This is the source of modern human power: continued growth and subsequent
technological improvements.

We send messages across the globe in an instant. In ancient times this was a
power only for the gods! Now, we can begin to conquer death itself. If you
wanted, you could have your DNA sequenced for just $100 and use this
genetic information to preventively treat diseases and live longer.

But this begs the question, what have we really gained? Have we lost meaning
in this grab for power?

n. Liberal societies derive meaning from human experience, not God.

OK, so weʼve cast out divine scriptures. So from where exactly do we derive
deeper significance now?

These days, it's the human experience that confers significance on the world.
This is known as humanism. It's essentially the predominant religion of
modern society.

Humanism is about human beings. In other words, to find meaning we should

“look within ourselves.”
As a corollary, it sees an individualʼs experience as the basis for authority in
society. Who decides elections? The voter. And where is beauty to be found?
In the eye of the beholder, of course.

There are many varieties of humanism. That's because no single version

possesses all-encompassing solutions.

For instance, how would you respond to the question, should you fight for
your country? Nationalists would respond in the affirmative. That's because
they value their native inhabitants' lives more than foreigners' lives. How about
whether you should take from the rich to feed the hungry? Socialists, would
be fine with that as they value the collective more than the individual.

Conversely, liberals would answer no to both questions. Thatʼs because they

claim to value all human experience equally.

Nowadays, liberalism is the dominant variant of humanism.

From the early 1970s, liberalism spread throughout the globe from North-
Western Europe and North America, first to Asia and Latin America and, after
the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, to Eastern Europe.

Actually, thereʼs no real alternative to the doctrine of liberalism these days. We

operate within its parameters. Even so-called revolutionary movements are
really just advocating more liberalism.

Consider the Occupy Wall Street movement. Protesters complained that a few
wealthy individuals had huge influence over the markets. They demanded
truly free markets. Thatʼs just liberalism by another name!
But, faced with more powerful technologies, will liberalism be able to survive?

q. Modern science threatens liberalism at its heart.

We've learned that liberalism is founded on valuing human experience and

individual freedom. But how much do we really know about ourselves, the
individuals? Modern science says we know very little. Whatʼs more, what we
do know hardly supports the principles of liberalism.

For starters, free will is a mere illusion.

Liberalism is dependent on the notion of free will. That's the idea that
individualsʼ choices are not predetermined but freely given. This is why
individual choice (such as voting) is considered significant.

However, according to modern neuroscience, decisions are simply

biochemical processes in the brain. These processes are no more the product
of free will than digestion or hair growth!

This is confirmed when we experiment with “robo-rats.” When we send

signals to specific parts of a rat's brain through implanted electrodes, we can
make decisions on its behalf. We can tell it to turn left or right, or even jump
from a height it wouldnʼt normally attempt.

On top of that, thereʼs no such thing as a “one true self.” This is a key idea in
liberalism: it relies on the notion that thereʼs an authentic individual deep
within each of us.
Modern psychology proves this is a delusion.

Our brains have two hemispheres, left and right, connected by a single neural
cable. In order to learn the function of each, psychologists have studied
people whose connection between the two hemispheres has been severed. It
turns out that the two sides have completely different roles.

Take one experiment where a patient's right hemisphere was shown a

pornographic image. This was done by making it visible to the patient's left
eye only, because the right hemisphere interprets visual signals from the left
eye and vice versa.

Now here's the interesting part. When shown the image, the patient gave an
embarrassed giggle. But when asked why she had laughed, she had no idea.

Because the left hemisphere, which is responsible for rational explanations,

had not seen the image, the patient couldnʼt rationally explain her behavior.

In the end, the patient did come up with an explanation for her laughter,
claiming that a piece of machinery in the room, which could be seen by the
left hemisphere, looked amusing. Incredibly, this happens to all of us all the
time. Our left hemispheres are constantly working to rationalize incomplete
information and to fill in inconsistent stories.

r. Algorithms and technologies will one day rule our lives.

