How Did The Wealthy Gain Power In The Past? - Yuval Noah Harari [2015] | Intelligence Squared 

This makes me think about the modern role of cryptography and blockchain technologies. Specifically the role of a 'trustless' decentralized future or, trust being cryptographically proven.

If you lie to most people often enough and for long enough they will believe anything you tell them.

It's horrible.

The guy is a wolf in sheep clothing, do not be fooled by this guy.

@@JAAB9296 He doesn't look like a wolf. Why do you judge him like this? What are your arguments?

@@MendeMaria-ej8bf Do your own research and learn how to think for yourself.

@@MendeMaria-ej8bf Don't think so. I'm seventy years old, been researching for over thirty years plus. Probably longer than you have been alive, so don't flatter yourself. The reason I'm not going to give examples to you is because you most likely would not understand. Also, you would just argue the examples given to you. I have been down that road countless times with people like you so therefore it would be a waste of my time. As I already wrote, do YOUR OWN research instead of writing silly comments.

@@MendeMaria-ej8bfJust a troll. Don't feed them.

the "monopoly of violence" is the purest form of "absolute power" just like how the government has its right to rule or how the U.S.A. is the Global Hegemon

Sadly, it is merely an opinion.

That can be true, but often not. There are win-win situations, where technology can change the human condition, whether it was the first guy to start farming to starting Microsoft. It's not all just rape and pillaging.

Not often? Human history is stuffed full of all the horrible stuff we have done to each other and thats just the famous documented stuff, then there is what was done quietly behind closed doors. Where do you think all this insane wealth the elites have came from, it came from the inherited wealth passed down to them from their ancestors.

That is only true if there is no economic growth. So it was probably more true 300 years ago than now, when there was much less economic growth.

@@yanstev Actually, whether the Agricultural Revolution was a good thing is a point to be contested. For instance, the quality of people's nutrition used to be better when they were hunter-gatherers. By switching to farming, they were able to produce more and control their food supply, but the quality and range of what they produced diminished. Not to mention it put more strain on the soil.

Indeed. I mean none of us were there, so who can say for sure. But I think it's a safe bet. And not much has changed. I guess we have a minimum wage now....

Man no wonder why you flunked kindergarten

No wonder why you flunked kindergarten

Those are great stories though.

What was the peasant’s glorious reply to that? It was a good movie!

@@avadakedavra80 "Listen. Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony. You can't expect to wield supreme power just 'cause some watery tart threw a sword at you!”

@@AngloSaks666 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

@@AngloSaks666 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

Personally I think in today's society control is applied much more subtly yet much more completely. Most of the people in western society either don't realise just how much of their lives are controlled by the state, or accept it, like good little citizens.

there are a few benefits to the system as well though

Yep, very succinct. You have a monopoly on (non)lethal force (which is of course required at the end of the day as your final backstop on having actual real power), and then you control the social networks/groups at the very top of that chain. Design the system to reliably keep those general groups in power (2 party democratic systems, for example), and make sure the important parts of your economy are mostly owned (and will continue to be owned) by the groups you want (decrease the leverage of labour"in being able to act collectively, and increase the importance/power of capital, which is easy to control). This is only going to be exponentially more the case in the future, where AI (another form of capital, basically), has the potential to totally wreck any remainders of economic value that 99% of "labour" has.

workers of the world, unite!

And yet, very curiously, productivity is extremely high.

ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-UTchioiHM0U.htmlsi=QyvlGOkidolyiZt9

It’s in the description

ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-UTchioiHM0U.htmlsi=VxjT_hyeBM-C9XUc

In this clip from our 2015 session ‘The Myths We Need To Survive’, historian Yuval Noah Harari engages in a thought-provoking discussion with Intelligence Squared. Literally the first line of the description.

You watched half of the talk for free, and now demand the other half? You could just buy and read the books of Harari to get the entire story

Lol. What a pipe dream.

The key is that it’s a powerful story. They sometimes live up to it but not necessarily all the time

Yes. And it is largely because the very wealthy (in fact the top 8% of the population) have pretty much come to own the governmental structures and those in it for a very long time. Perhaps for the majority of our country's existence judging by policies and actions taken since roughly the last 150 or so years. This is part of what he means when he suggests that wealth takes generations to create. Wealth is synonymous with power as the two are expressions of each other. Just as in the last three decades the wealthy have effectively cinched the sack over our heads having been slowly weaving the cloth of the sack for generations. Consider also what a generation is. In the modern era a generation is twenty years. If you are twenty-five or even thirty today, how much do you really remember and fully understand about the world or the nation twenty years ago, other than your own personal life itself.@@JAAB9296

Through violence. First they xerminated the Phoenicians and Caananites, then now the Palestinians.

@@orunabho You forgot that they kicked out or killed a bunch when Israel was formed.

Do you watch movies ever? It's basically the same as it's now, but the person ordering others has a different reproductive organ.

@DarkSkay Why so difficult to imagine, just consider, Queen Boudicca, Queen Hatshepsut, Joan of Arc, Elizabeth 1, Nzinga of Ndongo, Isabella 1, Tomoe Gozen, Artemisia of Turkey, Margaret Corbin, Airforce Gen Lori Robinson, Anne Dunwoody, Golda Meir, just to name a few. I could name many more, all real female military leaders from past and fairly contemporary history who led mostly male military combatants.

@@raewynannbenten1385 those are exceptions; the rule is male dominance, over millions of years

@@ireneuszpyc6684 You wrote "a matriarchal " meaning "one". twelve were given. Ergo. it is not so difficult to imagine.

@@MrCyclist biology doesn't care about your imagination; BTW, a third of Africa is ruled by military juntas - when will matriarchy triumph there?

Poor understanding of Indian history

If given a chanxe and power in future women also can do it

The words cult and religion are synonymous.

Christopher Hitchens: Religion is manmade.

@@dianahill5116 That depends... usually a cult refers to a small number of 'believers-followers'. Cults are what most people would call sects.. Religion is larger, it comes from the Latin word 'religare' which means connecting..connecting people together is what religion does. Cults connect few people, are often based on existing religions but have different rituals. Cults can grow out of a religion such as the veneration of holy figures such as the virgin Mary, St Anthony, Padre Pio, etc..in the roman catholic church but I think the Vatican prefers that people remain more Christo centric instead of giving too much attention to holy figures.. So it depends on what you want and consider important I suppose.?

Like the zi 0 nist cult.

​@@voncarlowitz3506that is mere semantics and does not invalidate the comment

Where does he talk about any merits of that?

@@thomasburkhart5078 aren't you supposed to be on your honeymoon with your husband yuval harari 🤔?????

@@matthewlogan4267 oh, you are going even lower. Seems you are just not able to follow Yuval's reasoning. Poor guy

@@thomasburkhart5078 I'm sorry yuval left you for another man dont worry there plenty of other men in the gat sea for you sweetheart 😘

@@thomasburkhart5078 like I said there is plenty of other men in the gay sea for you

Now we have corporate neo-feudalism.

> when the proletariat were dissatisfied with their working conditions under the bourgeousie. This is the content of the unfocused mind, w/no more realism than Santa Claus or unicorns.

He's an alien.

@@deeplearningpartnership he's Klaus Schwab's personal advisor, so he can't be human, whether literally or figuratively

I think he referred to the humans in authority

Oooooo, very suspect, i smell an evil conspiracy here! so what's say boys, is he illuminati? which Heeb cabal is he behind? is he even a human, and what is his sexual orientation, i think he might be a perv.

He is one of them.

@@JAAB9296 Maybe he is, based on this talk its impossible to know what kind of elite he is. You can tell what kind of elite someone may be by how bothered they become when addressing risks of stability within their home government. The top tier elites are less bothered by the risks to their rights and freedoms declining in their home state because their rights havent been determined by a government for decades if ever. They buy them and others And they can always relocate. In contrast - I would be devastated if my home country's democratic ideals was to decline because my quality of life is no substantially tied to how much privilige I can buy but what someone else decides is fair. I am not an elite. There are multi-layered definitions of what an elite is, so its impossible to determine who is and who isnt on a yt video

@@ryanwporter Well, guess what? I have known of this guy for about 9 years give or take. HE is a very dangerous person and wants (if not is) to be part of the "powers that be" that will absolutely control every aspect of our lives. So be very careful.

Productive or political?

@@TeaParty1776 Both. Think about it.