Modern science shakes liberalism to its core and renders its philosophical
foundations unstable. But we humans face a more tangible threat: technology.

Humans are replaced daily by algorithms. This is because we need things to

be completed quickly, efficiently and reliably. Thatʼs why computer algorithms
are increasingly favored. Just look at financial trading. Once the realm of the
financier, now it's ruled by the microchip!

As we create more and more algorithms, itʼs fair to say that theyʼll take over
ever more human tasks.

What will be left for us? Is there any task we do that could not be better
achieved by an algorithm?

The famous counterexample here is art. Supposedly art will always be human.
But actually algorithms are already making it.

Consider David Copeʼs musical algorithm EMI. Cope is Professor of

Musicology at the University of California, Santa Cruz. His EMI program
composed so well that when its Bach-style pieces were heard by music
lovers, they couldnʼt differentiate between EMI's pieces and authentic Bach!

As time passes, technology will make more decisions for us. In fact,
technologies can already monitor our bodily data and make decisions for us.

Letʼs look at a 2011 Yale University experiment. Researchers successfully

trialled an “artificial pancreas” for diabetics. A pump was connected to the
patient's stomach, dispensing insulin or glucagon whenever its sensors
detected dangerous blood sugar levels. The patient played no active part in
the process.
Or consider how algorithms affect the way we share information. Just think
about the data you share on Facebook: what youʼre thinking, what you like,
whom you like, where you've been. The more we input, the better Facebook
knows us.

Youyou, Kosinski and Stillwell studied this in 2015. They found that based on
300 “likes,” a Facebook algorithm could predict a subjectʼs answers to a
personality questionnaire better than their spouse.

s. As algorithms get ever more powerful, we face a choice. Fight back or let
them prevail?

Put bluntly, the growing power of algorithms threatens our status as rulers of
the planet.

We need a plan. But what exactly?

One idea is that we should merge with technology so as to keep pace with it.
This is called techno-humanism. By merging with technology, we could match
the power of algorithms.

Itʼs already happening. The US Army is developing an attention helmet. This

sends electrical signals to specific parts of the brain to help soldiers
concentrate better for extended periods. This would make specialized
soldiers, such as snipers or drone operators, as dependable as algorithms.

The types of technological upgrades available will doubtless reflect our

political and economic needs. The attention helmet gets funding now because
of its clear military applications.

But thereʼs a downside. If we invest only in economically useful technologies

we may become less empathetic people. After all, what use is empathy to the
growth economy?

Another new school of thought says we should step aside and let algorithms
just do their thing. This is known as dataism.

Dataism claims that everything that exists is either data or a data-processing

system or algorithm. It doesnʼt matter if itʼs the position of the sun, someone's
political stance, or your lover's broken heart. Itʼs all just data.

In fact, humans, just like a computer or Google, are just data-processing

systems. We process received data and use it to make decisions. Something
like grocery shopping depends on hunger, the weather, the time or numerous
other factors.

Dataism understands history as just a process by which we manufacture ever-

improving data-processing systems. Consequently, according to dataism itʼs
our duty as humans to build more efficient data-processing algorithms.

This leaves us with the big question: What happens when algorithms become
better at building data-processing algorithms than we are?

Will we then have to surrender our dominance? Itʼs an uncomfortable thought.

!t. Final summary

The key message in this book:

Our world is changing and will continue to change. Our history as a species is
built on this change and progress. If we better understand our history and
how it made us who we are today, we can have a more secure idea of where
we will be in the future.

Actionable advice:

Determine the depth of your dependence on digital devices

Spend a day without your mobile device. Are algorithms already taking over
your free will?

Suggested further reading: Sapiens by Yuval Noah Harari

Sapiens (2015) traces the evolution of our species – from the rise of our most
ancient ancestors to our current place in the modern, technological age. How
have we, a species of hairless, tailless ape, managed to completely dominate
the entire planet? These blinks show you the developments and trends that
have allowed Homo sapiens to rise to the top.