So what? If you ever started listening you would understand that he explains why there is no piece in the middle east and that the separation between Israelis and Palestinians is just another one of the stories of power he talks of. I m so sick of such ignorant comments

You don't get that he doesn't mean useless as his point of view but that of the system we are creating

Put it differently. Men are more willing to accept a hirachie without questioning it

It may very well be that he is speaking of wealth that exceeds your idea of it. Being upper middle class or even in the top 15 percentile of wealth is not what he is talking about. But remember something we learn in statistics 101. You cannot use personal experience, or the existence of exceptions to either prove a statistical average false, or even place doubt on it. Because if anything, what we know as exceptions (especially the ridiculous practice so many try to use to disprove averages as personal anecdotes) is that they're exceptions. They're the little, small areas of a bell curve chart on each end. Where the numbers descend almost to zero. Of which there are far far few of within the bell itself.

Have you actually listened what he said before starting on your ideologie? And he clearly says that it's a Theorie that isn't yet backed by enough data while he explains why reproduction is an too easy explanation. He also makes the point that cooperating better in large societies isn't necessarily something good as it involves inventing stories that are harmful to many

He didn't have a good answer, and he admitted that. He debunked a few and gave a tepid hypothesis, but said there isn't strong evidence for the idea. Pre-agricultural societies were / are more egalitarian and less hierarchical. Compared to other apes, homo species have less sexual dimorphism, meaning men and women are not as different in size. Humans depended on technologies like cooking and weapons like spears and arrows, etc. If someone was a bully, the others could leave or kill the bully, or drive the bully out. Several modern hunter-gatherer groups today are said to be fiercely egalitarian. And anthropologists generally believe that was the norm of society before agriculture and herding. But sometimes groups of mostly men get together to form temporary hunting parties. If human societies grow larger, or become more attached to a herd of animals or crops, the hunting parties become war parties. If this goes on long enough, the war parties becomes a warrior society. Warrior societies became more patriarchal when the men started to control the resources and the warriors. They started to make rules that were hierarchical and patriarchal. Which they also enforced with marriage customs and violence. An example of marriage custom would be the practice of sending the women out of the tribe to marry a man in another tribe. So the women are more isolated from each other while the men are more deeply bonded.

@@AWildBard what you describe is only true for chimpanzees but not for Bonobos. I recommend the works of Robert Sapolski on that topic. And the idea that men are more willing to accept a hirachie based on a shared belief is pretty good IMHO. In a lot of agricultural cultures women do most of the work on the fields despite having children. And culture develops strongly different depending on if humans are Nomads with heads or farmers. There isn't any easy explanation why only in small societies we have examples of matriarchy

@@thomasburkhart5078 If he’s speculating, why not include more plausible theories?

​@thomasburkhart5078 yuval eats ass and Harry sacks

In principle yes, but it wasn't horse but a goat and it had only 3 legs 😂

What do you mean?

The Abrahamic Religions, Judaeism in particular, make claim to Palestine because it was once 'owned' by Abraham. The Chinese make a similar claim over Tibet, 'First Nations[ make a similar claim, 'We were here first so it belongs to us'. @@jadonlawrence4909

Or you could perhaps, just maybe, out of shear respect, learn his native language. Not everyone had to bow down and learn English just to reach you.

Ok, then why are Bonobos matriarchal? The males could enforce patriarchy there too, but they don't. Same with other higher mammals, e.g. orcas, elephants…

@@vauchomarx6733 Yes, we should live like Bonobos. You go first.

@@_uncredited But you just dodged the question, why isn't force winning in Bonobos' society? Red herring doesn't count as argument.

@@zxbc1My comments keep getting deleted. I'll try again.... Bonobos live in small pods. As the other commenter said, the males COULD take over, but they don't. It's rule by consent and matriarchy is an easy way of describing that ('female dominant' is the correct term, but some primatologists are guilty of calling it a matriarchy becayuse it sells books and publishes papers). It's worth remembering that not all bonobo groups operate this way. Some rule jointly, some are male dominated. Modern humans COULD live in tiny groups - but we don't. At scale, enforcement is needed and that's a boy's job. Some creatures DO have female enforcers (several spiders, etc.) and males are often rendered insignificant. That doesn't make it better though. Unless you want to be somebody's lunch? Anthropomorphising nature is useful to compare and contrast different kinds of behaviours, biologies and chemistries. It's not for mimicry. You wouldn't suggest that a cat should live like a frog. Saying "bonobos do it" is as meaningless as saying "why aren't we wasps?"

@@zxbc1 It would appear this 'intelligent' channel has deleted my responses. Sorry.

Yeah, women control from behind the scene - ask a married man. Thats why in social/Military conflicts, there exist no such thing as 'innocent' Women: stalin, the Mullahs, taliban, obn, jdb they all had a mother who was the crucial reference during their upbringing. Dont fool yourself.

Show one example that this is false

@@thomasburkhart5078 I suppose the argument could be more clear as to what is meant by _“…prioritized men over women.”_ One assumes this follows the feminist concept of so-called “patriarchy theory” - the idea that men as a group benefit at the expense of women as a group - however, if what is meant includes how men are “prioritized” to die in wars so that women may benefit from male sacrifice it isn’t so clear.

@@TheParadox_ I would argue that men don't sacrifice in wars but fall victim to the ability to be more willing to accept hirachie based on some stories. The same ability that kept men in power over centuries

@@thomasburkhart5078 "nen?" "hirachie?"

It is likely that you have no clue to what Indian philosophy is all about! Here he is talking about Indian mythology!

Jai shri ram. Modi hay to mumkin hay.

What about the irish slavery that the English done to them back in the day

What does it even mean - "risk pays for men and not for women"? What kind of risk? in what areas? pays in what way? I've read that risk taking differs between genders. The article I read maintained that people tend to take more risks in areas where they feel they have good skills. Women perceive themselves to have good social skills, so they are more likely to take risks in that area. Men are more likely to risk their lives physically or to take financial risks.

Competition occurs mostly intra-sexually where males outcompete/dominate other males; females compete with other females. Those males who successfully outcompete other males then have greater access to females. The idea that males dominate females is a feminist fabricated narrative.

🤣🤣🤣

Why do you think Christianity would help "to break the captives free"? It is the clergy that legitimizes the monarchs with their idea of 'divine birthright', with their claim to be the rightful representatives of the God(s). The alliance between clergy and aristocracy was nearly unsurmountable, imposed strict authority over life and afterlife, consolidated serfdom for centuries. Nietzsche goes even farther, characterizing Christianity as a "Sklavenmoral", which can be translated as "morality for slaves". In some countries simply owning a bible can get somebody into prison - in those places it's an act of resistance, yes. But in general the transformative political potential of the book, which praises sheep quite a lot, appears limited. Also, monotheism is usually preferred by raison d'état. Not least for the practical reason that after conquest and burying old local Gods, only one temple has to be erected in the city center, to signal who has the ultimate say now.

Peace cannot be through ignorance or deception, it cannot be forced, enforced or legislated only war can.

Living in peace requires an understanding of how to do so.

The economic, political and legal system is globalised, our species lives under rule, we are denied peaceful existence and that is not consensual.

The men in charge of The Estates and deceptively named Law Society and anyone enabling them are in violation of The Law.

They can never win the war against The Law as The Law never changes however their actions and policies have to in order for them to maintain an eternally losing battle.

You are telling this to one of the most renoun historians?

​@@ricardbuxoyour kidding the only thing yuval knows how to do is eat ass bro 😂

@@ricardbuxo yo forreal yuval dose eat ass

yeah, what the heck would he know anyways? who does he think he is?!!

​@@thecount1001right that's what I'm saying yuval's a bum 🤡 and he eats alot of ass too

​@@thecount1001 yo forreal yuval sucks

​@@thecount1001I know that's what I'm saying yuval's a bum 🤡 and he sure dose eat alot of ass, damn dude we have alot in common crazy brah

Same here, with my current portfolio made from my investments with my personal financial advisor I totally agree with you

Elizabeth Ann has really set the standard for others to follow, we love her here in the UK as she has been really helpful and changed lots of life's

Life is easier when the cash keeps popping in, thanks to Elizabeth Ann graney services. Glad she's getting the recognition she deserves

I use to work 3 jobs, full time at Walmart, a server at night and Lyft on the weekend, untill Elizabeth Ann graney change my story.

How do I start?